Voter fraud is the biggest lie of 2012

[Bowfinger]

Damn, that makes way too much sense for this thread.

No doubt ... to you. You have a well-established history of believing false things and seeing only that which matches your preconceptions. That sadly negates the value of your endorsements.

 

[Jhhnn]

Once again, having an ID to vote is just fine but it is not, repeat, NOT the solution to the problem of voter fraud. I feel strongly that all non-eligible persons on the voter registration roles need to be purged and that from now on all those that wish to register to vote ought be required to prove that they are eligible to vote.

This is not against anyone. I don't give a flying fuck what your color is, or your religion or your age or your financial status. Just be eligible to vote.

That seems such a little thing to ask considering what the price that has been paid to preserve our right to vote:

Crickets my fuzzy ass.

The reason we need to purge to present voter rolls is because there are dead people on them. There are made-up people on them. There are non-citizens on them.

That is NOT voter suppression. I want every American citizen that is eligible to vote, that wants to vote, to vote.

I hope you're not attempting to impugn anybody's patriotism by wrapping the "voter fraud" flimflam in flags taken from the coffins of fallen soldiers.

Attempts to discourage citizens from voting with onerous registration requirements are *not* patriotic in the slightest, and are *not* the same as honest work in pursuit of accurate voter rolls, at all.

Everybody dies- happens all the time, so total accuracy in that regard is an unrealistic expectation. Well, unless you're advocating a truly Big Brother sort of database.

Imaginary people on the Rolls? Perhaps- call me when they've actually voted in any numbers to have a meaningful discussion.

Non-citizen voters? Same story.

I support the use of the DHS database to help in honest evaluation of non-citizen voting. The Obama Admin was caught between a rock & a hard place prior to recent court rulings on related matters, a damned if you do & damned if you don't position.

The most obvious problem with Repub efforts in this regard is that they always start up before an election, giving the impression that they're running a squeeze play against some voting groups, jamming denied voters up against the election deadline. Not that I agree with much of it at all, but it would appear to be less egregious if they started up right after an election, but it probably wouldn't be as effective for their purposes, either.

Over zealous purging near an election is a symptom of more nefarious purposes, so Repubs need to exercise some caution if they're to gain the trust of anybody other than their own rabid base. They're not, of course.

As linked earlier, perhaps 10% of Pennsylvania voters don't meet the new requirements, something unacceptable to honest people of conscience. The notion that such a broad swath of voters should be purged in pursuit of the voter fraud boogeyman is absurd.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...war-ii-veteran-must-prove-his-citizenship-to/

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_inaccurate_purges_of_the_voter_rolls/

http://prospect.org/article/floridas-voter-purge-what-hell

 

[Bowfinger]

This problem is so contentious because neither side will admit that the other side might have a point and that they might have legitimate motives. If you are a liberal, consider that currently, one need not validate his or her identity in any way to cast a vote in most places. In Texas, I could collect every voter registration card (delivered by mail on the same day to everyone in the city) and cast one vote for each card I have. The election officials have no way to disqualify my votes because that card is all I need to vote. They are not allowed to ask for any form of verification of my identity and must let me vote. This is obviously ludicrous, but that is the system currently in place.

To whatever extent that is accurate, there are other ways to address it besides a mandatory, state-issued photo identification law that knowingly disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters while offering no material reduction in voter fraud. That is the overriding problem with these GOP voter suppression efforts. The ID requirements are so unduly restrictive that they inevitably cause material harm while the benefits are virtually nonexistent.

It's additionally absurd since, in many states, police may demand/require you to produce ID at any time. If citizens have to have ID anyway, then I cannot conceive of any legitimate reason not to require an ID to vote.

You might want to read that again. While states may require people to provide identifying information, there is no requirement to produce identifying documentation. In other words, a verbal response is all that's required. We are not (yet) to the "Show us your papers" police state.

If you are a conservative, realize that some people will not get an ID prior to the election even if it's free. Maybe they are out of the loop and don't know they need one, maybe they are old and crotchety, maybe they are lazy and irresponsible.

Or they are poor, or disabled, or have no easy access to transportation, or cannot produce a birth certificate because they were born long ago before such documents were ubiquitous, or born in a distant location like another state (or Kenya).

If they show up to vote and can't, then they are denied a fundamental right which everyone should agree is unacceptable. On the other hand, if an ineligible voter shows up and votes, then they have cancelled a vote of an eligible voter which is equally as bad as disenfranchising the eligible voter in the first place.

Meh, perhaps in an abstract sense, but they are not at all equal. Denying an individual his legitimate right to vote is a direct violation of that person's rights. Allowing an ineligible person to vote is certainly bad, but it does NOT disenfranchise anyone. It "merely" dilutes the value of each person's vote by a miniscule amount.

In the end, we have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, there is no barrier to voter fraud in most places.

Not true. The barriers are certainly imperfect, but they exist. More to the point for this issue, however, any barriers added by a state-issued photo ID for voting are trivially circumvented by using absentee ballots.

