"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[fskimospy]

I have looked at the information you suggested (particularly the pages eski mentioned) and still do not see any proof that clerical error was proven.

In case I missed it, and you have seen it, this what I'm looking for (a simple two part exercise):

1st: A description of the voting system and the clerical records kept. We need to know that or we cannot possibly hope to prove or disprove "clerical error".

As an example this is the system we have in NC, at least in my county:

You show up at the polling place and get in line. There are two 'station' you go through to vote.

The first station is long table with poll workers. Each poll worker has a book of registered voters in front of them. However, each worker only has a portion of the register. E.g., the first worker has names from "A" to "G", the next worker has names from "H" to "K" and so on. You go to the appropriate worker and tell them your name. They find it in the register. We do not present our voter registration card or any ID. When the worker finds your name they place a check mark next to it and hand you a ticket. There is no signature, not even initials required.

When you reach the second station you hand the ticket to the worker. They walk you over to the booth and initialize it so you can vote (electric voting machine). When you have completed the ballot the worker comes over and records it. You receive nothing confirming your votes were recorded properly, or that you voted at all. You then leave out the exit.

2nd: Review the above system and clerical records kept to determine what procedures are available to confirm or disprove clerical errors.

My determination is that the system and records are wholly insufficient to prove or disprove whether any clerical errors occurred. There's no way, it's not possible. Hence my refusal to accept such assertions, in particular when they concern my state (as was recently the case). IDK what they do in WI. No description was provided. Accordingly I find no proof, just mere assertions.

Systems are designed with explicit objectives in mind. Or, they should be. Example of objectives include: accuracy, accountability and/or safeguarding of assets. I have no idea who designed our system, I assume a govt worker/politician, but it's clear that they didn't know what they were doing. The above system cannot be reasonably relied upon to achieve any objective that one would associate with voting.

I guess it depends upon how important one thinks elections and voting are. If they're not, then the system is sufficient in your opinion. If they are important then it's clear the system is wholly inadequate.

Fern

What I find most interesting here is that you are taking your own casual observations from a different state and using them to determine that the assistant district attorney in another state is either incompetent or perjuring himself in federal court.

You do this based on effectively no knowledge of the individual, his office, or their office procedures. In addition, you continue to attempt to apply a standard of proof for judgments the that is entirely incompatible with the western system of law, and do so in a totally cavalier manner. Needless to say, this is ridiculous nonsense on its face.

I am baffled by your desperate attempts to keep the faith alive.

 

[fskimospy]

I have to say I do appreciate the balls of someone who is willing to throw out findings of fact in US federal court because he looked at the voting sheets in another state though.

I have no doubt that you would have been a devastating witness for the state in this case. Lol.

 

[sandorski]

DNA should be provided to keep Aliens from affecting election results.

 

[fskimospy]

DNA should be provided to keep Aliens from affecting election results.

Before I accept your DNA results as evidence of a lack of aliens I'm going to need to I will need to perform an audit of your DNA lab procedures.

Any court judgments based in DNA evidence are invalid until this happens.

 

[davmat787]

Any change in requiring IDs needs to include a grandfathering in clause. As far as government benefits without an ID, I'm not specifically opposed to that. Unlike voting, social welfare is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. But so long as any change that was made for government benefits was done with appropriate grandfathering, I don't see a huge deal.

Too bad the ACA does not grandfather any insurance plan that one is happy with, and instead forces all kinds of additional expense and enrollment.

Was the required effort and expense of conforming the ACA law more or less than obtaining an ID?

 

[fskimospy]

Too bad the ACA does not grandfather any insurance plan that one is happy with, and instead forces all kinds of additional expense and enrollment.

Was the required effort and expense of conforming the ACA law more or less than obtaining an ID?

Wouldn't a better question be "is regulating the health insurance industry like voting rights?" I think if you answer that question you'll have the answer to yours.

 

[emperus]

...
My determination is that the system and records are wholly insufficient to prove or disprove whether any clerical errors occurred. There's no way, it's not possible. Hence my refusal to accept such assertions, in particular when they concern my state (as was recently the case). IDK what they do in WI. No description was provided. Accordingly I find no proof, just mere assertions.

...
Fern

Your determination on what? Did you see the report that was prepared? Did you look at the methodology that was used to determine it was a clerical error? Did you even compare your state to Wisconsin?

What you basically did is substitute what you feel in your heart to be true with what a judge, plaintiff and defendant all agreed to be true. And you typed it and I assume read it back and I bet you saw nothing wrong with that type of analysis.

Perfect example of the conservative mind at work. This why our country is f--ked.