PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on September 24, 2016, 01:27:01 PM
-
But we are told over and over there is no voter fraud?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602775
-
actually, it's moving bar.
Sometimes it's no fraud
sometimes it's no significant fraud
sometimes it's no widespread fraud.
edit: sometimes the liberals want to call it something else (anything else) rather than admit fraud exists.
-
The Democrats, and the Media don't want Voter I.D. for one reason, and one reason alone. They want to allow, ILLEGAL voter fraud to advance their sick, twisted, anti American agenda. How does it feel like to be useful idiots Progressives?
-
But we are told over and over there is no voter fraud?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602775
Quote from the referenced article:
A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the state with federal government death records. "Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast," El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a "very serious" pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead.
Refresh my memory, how does voter ID laws prevent mail/absentee balloting fraud?
Any system will have fraud, seems to me this problem is more on the lines of poor voter roll maintenance, which I will agree is a problem.
-
Quote from the referenced article:
A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the state with federal government death records. "Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast," El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a "very serious" pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead.
Refresh my memory, how does voter ID laws prevent mail/absentee balloting fraud?
Any system will have fraud, seems to me this problem is more on the lines of poor voter roll maintenance, which I will agree is a problem.
Most absentee ballots have statements along the line the person is certifying themselves and signing as such. Seems to me when another person fills out the ballot and FORGES a signature, then FRAUD has been committed.
-
Most absentee ballots have statements along the line the person is certifying themselves and signing as such. Seems to me when another person fills out the ballot and FORGES a signature, then FRAUD has been committed.
He asked how voter ID prevents this fraud. Our voter rolls are a total clusterfuck. Time to change the system.
-
He asked how voter ID prevents this fraud. Our voter rolls are a total clusterfuck. Time to change the system.
Voter rolls aren't the problem. The problem is when a person takes a ballot intended for another person, has that other persons voting information on it, then fills it out and FORGES a signature.
Forgery is FRAUD, whether it's on a ballot or bank note.
-
He asked how voter ID prevents this fraud. Our voter rolls are a total clusterfuck. Time to change the system.
Because voter ID raises the bar on what is necessary to commit fraud. Today, you need to memorize a name and address. With voter ID, you need to synthesize enough identification to convince the Dept of Motor Vehicles (in NC) that you are who you say you are and that you're entitled to get an ID with your name on it. That's a huge step up in protecting voting integrity.
It feels like Dems don't want voter ID because they're the ones doing the fraud.
-
Liberals constantly beat the race drum whenever Vote Fraud is the topic because they LITERALLY have nothing else to hang their argument on.
Every Single case of vote fraud means an actual voter was denied their vote in favor of a scoundrel, but you never will hear a liberal defend a citizen's right not to have their vote stolen because the vast majority of vote fraud is on behalf of democrats and that is the party of fraud and corruption.
-
Because voter ID raises the bar on what is necessary to commit fraud. Today, you need to memorize a name and address. With voter ID, you need to synthesize enough identification to convince the Dept of Motor Vehicles (in NC) that you are who you say you are and that you're entitled to get an ID with your name on it. That's a huge step up in protecting voting integrity.
It feels like Dems don't want voter ID because they're the ones doing the fraud.
Please describe to me how voter ID would prevent fraud centered around absentee/mail-in voting of deceased people. That is what Gary asked.
-
Voter rolls aren't the problem. The problem is when a person takes a ballot intended for another person, has that other persons voting information on it, then fills it out and FORGES a signature.
Forgery is FRAUD, whether it's on a ballot or bank note.
Voter rolls are definitely a problem.
-
Return to showing up at the polling place, showing ID that matches registration list, then voting. Surely, if someone registers to vote, their name can be put on a maintainable list. If they die, they can't show up to vote. Sorry, but it really is the only way to have one person, one vote.
If necessary, extend voting hours and days, expand locations, vote by first letter of last name on certain days to reduce crowding, etc. etc.
It is untenable to open up to fraud to make voting "easier."