That's really why these RNC suppression efforts are so laughably transparent. In-person voter fraud is far and away the worst approach for anyone intent on affecting an election. One would have to stand in line for a half hour or more, exposing oneself to the personal risk of detection, to cast just one additional ballot. One. It makes no sense. It is so much more effective to use absentee ballots, where one can cast dozens, or even hundreds, of votes in a fraction of the time from the anonymity of one's home or office. Or, to be even more effective, one instead works at the wholesale level, stealing elections through some combination of fraudulent counting and voter suppression.

Since we don't look for it, we can't measure it and we have no way to know whether it's a problem.

Again, not true. There are methods for detecting and quantifying the incidence of impersonating another person while voting. It can be done through statistical analysis of duplicate ballots, and by post-election survey. Both techniques have, in fact, been used, with no material fraud found.

We have to weigh the possibility of direct disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an eligible voter is not allowed to vote) against the possibility of indirect disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an ineligible voter votes). In my opinion, if some minimal burden is placed on the voter, it will likely tip the scales towards disallowing ineligible votes without unduly burdening eligible voters. The details of how to do this may be debated, but the basic principle seems secure.

Your opinion does not match real world data, at least with respect to the current crop of RNC voter suppression laws. There are millions of eligible voters who currently lack the sort of state-issued photo ID required.

 

[Jhhnn]

In Texas, I could collect every voter registration card (delivered by mail on the same day to everyone in the city) and cast one vote for each card I have.

That's an absurd contention, given that you'd only be able to vote only once at any polling place, that you'd have to wait in line to do it, and that you'd have to travel between each one. Not to mention that lots of voters would ask for replacement cards for the ones they never received, putting your ass in a sling if you show up at their polling place after they do.

What you seem to be describing is some peculiarity of Texas law, anyway. In Colorado, voters receive no such cards.

 

[a777pilot]

No doubt ... to you. You have a well-established history of believing false things and seeing only that which matches your preconceptions. That sadly negates the value of your endorsements.

You're an old poopy head.

 

[a777pilot]

That's an absurd contention, given that you'd only be able to vote only once at any polling place, that you'd have to wait in line to do it, and that you'd have to travel between each one. Not to mention that lots of voters would ask for replacement cards for the ones they never received, putting your ass in a sling if you show up at their polling place after they do.

What you seem to be describing is some peculiarity of Texas law, anyway. In Colorado, voters receive no such cards.

That is not what he was saying.

Besides, even in your State of Colorado, there is no requirement to prove you are who you say you are nor provide proof that you are even a US citizen to register to vote.

 

[piasabird]

If we vote without showing any ID how do people know who the person they are talking to is? How can you possibly investigate this?

 

[piasabird]

In the past election we let people vote who were not registered voters. So did we count those people's votes who were not registered voters? Nobody really knows.

 

[CycloWizard]

How is that? You probably still have to go to a poll worker, state your name (which will be in the registered voters book), the worker will look it up in a book, and most likely have you sign next to your name, which can then be compared to previous signatures or the one on file.

That is not a barrier to anything. My voter registration card here has my signature, name, and voting location printed on the card. Are we going to have a handwriting expert at each polling place to verify signatures? I doubt it.

 

[CycloWizard]

That's an absurd contention, given that you'd only be able to vote only once at any polling place, that you'd have to wait in line to do it, and that you'd have to travel between each one. Not to mention that lots of voters would ask for replacement cards for the ones they never received, putting your ass in a sling if you show up at their polling place after they do.

What you seem to be describing is some peculiarity of Texas law, anyway. In Colorado, voters receive no such cards.

Incorrect. Texas law requires voters to show ID. A Department of Justice ruling coerced the state to have this idiotic system and delayed our primaries as a result. Your argument is simply that I might not be able to cast all 2.3 million votes in San Antonio singlehandedly. However, a small group of determined individuals could certainly use this tactic to dramatically alter the outcome of an election.

 

[piasabird]

Since the last election, there have been a lot of displaced people that no longer live in the same state. Many people in my area in southern IL moved here from places like Ohio where there are no jobs to live with relatives. I wonder how many of these people are still registered voters?

 

[CycloWizard]

To whatever extent that is accurate, there are other ways to address it besides a mandatory, state-issued photo identification law that knowingly disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters while offering no material reduction in voter fraud. That is the overriding problem with these GOP voter suppression efforts. The ID requirements are so unduly restrictive that they inevitably cause material harm while the benefits are virtually nonexistent.


You might want to read that again. While states may require people to provide identifying information, there is no requirement to produce identifying documentation. In other words, a verbal response is all that's required. We are not (yet) to the "Show us your papers" police state.


Or they are poor, or disabled, or have no easy access to transportation, or cannot produce a birth certificate because they were born long ago before such documents were ubiquitous, or born in a distant location like another state (or Kenya).


