Supreme Court upholds Ohio method of removing names from voter rolls

[Paratus]

In a sense, voting does need to be restricted... after all, non-citizens and green card holders are not permitted to vote. In a specific quota, what is the number of illegal votes cast, that you are comfortable with? 0? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What is the number that warrants action?

I’d be uncomfortable with the number of illegal votes being statistically able to change the outcome of an election. So I’m very concerned about how votes are counted but not at all concerned about in person voter fraud since it happens at a rate of about 1 in 30M votes cast and the current controls catch them when they do.

Now let me ask you a question. How many people are you willing to disenfranchise from voting to prevent a single fraudulent vote? 1:1? 10voters : 1 fraudulent vote? 100:1?

If you don’t understand what I’m getting at look at it this way. How many conservative voters are you willing to disenfranchise per illegal immigrant voting?

 

[Paratus]

He's comfortable with the number of illegal votes that it takes his position to win...... but not one vote more.

Look dude we know you project. It’s republicans who just keep voting twice these days and getting busted for it.
It’s your politicians who want disenfranchisement since you can’t win otherwise

 

[blackangst1]

So would you suggest driving it lower via Voter ID and inaccurate voter roll scrubs to fix that issue or do you feel those measures would exacerbate the issue?

As Ive already stated, according to the ACLU, there are several classes of voter ID laws across 38 states. Strict, Non-Strict, and Non-photo. Im in the non-strict camp. I do agree in the 8 states that have strict voter ID laws can be tough for many to vote. But I dont think someone should be able to just walk in and claim they are John Smith.

Its not difficult,.

 

[blackangst1]

I’d be uncomfortable with the number of illegal votes being statistically able to change the outcome of an election. So I’m very concerned about how votes are counted but not at all concerned about in person voter fraud since it happens at a rate of about 1 in 30M votes cast and the current controls catch them when they do.

Now let me ask you a question. How many people are you willing to disenfranchise from voting to prevent a single fraudulent vote? 1:1? 10voters : 1 fraudulent vote? 100:1?

If you don’t understand what I’m getting at look at it this way. How many conservative voters are you willing to disenfranchise per illegal immigrant voting?

Also in this thread Ive stated I agree the instances of voter fraud are almost non-existant; however, with loose or no voter ID laws in place, the potential is there. Being a network security engineer, my mind wants to plug holes BEFORE they start leaking.

 

[Paratus]

Also in this thread Ive stated I agree the instances of voter fraud are almost non-existant; however, with loose or no voter ID laws in place, the potential is there. Being a network security engineer, my mind wants to plug holes BEFORE they start leaking.

There are no places in this country where there are no Voter ID laws. Every voter IDs themselves when they register and when they vote.

So as a thought experiment you as a network engineer with with a system whose network security is good enough that you agree rarely sees a hack and allows you to identify the hacker when you do, needs to be upgraded to an airgapped system with two factor authentication and custom closed source monitoring software?

I’d say you were trying to justify your job and a get a budget increase rather than perform a necessary security upgrade.

Ironically this is not far from the truth about why republicans want strict voter ID.

 

[sao123]

I’d be uncomfortable with the number of illegal votes being statistically able to change the outcome of an election. So I’m very concerned about how votes are counted but not at all concerned about in person voter fraud since it happens at a rate of about 1 in 30M votes cast and the current controls catch them when they do.

Now let me ask you a question. How many people are you willing to disenfranchise from voting to prevent a single fraudulent vote? 1:1? 10voters : 1 fraudulent vote? 100:1?

If you don’t understand what I’m getting at look at it this way. How many conservative voters are you willing to disenfranchise per illegal immigrant voting?

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

 

[dank69]

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

Source?

 

[fskimospy]

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

I would love to see your source for that information.

Also I’m confused as to why you would use the term ‘province’ as there is functionally no such entity as it relates to US elections. This indicates to me that you either aren’t from the US or are exceptionally ignorant about its elections.

 

[Paratus]

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

Your number seems high. Got a link?