Voting should be somewhat effortful.
I read all the discussion here on the forum on this issue and understand the cry of disenfranchisement. But we are capable of creating a robust and accessible system.
It should not include Internet voting, though. Security is just not there.
-
Return to showing up at the polling place, showing ID that matches registration list, then voting. Surely, if someone registers to vote, their name can be put on a maintainable list. If they die, they can't show up to vote. Sorry, but it really is the only way to have one person, one vote.
If necessary, extend voting hours and days, expand locations, vote by first letter of last name on certain days to reduce crowding, etc. etc.
It is untenable to open up to fraud to make voting "easier."
Voting should be somewhat effortful.
I read all the discussion here on the forum on this issue and understand the cry of disenfranchisement. But we are capable of creating a robust and accessible system.
It should not include Internet voting, though. Security is just not there.
Voting should be as effortless as possible, while still maintaining integrity. It is, after all, a foundational element of our republic.
-
Voting should be as effortless as possible, while still maintaining integrity. It is, after all, a foundational element of our republic.
If you want to maintain integrity then you must have a way to verify that someone voting is who they say they are. A government issued photo identification will work. You can get them for free in most states. I think that's what Becky meant by being somewhat "effortful".
The problem is the democrats don't want voter ID laws because they want to commit as much fraud as possible and when they can't, they claim it's disenfranchisement. There are get out the vote drives that occur well before any election that serve to register people to vote. Again, I'm not seeing the issue with having to have an ID and a law that says you must provide a valid ID in order to vote.
-
Here's a simple solution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink
-
On wonders what all those dead people were doing on the registration rolls. But I suppose removing the deceased from voter registrations is just too difficult.
-
One wonders what all those dead people were doing on the registration rolls. But I suppose removing the deceased from voter registrations is just too difficult.
In any task, there will be errors made. Humans will make many small ones. Computers will make rarer big ones.
-
Voting should be as effortless as possible, while still maintaining integrity. It is, after all, a foundational element of our republic.
You don't mean "as effortless as possible".
We could hire people to wander around the streets and ask people who they like? That would be effortless for the people, you don't even have to register or go to a voting place. Do you have confidence in that system and why or why not?
-
On wonders what all those dead people were doing on the registration rolls. But I suppose removing the deceased from voter registrations is just too difficult.
So how do you propose removing dead people from voter rolls? Should the coroner be required to send a copy of the death certificate to voter registration? How is the person in voter registration suppose to sort out if the deceased is the voter? Death certificates often don't have the deceased address on them. What if John Smith dies and the voter registration removes him from the roll, only to find out they removed John Smith Jr, who is alive and well?
How about making everyone reapply to vote for each election cycle? Oh wait, that would be an "unfair burden"......scratch that. How about tying voter registration with social security? Uh, never mind, that won't work either.
So how do we clear up voter rolls? I mean, after all, we shouldn't prosecute people who fraudulently use a dead persons voting ID to get an absentee voter ballot and FORGE a signature on it.
-
On wonders what all those dead people were doing on the registration rolls. But I suppose removing the deceased from voter registrations is just too difficult.
Every time I have seen an effort to clean up the registration rolls, the democrats screamed that it was an effort to disenfranchise the poor and the blacks.
-
So how do you propose removing dead people from voter rolls? Should the coroner be required to send a copy of the death certificate to voter registration?
Not the worst idea. Or local election boards routinely communicating with coroners and social security? It really shouldn't be all that difficult.
-
You don't mean "as effortless as possible".
We could hire people to wander around the streets and ask people who they like? That would be effortless for the people, you don't even have to register or go to a voting place. Do you have confidence in that system and why or why not?
Straw man. You ignored my second condition. You also didn't answer mine and Gary's question.
-
So how do you propose removing dead people from voter rolls? Should the coroner be required to send a copy of the death certificate to voter registration? How is the person in voter registration suppose to sort out if the deceased is the voter? Death certificates often don't have the deceased address on them. What if John Smith dies and the voter registration removes him from the roll, only to find out they removed John Smith Jr, who is alive and well?
