Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[Londo_Jowo]

In a twist, Wisconsin Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, has come out forcefully against the personhood amendment strategy, calling it "just plain wrong for Wisconsin."

As I said this amendment is dead on arrival. Your oh so unbiased Wisconsin Democratic Party website is trying to whip everyone into a frenzy and get more people to sign petitions.

Looks like they pulled down the webpage.

We're sorry, the page you were looking for could not be located. Please double check the URL

 

[Fern]

Voter fraud in Wisconsin debunked:


The 2004 election was hotly contested in Wisconsin, and various irregularities led to inflated claims of widespread fraud.
-snip-

Nope.

While your link doesn't work for me, it appears you either didn't read my info, or your own.

The piece you quoted is about 2004 election claims. Mine is about 2008 claims and convictions.

Two different things. Completely.

Fern

 

[Ausm]

There are many possible types of voting fraud. Fraud by felons voting is about the only one that can be proven with documents, and even that is difficult to convict for.

We need to counties'/states' databases compared to one another if you want reduce/eliminate the possibility of multiple registrations by a single voter.

We need to compare the county databases to the SS Admin to reduce/eliminate dead voters still on the rolls.

The SS Admin may be able to help reduce/eliminate non-citizens (like my wife) from being registered.

And we're going to need voter ID requirements to prevent people from voting under other names or alias's and to be able to convict for all the above types of voting fraud. As it stands now once you vote and exit there is nothing to prove a case of voting fraud against anyone because it cannot be proven who actually voted.

It's a terribly sloppy ill-formed system. And that should concern anyone who believes voting is important.

Fern

Here's a good site for you about voter fraud and it lays out the GOP agenda quite well.

http://www.protectingthevote.org/

 

[Fear No Evil]

LOLwut?

For a person who screams READ THE LINKS as often as you do, perhaps YOU should as well:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-...6/09/id/399452

63% of Democrats support "Voter Suppression" and 75% of the country does as a whole. Why do Democrats not want the poor, elderly, and students to vote?

 

[Ausm]

For a person who screams READ THE LINKS as often as you do, perhaps YOU should as well:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-...6/09/id/399452

63% of Democrats support "Voter Suppression" and 75% of the country does as a whole. Why do Democrats not want the poor, elderly, and students to vote?

Link don't work and also...could you please post from a more Right Wing site please. 😉

 

[Bowfinger]

Tighter voter registration can only hurt the Democrats, as both felons and illegal aliens tend heavily toward the left.

Interesting presumption regarding illegal aliens (felons I don't care about. If they've lost their voting rights, fine). Surely this isn't just another emotional argument, so I assume you have objective evidence showing there is material amount of voting for the left by illegal aliens ... or indeed of voting at all by illegal aliens.

Yes, I recognize legal Hispanic citizens tend to lean to the left. Fine. What I'm really interested in is finding any substance behind the typical RNC hate mongering and race baiting: OMG!!! Look at those ILLEGAL MEXICANS!!! They're voting for Democrats!!!!!

[ ... ]Also, vote fraud prosecution tends to be against those with ties to the left. ACORN, for example. I think the fear is that reducing vote fraud will have a significant effect on Democrat electoral success.

Again, love to see objective data supporting this. I'd also point out that the ACORN prosecutions were NOT for vote fraud. They were for registration fraud, and in most cases it was ACORN itself who called out the fraudulent registrations.

Another way of looking at it would be that the left wants to protect the "most vulnerable" among us.

So you start out with a reasonable statement ...

That might possibly explain why the left is in favor of burdening anyone reasonably productive with as much government red tape as possible while insisting that those too trifling to have a photo ID not be bothered to get one. Personally though I think the left knows that reducing voter fraud will benefit the Republicans at their expense.

then immediately degenerate into ridiculous partisan hackery.

And once again, if you're truly so concerned about reducing voter fraud, I'd love to see your calls for absentee ballot reform and eliminating those electronic voting systems that allow wholesale election theft with no audit trail whatsoever. Surely if you feel so strongly about preserving election integrity you've posted about this repeatedly. Two or three links would be great.