At any rate maybe this will help you out. The strict voter law Texas wanted would have prevented over 600,000 registered voters from voting in 2016
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...uled_illegal_under_the_voting_rights_act.html

Even if we assume 99% would have had the time and money to collect the necessary documentation to get the ‘free’ voter ID that would be 100’s of disenfranchised voters per in person fraudulent vote even using your numbers.

While 0 fraudulent and 0 disenfranchised are laudable goals, this is the real world and we are not there yet. So for 2018 who gets the short end of the stick?

 

[Jhhnn]

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

There were nearly 130M votes cast in 2016. That's a whole shitpile of zeroes after the decimal point wrt the error rate.

Perspective. Get some. Even if true, your point is pointless in the greater scheme of things.

 

[brycejones]

Herein lies the difference.
My acceptable threshold for both is 0. Not only is that a worthy goal, it is an attainable goal. These are not competing variables where pushing one side to zero must increase the other.

I believe it is possible for voting to occur with a zero point zero error rate.

I have not seen any viable statistics on legal voters prohibited, given that most places allow for a provisional vote which can be decided if legal later. However factually we do know that at least 83 noncitizens voted in the 2016 election from 42 surveyed provinces across 12 states. I'm not going to bother projecting what that means for the national average, but we need to do better on both statistics.

I love it when the pretenders out themselves.

Provinces indeed in the US. Thanks for your concern trolling about a country you don't live in.

 

[sao123]

Source?

Ironically this report argues that the confirmed numbers are not worth worrying about, but does not attempt to discredit the numbers, it accepts them.

brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017_NoncitizenVoting_Final.pdf

 

[sao123]

I love it when the pretenders out themselves.

Provinces indeed in the US. Thanks for your concern trolling about a country you don't live in.

The word should have been jurisdiction but my phone autocorrected it. The only troll I see is you. Stop by rural PA sometime, last I checked... Fayette County is inside the United States. Though someone with your knowledge of geography might have confused it with Canada.

 

[fskimospy]

Ironically this report argues that the confirmed numbers are not worth worrying about, but does not attempt to discredit the numbers, it accepts them.

brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017_NoncitizenVoting_Final.pdf

Can you cite what part of that report you think 'confirms' that 84 noncitizens voted? What I see is that there were 30 incidents of SUSPECTED noncitizen votes out of 23.5 million votes cast, a noncitizen voting rate of 0.0001%. As a point of reference your chances of being hit by lightning are 0.00014%. Presumably you now support the government issuing everyone a lightning proof hat?

It appears likely you aren't a US citizen. Where are you from and why do you care about US elections?

 

[fskimospy]

The word should have been jurisdiction but my phone autocorrected it. The only troll I see is you. Stop by rural PA sometime, last I checked... Fayette County is inside the United States. Though someone with your knowledge of geography might have confused it with Canada.

That seems like an awfully unlikely autocorrect.

 

[brycejones]

The word should have been jurisdiction but my phone autocorrected it. The only troll I see is you. Stop by rural PA sometime, last I checked... Fayette County is inside the United States. Though someone with your knowledge of geography might have confused it with Canada.

What am I confused about? You gave up the game Skippy.

So you can tell us now what country are you really from?

 

[sao123]

Can you cite what part of that report you think 'confirms' that 84 noncitizens voted? What I see is that there were 30 incidents of SUSPECTED noncitizen votes out of 23.5 million votes cast, a noncitizen voting rate of 0.0001%. As a point of reference your chances of being hit by lightning are 0.00014%. Presumably you now support the government issuing everyone a lightning proof hat?

It appears likely you aren't a US citizen. Where are you from and why do you care about US elections?

Add to those 30 the ones on page 4 reported in Ohio, Nevada, and north carolina.

 

[fskimospy]

Add to those 30 the ones on page 4 reported in Ohio, Nevada, and north carolina.