How about making everyone reapply to vote for each election cycle? Oh wait, that would be an "unfair burden"......scratch that. How about tying voter registration with social security? Uh, never mind, that won't work either.
So how do we clear up voter rolls? I mean, after all, we shouldn't prosecute people who fraudulently use a dead persons voting ID to get an absentee voter ballot and FORGE a signature on it.
Universal, automatic voter registration with information sharing between local, state, and federal entities.
-
Not the worst idea. Or local election boards routinely communicating with coroners and social security? It really shouldn't be all that difficult.
Death certificates don't contain voter information (should they?) and social security doesn't include voter information, as it never should.
Should voter registration hire additional people who's only job is to scour death records, go to homes and interview relatives as to the positive identity of the deceased and their voter ID?
Wouldn't that be considered racist and the voter registration trying to suppress votes?
-
Universal, automatic voter registration with information sharing between local, state, and federal entities.
So how do you remove someone that has died?
-
So how do you remove someone that has died?
The deceased must submit a signed and notarized form attesting to such. Then nobody else can vote using their identity.
;)
-
So how do you remove someone that has died?
I just told you. Information sharing between agencies. In this case, the offices of vital statistics, which keep such records, would be involved.
-
On wonders what all those dead people were doing on the registration rolls. But I suppose removing the deceased from voter registrations is just too difficult.
For two years after my wife died, election materials still kept coming from the county, even though she died in the same county as she was registered in.
-
For two years after my wife died, election materials still kept coming from the county, even though she died in the same county as she was registered in.
I am sorry to hear about your wife Mase. I had a previous wife pass away as well.
-
Gracias.
-
I am sorry to hear about your wife Mase. I had a previous wife pass away as well.
I am genuinely sorry.
-
Voting should be as effortless as possible,...
why? Is voting too hard now?
(I know you acknowledge the need for integrity)
-
I just told you. Information sharing between agencies. In this case, the offices of vital statistics, which keep such records, would be involved.
Ok, I wasn't aware voter information was put on a death certificate, as well as social security information.
-
Ok, I wasn't aware voter information was put on a death certificate, as well as social security information.
Dude from vital statistics notifies dude at voter admin. Dead dude is removed from rolls. In a properly functioning system, of course.
-
Dude from vital statistics notifies dude at voter admin. Dead dude is removed from rolls. In a properly functioning system, of course.
So "vital statistics" has all of this information on all of us? I just checked my county government listings and can't find "vital statistics" as a functioning office.
So someone dies, the coroner fills out a death certificate. I've never seen a death certificate with a box marked "voter information". Considering there is room for error in just assuming the deceased is the only "John Smith" at this address, or what dose do when someone dies out of state?
-
But we are told over and over there is no voter fraud?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602775
SILENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
why? Is voting too hard now?
(I know you acknowledge the need for integrity)
You've asked two questions. Why should voting be as effortless as possible while maintaining integrity? Because it's a foundational and essential element of our Republic. And because our governance demands the voice of the people, it is my opinion that we should strive for higher voter turnout.
Your second question is subjective. I'm not prepared to answer. I just don't believe "making it effortful" is a necessary or proper goal. Nor do I believe making it harder is appropriate unless it's clear that circumstances demand it and there are no reasonable alternatives.
-
He asked how voter ID prevents this fraud. Our voter rolls are a total clusterfuck. Time to change the system.
Wipe off the voter rolls every 4 years. Asking voters to re-register once every 4 years is not a burden when it comes to caring about the Republic.
-
So "vital statistics" has all of this information on all of us? I just checked my county government listings and can't find "vital statistics" as a functioning office.
You didn't look hard enough. Since you hide behind your anonymity, I don't know what state you're from. But here are some examples:
Florida Bureau of Vital Statistics (http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates/certificates/)
Wisconsin Vital Records Office (https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/vitalrecords/index.htm)
So someone dies, the coroner fills out a death certificate. I've never seen a death certificate with a box marked "voter information". Considering there is room for error in just assuming the deceased is the only "John Smith" at this address, or what dose do when someone dies out of state?