 

[Fern]

LOL, nice PDF from an ultra right wing organization accused of voter suppression tactics in the last election. Not to mention of course the improper registration of felons wouldn't be affected in the slightest by voter ID laws. Yet another case of you guys pointing out a problem with the voting system and then declaring this means we must implement a solution that doesn't address it.

I added that example because it illustrated that voter fraud does occur, contrary to assertions otherwise.

I am well aware that voter ID doesn't affect felons registering, at least not under their own name. Had you read the piece you'd see that felon fraud is one of the few we can examine without voter ID. Since we don't require ID's no one can ever prove any instance of it.

Except of course that's entirely untrue. There have been numerous audits of state, local and federal elections in recent years. Even more specifically after his election Bush made investigating and prosecuting voter fraud to be one of the top priorities of the justice department. Remember all those attorneys that got scandalously fired? Some of them got fired because it was felt that they weren't pursuing voter fraud actively enough.

Bull.

We don't have any federal agency responsible for auditing etc. Local county boards lack the resources nor do they have access to all other county databases nor the SS Admin etc.

In case where attorneys were fired for lack of pursuing voting fraud it was various random citizen groups or individuals who brought the fraud to the attorneys attention, not some federal/state agency looking for fraud.

Oh, of course the group who did this work I linked MUST some radical right wing org. I mean really, what other type of group could possibly be interested in voting fraud? Right?

Keep making up things. The databases are handled at the county level, and audits check into all that. How else do you think they do it?

"How else do I think they do it?" If by "it" you mean effectively audit the voting rolls I sure they don't and can't.

Note how my link is from a nonpartisan source, not an extreme right wing advocacy group. You will also notice that it directly addresses much of the 'evidence' used in your link, debunking it. Voter fraud is an article of almost religious faith among the extreme right, and sadly this thread proves pretty amazingly well that it is wholly independent of any requirement for actual evidence. I mean you just KNOW it's happening, right?

Haha.

Yeah, sure, it addresses the evidence in my link. Pretty damn impressive since you paper is dated 2007 and the evidence in my link is from the 2008 elections and the paper I linked was only recently published about 2 months ago. Talk about seeing into the future.

Oh, you're back to the "no evidence' thingy which, as I've pointed out is preposterous since we don't look for it nor currently have any effective way of doing so.

Fern

 

[Fear No Evil]

Link don't work and also...could you please post from a more Right Wing site please. 😉

Try this link:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-voter-ID-polls/2011/06/09/id/399452

 

[FDF12389]

Ok buddy don't get your G-string in a bunch check this out.... I suggest reducing your caffeine intake and look at the correct article.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/df26a142-156e-11e1-97b7-001cc4c03286.html

And if it does pass through the Legislature then Walker would most defiantly sign it which WOULD make it his problem.

A. It wont pass through
B. Source? I doubt Walker would sign this

 

[Ausm]

Try this link:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-voter-ID-polls/2011/06/09/id/399452

That really isn't very informative and also it isn't a poll from Wisconsin which is the issue in this thread.

 

[Fern]

Let's bump this for the folks who are too lazy to read back a page. They still won't read it of course -- way too many words -- but it blows a gaping hole in their usual excuse for voter photo IDs.

It doesn't do anything of the sort.

If you read it objectively what it does demonstrate is that voter databases are in really poor, inaccurate condition. This alone s/b cause for concern.

And to point to confirmed cases of voter (what does that mean, they confessed?) and then claim that's all there is and is small is ridiculous. You simply won't know the scope of a problem until you investigate it. Assuming that which you happen to 'stumble upon' is the extent of it is stupid.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

It doesn't do anything of the sort.

If you read it objectively what it does demonstrate is that voter databases are in really poor, inaccurate condition. This alone s/b cause for concern.

And to point to confirmed cases of voter (what does that mean, they confessed?) and then claim that's all there is and is small is ridiculous. You simply won't know the scope of a problem until you investigate it. Assuming that which you happen to 'stumble upon' is the extent of it is stupid.