Meh, perhaps in an abstract sense, but they are not at all equal. Denying an individual his legitimate right to vote is a direct violation of that person's rights. Allowing an ineligible person to vote is certainly bad, but it does NOT disenfranchise anyone. It "merely" dilutes the value of each person's vote by a miniscule amount.


Not true. The barriers are certainly imperfect, but they exist. More to the point for this issue, however, any barriers added by a state-issued photo ID for voting are trivially circumvented by using absentee ballots.

That's really why these RNC suppression efforts are so laughably transparent. In-person voter fraud is far and away the worst approach for anyone intent on affecting an election. One would have to stand in line for a half hour or more, exposing oneself to the personal risk of detection, to cast just one additional ballot. One. It makes no sense. It is so much more effective to use absentee ballots, where one can cast dozens, or even hundreds, of votes in a fraction of the time from the anonymity of one's home or office. Or, to be even more effective, one instead works at the wholesale level, stealing elections through some combination of fraudulent counting and voter suppression.


Again, not true. There are methods for detecting and quantifying the incidence of impersonating another person while voting. It can be done through statistical analysis of duplicate ballots, and by post-election survey. Both techniques have, in fact, been used, with no material fraud found.


Your opinion does not match real world data, at least with respect to the current crop of RNC voter suppression laws. There are millions of eligible voters who currently lack the sort of state-issued photo ID required.

Perhaps you could consider my post as a whole rather than simply dissecting each individual bit on its own. The bottom line is that the current method for deciding whether or not someone can cast a vote is wide open to fraud and that, for each fraudulent ballot cast, it nullifies a legitimate vote. The "data" do not exist because there is no current ID verification by which we could possibly measure the extent of fraud. As I acknowledged, the ID system is not a good one and there are certainly superior options which I proffered earlier in this thread.

 

[blackangst1]

nvm

 

[piasabird]

nvm? What language is that?

 

[piasabird]

There is early bird voting also.

 

[xj0hnx]

So if ID's were made available for free to everyone, who would still have a problem with having to identify themselves to vote?

 

[a777pilot]

As linked earlier, perhaps 10% of Pennsylvania voters don't meet the new requirements, something unacceptable to honest people of conscience. The notion that such a broad swath of voters should be purged in pursuit of the voter fraud boogeyman is absurd.

What does that mean? You are in favor of the dead, the made up and the illegals voting? Sure sounds like it.

I want every American that is eligible to vote that wants to vote, to vote.

I define "eligible" as being 18 years old, alive, a real person and of course, an American citizen. And be able to show proof of all of that.

How can any of you want anything other than that?

 

[techs]

There is early bird voting also.

Which is also being curtailed in the same states that are attempting to suppress voting.

Next up will the reduction of places to vote in the interest of "security".
Making it harder, or more costly for people to get to the polls.
Is there anything the Repubitards won't believe if Foxynews tells them its so?

 

[a777pilot]

So if ID's were made available for free to everyone, who would still have a problem with having to identify themselves to vote?

ME!

Having a government issued photo ID does not mean the bearer is eligible to vote.

 

[a777pilot]

Since the last election, there have been a lot of displaced people that no longer live in the same state. Many people in my area in southern IL moved here from places like Ohio where there are no jobs to live with relatives. I wonder how many of these people are still registered voters?

Well, if they have no job, they should be free to go down and register to vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

Incorrect. Texas law requires voters to show ID. A Department of Justice ruling coerced the state to have this idiotic system and delayed our primaries as a result. Your argument is simply that I might not be able to cast all 2.3 million votes in San Antonio singlehandedly. However, a small group of determined individuals could certainly use this tactic to dramatically alter the outcome of an election.

Oh, so it'd require a conspiracy, huh? You'd play hell casting half a dozen votes, and your likelihood of getting busted goes up every hour the polls are open, as I've offered.

Absurd contention remains absurd, with grandiose claims & bonus conspiracy theory thrown in as a kicker.

A small group of dedicated individuals... like hundreds, maybe, and only Righties are the kind of Zealots who'd even think about risking it. I say give 'em a shot, see how many end up behind bars.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does that mean? You are in favor of the dead, the made up and the illegals voting? Sure sounds like it.

10% of Pennsylvania voters fall into those categories? Really?

Think about what you're saying.

 

[blackangst1]

nvm? What language is that?

Its a common acronym used online, specifically on web forums. It stands for never mind.

 

[SBT810]

The bottom line is that the current method for deciding whether or not someone can cast a vote is wide open to fraud

You should see this report http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

When I walk out my door, I am wide open to be struck by lightening, but it doesn't happen very often. You are asserting that voting fraudently is 1. easy and 2. it MAY be happening a lot. It isn't easy, and the incidence CAN be quantified, with data showing it happens so little that it is basically non-existent.

Concerns about officially-manipulated election fraud are valid, however. See the film, "What Happened in Ohio."

 

[a777pilot]

10% of Pennsylvania voters fall into those categories? Really?

Think about what you're saying.

I have no idea if 10% of the voters in Pennsylvania are not real, live, US citizens. You are the one that stated the figure of 10%.