It is not entirely clear to me why you expect to find all elements of a functioning automatic universal voter registration system in a country that has not implemented said system.
-
Wipe off the voter rolls every 4 years. Asking voters to re-register once every 4 years is not a burden when it comes to caring about the Republic.
I believe that is likely to be unconstitutional. Whether it is a burden or not is subjective, and, again, not everyone agrees with the notion that making voting harder is a noble goal because it weeds out those who "don't care" about the Republic.
-
I believe that is likely to be unconstitutional.
How so?
-
Universal, automatic voter registration with information sharing between local, state, and federal entities.
This is just a nationalized voter ID in disguise, run by the same people that can't keep track of millions of "temporary" visitors. They don't care and give what we've seen Obama do with the government agencies, it would be dangerous to allow a political candidate to have control over this. Would you willingly give President Trump control over who gets to be registered to vote in 2020?
-
Actually, I recall this very thing happening in North Carolina. All the politicians wailed and screamed about voter ID laws. But a funny thing happened. Just about all the instances turned out to be miscommunication between agencies. I think 200 got winnowed down to two. Early yet, but what do you want to be that the same exact thing winds up happening in Colorado?
-
Straw man. You ignored my second condition. You also didn't answer mine and Gary's question.
I really don't expect an answer, it is abundantly clear that voter ID does nothing to solve fraud for mail/absentee balloting.
Voting should be as easy as possible, and no system can be completely fraud free. Americans are amazingly honest when it comes to voting. Why fix a problem that does not exist?
-
For two years after my wife died, election materials still kept coming from the county, even though she died in the same county as she was registered in.
Loosing a spouse must be incredibly difficult. I am very sorry to hear that.
-
You didn't look hard enough. Since you hide behind your anonymity, I don't know what state you're from. But here are some examples:
Florida Bureau of Vital Statistics (http://www.floridahealth.gov/certificates/certificates/)
Wisconsin Vital Records Office (https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/vitalrecords/index.htm)
It is not entirely clear to me why you expect to find all elements of a functioning automatic universal voter registration system in a country that has not implemented said system.
So I live in Wisconsin, but wasn't born here, didn't marry here, never got divorced here (or anywhere), and certainly haven't died here.
So what good are the states' vital records? Are you saying it needs to be a national database?
-
Dude from vital statistics notifies dude at voter admin. Dead dude is removed from rolls. In a properly functioning system, of course.
We dont have a properly functioning system, we have a government system. The answer is not a larger government system, it is verification of the system we have and validation at the voting booths of identity.
Voter roles are pretty good now, but ACORN show how susceptable they are to fraud and how easily unscrupulous people can take advantage of a system built on trust. Voting in person is also built on trust but we the only system to catch fraud here relies on registration roles
-
How so?
Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.
-
Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.
I don't see how it could be looked at as a revocation of the right to vote. Or are we all denied the right to vote since we all have to register in the first place.
Voting is not a guaranteed right for everyone. For one thing, you have to be old enough. And you have to register. What isthe difference between registering, and re-registering periodically.
-
Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.
Nobody is talking about denying anyone the right to vote. Just making them verify that they're still there.
How about grades of validation in the system? You have to respond to a mailer or else you cast a provisional ballot with your fingerprints on it?
-
Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.
Wiping the rolls clean and requiring reregistration can hardly be considered a "mass revocation". Sorry, that's really stretching there.
-
Wiping the rolls clean and requiring reregistration can hardly be considered a "mass revocation". Sorry, that's really stretching there.
Remember, these are the same people that say being required to show a photo ID is disenfranchising to blacks and other liberals.
-
This is just a nationalized voter ID in disguise, run by the same people that can't keep track of millions of "temporary" visitors. They don't care and give what we've seen Obama do with the government agencies, it would be dangerous to allow a political candidate to have control over this. Would you willingly give President Trump control over who gets to be registered to vote in 2020?
