Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[Atreus21]

Why should I bother answering your specious question?

Because it's not specious. It's completely plausible.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't know. Considering we already do that through voter registration, your bullshit comes across as a deliberate attempt to prevent citizens from exercising their right to vote.

The point is: we have to provide proof that we may exercise the right to vote before we can exercise it, which you suggested earlier is wrong.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

No payoff? Changing a democrat vote to a republican vote by trickery isn't a payoff? You'd take it in stride if I used your name and voted for Trump?

You really don’t get this do you? How many votes would you have to change to make it meaningful? How many votes would it take before a pattern was noticed? How many people would you have to involve in your scheme so they aren’t recognized at every polling station?

I know you have a hard time seeing the big picture but look at this from a more meaningful angle. It doesn’t happen. Masses of people don’t show up only to find out they’ve already been marked as voting. It’s just not an actual thing, regardless of what your fevered dreams tell you.

 

[UberNeuman]

You really don’t get this do you? How many votes would you have to change to make it meaningful? How many votes would it take before a pattern was noticed? How many people would you have to involve in your scheme so they aren’t recognized at every polling station?

I know you have a hard time seeing the big picture but look at this from a more meaningful angle. It doesn’t happen. Masses of people don’t show up only to find out they’ve already been marked as voting. It’s just not an actual thing, regardless of what your fevered dreams tell you.

He's worried about voter fraud because Republicans keep getting caught at it. lol.

 

[dawp]

He's worried about voter fraud because Republicans keep getting caught at it. lol.

it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Because it's not specious. It's completely plausible.

you are too much.....hahahahaaaaaaaaaa........the moon crashing into the earth is also entirely plausible....hahahaaaaaaaaa

 

[JEDIYoda]

Donald Trump would be proud of you!! He m ight even award you the medal of Freedumb!!!!!

 

[dank69]

So you'd take it in stride if I determined your name and had you vote for trump?

If you beat me to the poll, and voted for Trump with my name, it wouldn't change the outcome. You and your friends would have to fraudulently vote thousands of times to change the Presidential outcome, probably close to a 3:2 ratio unless you find a way to only fraudulently vote for people who were not going to vote for Trump anyway, and that would set off all kinds of red flags.

So no, I would report that someone voted fraudulently for me and take comfort in the fact that you risking a felony to vote for Trump wouldn't actually change anything.

 

[dank69]

So how does the necrospammer's name disappear from the thread?

Magic

 

[ivwshane]

No, I wouldn't do that. But your approach relies too heavily on the honor system.

I don't think it's a burdensome imposition on anyone to require some documentation of their identity. A debit card, a social security card, anything.

I don’t want to scare you but all those things can be faked.

Maybe what you want is a national ID. Would that work for you?

 

[Vic]

I don’t want to scare you but all those things can be faked.

Maybe what you want is a national ID. Would that work for you?

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 

[ivwshane]

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Yes:|

Damn it

 

[brycejones]

Because it's not specious. It's completely plausible.

It’s possible and even likely this has happened in isolated cases. Now do you have evidence in the centuries of elections in this country using essentially the same system that it has changed the outcome of one election or been wide spread?

Kobach spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to prove it and was unable to. The violations he did find would not be addressed by voter id at the polls.

 

[Atreus21]

If you beat me to the poll, and voted for Trump with my name, it wouldn't change the outcome. You and your friends would have to fraudulently vote thousands of times to change the Presidential outcome, probably close to a 3:2 ratio unless you find a way to only fraudulently vote for people who were not going to vote for Trump anyway, and that would set off all kinds of red flags.

So no, I would report that someone voted fraudulently for me and take comfort in the fact that you risking a felony to vote for Trump wouldn't actually change anything.

Thanks for a direct answer.

I understand that democrats are concerned about disenfranchising those who can't easily get a photo ID. I also think we should make some effort to satisfy conservatives' concerns about election security. So we should enforce a light standard of identification, like just about anything with their name stamped on it, excluding a piece of loose leaf paper. That minor requirement hugely raises the level of effort necessary to steal a single vote.

That doesn't strike me as so unreasonable.

 

[ecogen]

Thanks for a direct answer.

I understand that democrats are concerned about disenfranchising those who can't easily get a photo ID. I also think we should make some effort to satisfy conservatives' concerns about election security. So we should enforce a light standard of identification, like just about anything with their name stamped on it, excluding a piece of loose leaf paper. That minor requirement hugely raises the level of effort necessary to steal a single vote.

That doesn't strike me as so unreasonable.

The bolded isn't a real thing so there's no need to satisfy it.

 

[Atreus21]

I don’t want to scare you but all those things can be faked.

Maybe what you want is a national ID. Would that work for you?

of course they can be faked. A photo ID can be faked. But it's one additional tier a criminal would have to traverse.

 

[dank69]

Thanks for a direct answer.