Fern

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're suggesting. The issue at hand is whether voter photo ID laws would materially reduce voter fraud. The study Ausm linked appears to me to have done a thorough review of all the irregularities from a 2004 Wisconsin election. They had nearly 40,000 (IIRC) irregularities to review. Yet, as best I could tell skimming through a 70+ page document, they didn't find a single case of voting fraud that might have been prevented by photo IDs. Indeed, most of the irregularities turned out to be benign clerical issues.

Certainly I agree this isn't an exhaustive survey of every election in America. It was, however, a large, hotly-contested election where people seem more likely to turn to fraud to influence results. So it seems pretty certain that if there was any significant incidence of voting fraud that could be prevented by photo IDs, they would have found at least a few examples in their review. But they didn't.

Lacking any contradictory evidence elsewhere, I consider that pretty clear confirmation that this potential source of fraud is a non-issue in practice. Cries to the contrary are based on emotions, not facts. Plus, as I pointed out above, someone intent on voting fraud can just submit a stack of absentee ballots, circumventing any photo ID laws entirely and removing all of the risk of fraudulent in-person voting.

 

[Fear No Evil]

That really isn't very informative and also it isn't a poll from Wisconsin which is the issue in this thread.

Its a national poll. Which indicates how extreme your position against Voter ID is. 63% of your own party disagrees with you. Even if Wisconsin's results are MASSIVELY different the majority of the state likely is in favor of Voter ID.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're suggesting. The issue at hand is whether voter photo ID laws would materially reduce voter fraud. The study Ausm linked appears to me to have done a thorough review of all the irregularities from a 2004 Wisconsin election. They had nearly 40,000 (IIRC) irregularities to review. Yet, as best I could tell skimming through a 70+ page document, they didn't find a single case of voting fraud that might have been prevented by photo IDs. Indeed, most of the irregularities turned out to be benign clerical issues.

Certainly I agree this isn't an exhaustive survey of every election in America. It was, however, a large, hotly-contested election where people seem more likely to turn to fraud to influence results. So it seems pretty certain that if there was any significant incidence of voting fraud that could be prevented by photo IDs, they would have found at least a few examples in their review. But they didn't.

Lacking any contradictory evidence elsewhere, I consider that pretty clear confirmation that this potential source of fraud is a non-issue in practice. Cries to the contrary are based on emotions, not facts. Plus, as I pointed out above, someone intent on voting fraud can just submit a stack of absentee ballots, circumventing any photo ID laws entirely and removing all of the risk of fraudulent in-person voting.

So why are the vast majority of Democrats in favor of voter ID? Are they just stupid emotional people who are against 'facts'?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Lacking any contradictory evidence elsewhere, I consider that pretty clear confirmation that this potential source of fraud is a non-issue in practice. Cries to the contrary are based on emotions, not facts. Plus, as I pointed out above, someone intent on voting fraud can just submit a stack of absentee ballots, circumventing any photo ID laws entirely and removing all of the risk of fraudulent in-person voting.

There are many possible types of voter fraud, only some involve voting under the wrong name.

But you're not going to be able to demonstrate voter fraud possible in the absence of ID can occur until we require voter ID. I say it is practically impossible. If you don't think so, describe some scenarios where we can detect and catch anyone guilty. The only one I can think of is if someone confesses, and good luck with that. Otherwise, any alleged case will never be considered proven or confirmed.

Fern

 

[Ausm]

Its a national poll. Which indicates how extreme your position against Voter ID is. 63% of your own party disagrees with you. Even if Wisconsin's results are MASSIVELY different the majority of the state likely is in favor of Voter ID.

I don't think it is as popular as you seem to believe it is...and thx for changing my name on the quote.😉

The following link illustrates how enthusiastic Democrats are about the voter ID laws.

http://www.protectingthevote.org/

 

[Bowfinger]

There are many possible types of voter fraud, only some involve voting under the wrong name.

But you're not going to be able to demonstrate voter fraud possible in the absence of ID can occur until we require voter ID. I say it is practically impossible. If you don't think so, describe some scenarios where we can detect and catch anyone guilty. The only one I can think of is if someone confesses, and good luck with that. Otherwise, any alleged case will never be considered proven or confirmed.