There is nothing in disguise. One idea is an independent, non-partisan federal agency that reports to Congress. A la Elections Canada. State and local governments would necessarily be integrally involved.
-
So I live in Wisconsin, but wasn't born here, didn't marry here, never got divorced here (or anywhere), and certainly haven't died here.
So what good are the states' vital records? Are you saying it needs to be a national database?
With respect to the reason I brought in the vital records department, they would record and report a voter's death so they can be removed from the rolls.
-
We dont have a properly functioning system, we have a government system. The answer is not a larger government system, it is verification of the system we have and validation at the voting booths of identity.
I don't know what your first sentence means. I don't know what "verification of the system we have" means as far as real action. I do know what validation at the voting booths means. So I read this as "something something I still want my same old voter ID".
Voter roles are pretty good now, but ACORN show how susceptable they are to fraud and how easily unscrupulous people can take advantage of a system built on trust. Voting in person is also built on trust but we the only system to catch fraud here relies on registration roles
No, the voter rolls are atrocious.
-
Wiping the rolls clean and requiring reregistration can hardly be considered a "mass revocation". Sorry, that's really stretching there.
Huge numbers of verified eligible voters can vote one day and cannot vote the next. It'd never pass judicial scrutiny for a number of reasons, and I base that opinion on reading the judicial decisions from some of the voter ID cases.
-
Huge numbers of verified eligible voters can vote one day and cannot vote the next. It'd never pass judicial scrutiny for a number of reasons, and I base that opinion on reading the judicial decisions from some of the voter ID cases.
I'm not buying it and I think you are stretching your "interpretation" on reading judicial decisions.
What's your legal background BTW?
-
Remember, these are the same people that say being required to show a photo ID is disenfranchising to blacks and other liberals.
Here's the thing. The beauty of my position on this issue is that it takes the legs out from under the complaints of each political side about the others' election desires.
I am willing to consider voter ID if it comes along with a universal automatic voter registration system, like so many other modern industrialized nations employ. This is my version of a bi-partisan approach to this issue. Because it includes voter ID, the Republican whining is quelled (to be replaced by other whining similar to what you see in this thread, but I digress).
Because the idea also employs an automatic universal registration system, the whining of the Democrats is quelled (to be replaced by other whining, I'm sure), because a proper implementation does about as best as a nation can do to ensure everyone who is eligible is registered and able to vote from the moment they are eligible until the moment they die.
The problem seems to be that ya'll are partisan hacks (term of endearment, I swear), and don't seem to understand what compromise means. My system gives no one everything they want, but gives both sides a big thing they want. A nice side effect is that it is likely to save us money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Electors#Audit) and bring us into the fold of modern election systems.
-
I'm not buying it and I think you are stretching your "interpretation" on reading judicial decisions.
What's your legal background BTW?
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Next question.
-
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Next question.
That's what I figured. Thanks.
-
That's what I figured. Thanks.
This is called arguing on the internet. You've heard of it, I assume? No credentials required, but feel free to remain anonymous and hypocritically demand that your debate opponent provides them.
If you disagree with my opinion, you could offer your reasons why you disagree with it. Don't worry, I won't demand you provide your Juris Doctor degree.
-
This is called arguing on the internet. You've heard of it, I assume? No credentials required, but feel free to remain anonymous and hypocritically demand that your debate opponent provides them.
If you disagree with my opinion, you could offer your reasons why you disagree with it. Don't worry, I won't demand you provide your Juris Doctor degree.
It's fun watching the amateur internet lawyers in action trying to legaleze their opinions into sounding like something official.
Carry on. ::)
-
Wipe off the voter rolls every 4 years. Asking voters to re-register once every 4 years is not a burden when it comes to caring about the Republic.
Excellent idea, really. I've been contemplating asechrest's assertion that voting should be as effortless as possible. I don't agree. It should be as robust as possible, and that doesn't usually happen with "easy."