I understand that democrats are concerned about disenfranchising those who can't easily get a photo ID. I also think we should make some effort to satisfy conservatives' concerns about election security. So we should enforce a light standard of identification, like just about anything with their name stamped on it, excluding a piece of loose leaf paper. That minor requirement hugely raises the level of effort necessary to steal a single vote.

That doesn't strike me as so unreasonable.

It seems reasonable to you because you don't see how unreasonable conservatives' concern is. The problem is that there is no way to satisfy their concerns without making it harder to vote for millions of people. Conservatives refuse to even admit that their "solutions" make it harder to vote despite reams of evidence that it will. They think their "how hard is it to get an ID?" is a valid counter to reams of actual evidence. Fuck that. That is bullshit. This is why we get angry, because people think their one line opinion is a valid argument or solution.

So we have to choose. Do we prevent millions of people from voting in order to address bullshit concerns or do we make it as easy and secure as possible to vote and admit that the system is plenty good enough to prevent the amount of fraud that it would take to make a difference?

I side on giving everyone their equal voice.

 

[Atreus21]

It seems reasonable to you because you don't see how unreasonable conservatives' concern is. The problem is that there is no way to satisfy their concerns without making it harder to vote for millions of people. Conservatives refuse to even admit that their "solutions" make it harder to vote despite reams of evidence that it will. They think their "how hard is it to get an ID?" is a valid counter to reams of actual evidence. Fuck that. That is bullshit. This is why we get angry, because people think their one line opinion is a valid argument or solution.

So we have to choose. Do we prevent millions of people from voting in order to address bullshit concerns or do we make it as easy and secure as possible to vote and admit that the system is plenty good enough to prevent the amount of fraud that it would take to make a difference?

I side on giving everyone their equal voice.

Well, that why I say it doesn't need to be an actual ID. It just needs to be something to substantiate who they claim to be, like a social security card, which is issued to every citizen.

Is that going to disenfranchise millions?

 

[dank69]

Well, that why I say it doesn't need to be an actual ID. It just needs to be something to substantiate who they claim to be, like a social security card, which is issued to every citizen.

Is that going to disenfranchise millions?

Yes. It accomplishes nothing, so even 1 disenfranchised voter is too steep a price to pay. If you go to vote fraudulently for me, you have to risk showing up after me. If I showed up before you, when you got there claiming to be me, THAT would be when ID would be required. You would be in deep shit because you would be forced to follow it through to prove who you are or slink away saying "sorry I guess I forgot I voted already" like a fucking fool. That or run and hope you don't get caught, alerting everyone around that you are a scammer.

So again, no, it wouldn't be acceptable to alienate even a single voter, and in reality it would alienate MANY.

 

[Paratus]

I take your vote and vote Trump. No one else's. You're okay with that?

I implement strict voter ID in your state and you and 1000’s of your conservative Christian friends can no longer vote until you spend 6 months and $300 getting my new “free“ voter IDs Missing the upcoming election. You’re ok with that?

 

[woolfe9998]

If you beat me to the poll, and voted for Trump with my name, it wouldn't change the outcome. You and your friends would have to fraudulently vote thousands of times to change the Presidential outcome, probably close to a 3:2 ratio unless you find a way to only fraudulently vote for people who were not going to vote for Trump anyway, and that would set off all kinds of red flags.

So no, I would report that someone voted fraudulently for me and take comfort in the fact that you risking a felony to vote for Trump wouldn't actually change anything.

Yup, voter fraud is the most wack balance of risk/benefit of any crime imaginable. Each vote you cast fraudulently is a risk of going to prison for a felony, and its statistical impact is minuscule. This is very likely why there isn't much of it.

I'm more concerned about someone tampering with machines and changing large numbers of votes.

 

[zinfamous]

Then how do we identify that voters are citizens?

well, your team uses a color chart.

you don't like that anymore?

 

[Paratus]

well, your team uses a color chart.

you don't like that anymore?

This what your talking about?

 

[ivwshane]

of course they can be faked. A photo ID can be faked. But it's one additional tier a criminal would have to traverse.

If someone wants to commit voter fraud do you think that extra step is what makes committing voter fraud not worth it?”

Do you really think that someone is thinking to themselves, “you know, committing voter fraud wouldn’t be too hard. I just have to find someone to target, know what precinct they will be voting at and vote before they do. Sure I could go to jail but the extra votes I could get for my preferred candidate would be worth it. But now that I have to show ID, well, that’s just too much work.”

Of course that all misses the point that the current system we have now has virtually zero in person voter fraud.

So how much should we invest in this to gain what would be a relatively non existent gain on combating in person voter fraud?

 

[HomerJS]

Right. Then they go to vote and...what? Saying their name is sufficient? We shouldn't authenticate any further?

In PA a signature is provided at registration. Voting day, you sign again and the worker compares signatures.

What's wrong with that??