Fern

I'm not sure why you keep insisting fraud is practically impossible to detect. Again, focusing on voter photo IDs specifically (since that's what we were talking about), the most typical and most likely fraud scenario is one person votes two or more times, picking the names of other registered voters randomly and pretending to be them. This is fairly easy to detect, however, if it happens with any frequency at all since some of those people are also going to vote. When they do, it will be flagged as an irregularity, of a single person voting twice. Easy to detect, easy to quantify.

Virtually any other scenario I can think of involves premeditated voting fraud. In those cases, the fraudster will target specific individuals because they are dead, not voting, coerced, whatever. In those cases, it is much easier and safer for the fraudster to submit absentee ballots. He won't show up in person if he doesn't have to. Thus, photo IDs are irrelevant.


So that brings me back to the point every one one of you has ignored again and again. If you are so concerned about vote fraud, why are you silent about the far greater vulnerabilities created by absentee ballots? Why aren't you up in arms about laughably insecure e-voting systems where a third party can deliver specific election results on demand with effectively no possibility of detection? If this debate were truly about the integrity of elections, those holes should be far higher on your lists. Yet they aren't. You don't seem to care about them at all. Why is that?

 

[Bowfinger]

So why are the vast majority of Democrats in favor of voter ID? Are they just stupid emotional people who are against 'facts'?

No, they are uninformed people who've never heard the negative consequences of voter photo ID laws. They've heard the talking points from the right, haven't heard the other side of the story*, and nod their heads with a, "Meh, sounds good to me."

(*Haven't heard the other side of the story because it's not a hot issue in most states, and most people aren't politics junkies.)

I am fascinated that you suddenly seem to think you can determine right and wrong based on survey results. I take it then you concede Walker should be recalled since the "overwhelming majority" of Wisconsin voters agree he should? Since this is a hot issue in WI right now, they are presumably far better informed than your random nationwide poll about voter IDs.

Right?

 

[Fern]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're suggesting. -snip-

I thought by now I've made several things clear:

You can't catch voter fraud based upon no ID until you require an ID. If anyone wants to claim it's not happening because we haven't caught anyone (actually, we have caught people doing it) you're going to have to setup a system that would allow us to see if it was happening. To not check for it, to not be able to check for it, to not have a system that allows us to check for it, then say it doesn't happen because we haven't caught much is silly.

The only way I can see that we could now check is to examine rolls to look for dead people who voted post-mortem. But that is terribly difficult. In my state, registering to vote doesn't even require a SS#. How the heck can you therefore reasonably expect them to detect dead people on the voter rolls?

The links put up by Eskimospy and Ausm aren't about auditing for voting fraud, they are instead auditing reports of voter fraud. Those are two completely different things. In both cases, while they did confirm some voter fraud occurrences, they found that due to terrible record keeping and clerical errors many were mistakes. But obviously, if your records are so poor they come back with false positives, they are also likely to come back with false negatives. I.e., they cannot be relied upon to detect fraud.

Hence, about the only thing their links actually prove is that our records are so poor as to be unreliable in the detection of voting fraud. Because those studies don't even look for voting fraud, find poor records and demonstrate it's hard to prove voter fraud, doesn't mean there is little or no voter fraud - that's illogical. Look, we all agree it's hard to prove. Until we have a system that makes it easier we're not going to know the extent of it. I don't see how that's even arguable.

I have another problem with these studies. They dismiss many claims of voter fraud, such as a person voting twice. Now, in cases where there's no confusion over identity they claim the person with multiple voter accounts who records show voted multiple times was the victim of "clerical error". They don't say how they determined that?

Here's how we vote in NC. I go into the polling station. They ask me my name and I tell them. They look into their book to see if my name is there. If so, they put a mark by name and send me to the booth. No ID, no signature, nothing.

Now, if I'm recorded voting twice at two locations how could they determine if it was a "clerical error"? There's no possible way.

And if it's possible that I didn't vote twice, isn't it possible that second vote under my name was cast by someone else claiming to be me? We have no way to tell, and no way to prove anything.