If that's what your doing then your statement that the report does not try to discredit them but instead accepts them is wildly false. Did you even read it? Here is the passage in question:

On Feb. 27th, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) claimed to have identified 82 noncitizens that had voted in at least one past election, but he did not indicate how many elections he examined or specify that any of that fraud happened in 2016.17 On April 19th, Nevada’s Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) reported that a statewide audit found that three noncitizens had voted in the 2016 election.18 On April 21st, the North Carolina State Board of Elections, comprised of three Republicans and two Democrats, reported 41 noncitizens cast ballots in November.19 Even if true,20 those numbers reaffirm that noncitizen voting is extraordinarily rare because the incidents of noncitizen voting alleged in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina amount to, NONCITIZEN VOTING: THE MISSING MILLIONS | 5 at most, .0015, .0003, and .0009 percent of ballots in those states respectively in 2016.21

So no, the report does not accept them. In fact, it indicates they may be false.

Regardless, I'm interested in your ideas on funding for lightning proof hats. Considering that being hit by lightning is nearly 50% more probable than noncitizen voting and almost certainly far more consequential to the individuals affected it seems like a far better use of funding than attempting to follow your current recommended course?

Also, you keep claiming that there's no way to know how many actual citizens are prevented from voting because of your methods but there have been numerous filings in courts that say otherwise. Considering that a legal voter who is prevented from voting is just as bad as an illegal voter that does the logical answer is to dramatically LOOSEN voting restrictions as they are disenfranchising far more people than the illegal votes they are preventing.

 

[blackangst1]

There are no places in this country where there are no Voter ID laws. Every voter IDs themselves when they register and when they vote.

So as a thought experiment you as a network engineer with with a system whose network security is good enough that you agree rarely sees a hack and allows you to identify the hacker when you do, needs to be upgraded to an airgapped system with two factor authentication and custom closed source monitoring software?

I’d say you were trying to justify your job and a get a budget increase rather than perform a necessary security upgrade.

Ironically this is not far from the truth about why republicans want strict voter ID.

OK my bad. No voter ID laws was bad verbiage. I meant to say no ID required. Which is many states. 17 states do not require picture ID to vote. That needs to change.

HOWEVER. Every state has laws on the book for homeless, victims of domestic abuse, those who have religious objections to being photographed, or those who may have lost their ID due to natural disaster may be excused to present ID Im fine with this.

As far as your network statement, you forgot the most dangerous persons in ANY organization as far as breaches go. Employees.

 

[umbrella39]

1 legal voter turned away at the polls is better than, equal to, or less than 1 fake vote being cast and caught...

If going by statistics, reality, and truth... what I am hearing some paraphrase is that disenfranchising countless legal votes is far more important to feelz, their well being, AND our democracy than the already established status quo that has always rendered fake votes into a statistical anomaly...

 

[Jhhnn]

17 states do not require picture ID to vote. That needs to change.

So what? Show us the fraud & then we can talk. Otherwise it's just Bear Patrol-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU

 

[Jhhnn]

In fact, Democrats who were told that VID will reduce Republican turnout were statistically indistinguishable from Republicans in terms of support for VID.

The truth is that voter ID reduces Dem turnout, quite by design. The average Republican is pretty clueless but their leadership is not. Far from it. And if their efforts are so benign, why are they constantly overturned by the courts?

 

[blackangst1]

So what? Show us the fraud & then we can talk. Otherwise it's just Bear Patrol-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU

As Ive said many times...I know fruad is almost non existent..but unlike you, Id rather fix a problem before it becomes a problem. I tend to be proactive instead of reactive,

 

[Jhhnn]

As Ive said many times...I know fruad is almost non existent..but unlike you, Id rather fix a problem before it becomes a problem. I tend to be proactive instead of reactive,

Gawd. There's no upside to individual voter fraud. It won't change the results in a general election. There's no reason to do it other than being stupid or hapless. That's why it's vanishingly rare.

Well, unless there's some giant conspiracy...

 

[dainthomas]

Also in this thread Ive stated I agree the instances of voter fraud are almost non-existant; however, with loose or no voter ID laws in place, the potential is there. Being a network security engineer, my mind wants to plug holes BEFORE they start leaking.

Let's create a huge problem in order to fix a problem that doesn't exist but could possibly happen some day.

That's the same mindset that forces people to change their passwords every sixty days. And then makes them so complex that everyone sticks post-its all over their monitors to remember them and/or calls help desk every other week for resets. For bonus points, they also totally ignore social engineering (or absentee ballots).