Doesn't anyone else find the rather large number of claimed "clerical errors" a little bit suspicious? Are they really clerical 'errors', or are they clerical malfeasance? In accounting such a bunch of 'errors' is a badge of fraud or incompetence and both lead to erroneous (accounting and voting) results. The difference is primarily one of intent.

The system is a mess and the results it produces are unreliable, particularly in close races.

Voter ID is only one of many reforms needed.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

- snip -

Fern

I addressed your points. You ignored every single word I said and point I raised to repeat yourself. If you want a monologue instead of discussion, consider a blog. Otherwise, kindly respond to my post again and this time actually address the points raised. It's not that hard. There are only three paragraphs, each with a single main point.

 

[Fern]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting fraud is practically impossible to detect.

Because no one here has described any way to prove it. I've specifically asked you for examples. If all that you have is that below, you got nothing.

Again, focusing on voter photo IDs specifically (since that's what we were talking about), the most typical and most likely fraud scenario is one person votes two or more times, picking the names of other registered voters randomly and pretending to be them. This is fairly easy to detect

I totally disagree.

Under your scenario, nothing can be proven. No reports examining claims of voter fraud would list such an occurrence as a proven case. If I voted using another person's name and they later showed up, it cannot be proven that someone else used his/her name to vote, or the person previously voted and 'forgot' or there was a clerical error. You're left with an unproven claim of voter fraud.

, however, if it happens with any frequency at all since some of those people are also going to vote. When they do, it will be flagged as an irregularity, of a single person voting twice. Easy to detect, easy to quantify.

See above. Nothing is proven. You may think it proven, but by reading those reports I can see they wouldn't.

Virtually any other scenario I can think of involves premeditated voting fraud. In those cases, the fraudster will target specific individuals because they are dead, not voting, coerced, whatever. In those cases, it is much easier and safer for the fraudster to submit absentee ballots. He won't show up in person if he doesn't have to. Thus, photo IDs are irrelevant.

Voting dead people can be proven w/o ID. But how is any less safe to go there in person? I can see if anybody wanted to choose names at random because that person may have already voted. That would be awkward at worst, just claim you forgot or there was a clerical error etc. There's no risk since they have no fugging idea of who you really are.

So that brings me back to the point every one one of you has ignored again and again. If you are so concerned about vote fraud, why are you silent about the far greater vulnerabilities created by absentee ballots? Why aren't you up in arms about laughably insecure e-voting systems where a third party can deliver specific election results on demand with effectively no possibility of detection? If this debate were truly about the integrity of elections, those holes should be far higher on your lists. Yet they aren't. You don't seem to care about them at all. Why is that?

We are.

Requiring an ID is just one piece, we need many reforms. I've said this already. And I've posted before about how I oppose electronic voting machines, particularly those that lack a paper trail.

I don't see how absentee ballots create any additional vulnerabilities. The risk I see with absentee ballots is the voters real identity - the same issue we're talking about with voter ID. Seems to me that gets automatically fixed along with requiring voter ID. I'd think if you require it for someone voting in person you'll have to also require it for absentee ballots.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I addressed your points. You ignored every single word I said and point I raised to repeat yourself. If you want a monologue instead of discussion, consider a blog. Otherwise, kindly respond to my post again and this time actually address the points raised. It's not that hard. There are only three paragraphs, each with a single main point.

I've been busy typing while you created this snippy post.

Additionally I'm fighting a google redirect virus without much success and it's slowing me down quite a bit.

BTW: Your first sentence was about how you didn't understand what I was suggesting. So, of course I'm going to repeat myself, and even expand upon it. What else could be possibly be expected?

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Because no one here has described any way to prove it. I've specifically asked you for examples. If all that you have is that below, you got nothing.

I totally disagree.

Under your scenario, nothing can be proven. No reports examining claims of voter fraud would list such an occurrence as a proven case. If I voted using another person's name and they later showed up, it cannot be proven that someone else used his/her name to vote, or the person previously voted and 'forgot' or there was a clerical error. You're left with an unproven claim of voter fraud.

See above. Nothing is proven. You may think it proven, but by reading those reports I can see they wouldn't.

Except I didn't say "proven". I said "detected". This sort of voter fraud would be detected and tallied if it actually occurred to any significant extent. One might not be able to prove any specific case individually, but there would be a pattern of irregularities to show that it is happening. Yet nobody here has produced any such evidence. This pattern of irregularities isn't there. Therefore, lacking such evidence, the rational, reasoned conclusion is it simply is not a material issue.

Meanwhile, there is widespread evidence that photo ID laws materially hurt certain classes of voters like the elderly and the poor. They also cost real dollars to implement and manage (some $5.7 million for Wisconsin alone, apparently). Given this, a simple businesslike cost/benefits analysis says when you have immaterial benefit and material cost, it's a bad deal. Don't do it. Yet the right, the supposed party of business, seems determined to ignore this. Why?

Voting dead people can be proven w/o ID.

So then it is irrelevant to the discussion about voter photo ID laws.

But how is any less safe to go there in person? I can see if anybody wanted to choose names at random because that person may have already voted. That would be awkward at worst, just claim you forgot or there was a clerical error etc. There's no risk since they have no fugging idea of who you really are.

Of course there's risk. There are law enforcement officers at many polling places, and plenty of other lesser authorities. They all pose a risk to someone impersonating another voter. I agree it's not usually a huge risk, but it's still a greater risk than submitting phony absentee ballots. Most people seek the path with the least possible risk.

We are.

Requiring an ID is just one piece, we need many reforms. I've said this already. And I've posted before about how I oppose electronic voting machines, particularly those that lack a paper trail.

Cool. We have common ground.

I don't see how absentee ballots create any additional vulnerabilities. The risk I see with absentee ballots is the voters real identity - the same issue we're talking about with voter ID. Seems to me that gets automatically fixed along with requiring voter ID. I'd think if you require it for someone voting in person you'll have to also require it for absentee ballots.

Fern

Perhaps so if the voter photo ID law required them for absentee ballots as well. Does the proposed Wisconsin law require them? Does it do anything to increase the security of absentee ballots? If not, it has all the problems we've been discussing for the last several pages, while seemingly failing to address actual voter fraud gaps. In other words, while it's great to hypothesize about what laws could be added, the focal point here is the law that is actually on the table.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've been busy typing while you created this snippy post.

My apology then. I can count on one hand the number of times a poster here has written a long post NOT addressing what I said, followed by a second substantive post actually addressing what I said. Indeed, I think I can count them on one finger. Kudos.

Additionally I'm fighting a google redirect virus without much success and it's slowing me down quite a bit. ...

Ugh. I had something similar a couple of months ago. Replaced the boot sector, multiple AV and root kit cleans, etc., with no success. I finally decided it was time to get off my butt and upgrade that PC to Windows 7 ... full wipe and reinstall. Good luck!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ok buddy don't get your G-string in a bunch check this out.... I suggest reducing your caffeine intake and look at the correct article.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/df26a142-156e-11e1-97b7-001cc4c03286.html

And if it does pass through the Legislature then Walker would most defiantly sign it which WOULD make it his problem.

Ausm, I am most definitely interested in this. So far I think Walker has done a great job. The bottom line is the state was spending too much money, Walker made some difficult choices on where to cut back, and now spending is much more in check. I don't see how we could keep running at a deficit as we were under the lefties.

I also am really happy that we finally have concealed carry (I am taking the class next week in fact, I'm looking forward to having the right to protect myself and my family if the situation ever would arise).

I understand that he is introducing a government-assistance fraud line. I hear of plenty of instances where people are using welfare and government handouts as a way of life, not as a helping hand while they get back on their feet... My sister knows someone who trades her WIC dollars for marijuana, as an example.

But, despite these positive things that have happened under Walker, I would be very against this anti-abortion bill, and that would certainly weigh in on my opinion of him come election time. But, the link you provided, I do not see anything at all that associates it with Walker. You made the claim, can you provide a link that shows he supports it or has anything to do with it?