-
It's fun watching the amateur internet lawyers in action trying to legaleze their opinions into sounding like something official.
Carry on. ::)
Aw, come now, you can't hide your internet lawyer badge. I mean, you clearly have an opinion that requiring re-registration every four years would not be unconstitutional. You called my opinion "a stretch". Face it, you're one of us. ;)
-
Excellent idea, really. I've been contemplating asechrest's assertion that voting should be as effortless as possible. I don't agree. It should be as robust as possible, and that doesn't usually happen with "easy."
I am fine that we have different opinions. But let's be clear that as I said it should be as effortless as possible while still maintaining integrity. I do, however, certainly disagree with the standalone goal of making voting effortful or harder.
-
Who said "standalone?" You. Not me. I'm for robust AND effortful, because robust requires effort.
Voting is a privilege, really. I think the Constitution addresses a number of issues relating to voting, but IIRC, it does not call it a right.
There's such a thing as buy-in. If I have to make an effort to vote, I'm going to care so much about the issues at stake that I am willing to sacrifice time and effort to make my voice heard. I am going to have prepared myself knowledge-wise so that I understand the issues and have arrived at my decisions with thoughtfulness.
If it is too easy to vote, flipping the lever or making the mark could just be the result of whoever happened to Twitter or headline-glimpse someone into voting based on emotion of the moment, not thought and deliberation.
You can cry "disenfranchisement" all you want, but a country run by thoughtful, prepared voters willing to sacrifice some effort to vote is going to be more likely to create a society and culture more friendly to human flourishing for ALL.
-
Who said "standalone?" You. Not me. I'm for robust AND effortful, because robust requires effort.
Why do you take this as a given, that robust requires some amount of greater effort, on the part of the voter, than our current system?
Voting is a privilege, really. I think the Constitution addresses a number of issues relating to voting, but IIRC, it does not call it a right.
There's such a thing as buy-in. If I have to make an effort to vote, I'm going to care so much about the issues at stake that I am willing to sacrifice time and effort to make my voice heard. I am going to have prepared myself knowledge-wise so that I understand the issues and have arrived at my decisions with thoughtfulness.
If it is too easy to vote, flipping the lever or making the mark could just be the result of whoever happened to Twitter or headline-glimpse someone into voting based on emotion of the moment, not thought and deliberation.
You can cry "disenfranchisement" all you want, but a country run by thoughtful, prepared voters willing to sacrifice some effort to vote is going to be more likely to create a society and culture more friendly to human flourishing for ALL.
This smacks of elitism and is a direction our country has worked long and hard to reverse. Essentially, you're attempting to weed out those who you feel are not smart enough or informed enough or thoughtful enough to vote. We've been down that road before.
The US has 300 million citizens, with a broad range of abilities and competencies. Who would you suggest be the arbiter of whether the voting process is "effortful" enough to weed out the folks who don't deserve to vote? And what if you are one day in that group?
Yuck.
-
I don't know what your first sentence means. I don't know what "verification of the system we have" means as far as real action. I do know what validation at the voting booths means. So I read this as "something something I still want my same old voter ID".
No, the voter rolls are atrocious.
So you say there are huge problems with the voter rolls and your solution is a bigger government program to manage it, overseen by a politician? I asked earlier and might have missed the response - are you comfortable if Donald Trump appoints someone to decide who should be registered for voting in 2020?
Verification of the system we have means that we it's not perfect and there are ineligible names on the list. We need to do a verification, such as a mail in verification card every X years or else you have to show ID at the polling place. Or maybe you don't have to show ID, but you must put your fingerprint on your ballot.
-
So you say there are huge problems with the voter rolls and your solution is a bigger government program to manage it, overseen by a politician? I asked earlier and might have missed the response - are you comfortable if Donald Trump appoints someone to decide who should be registered for voting in 2020?
No I would not be comfortable with any president appointing a single person to decide who should be registered to vote. So far I tend to prefer the approach that Canada uses: an independent, non-partisan elections organization that reports to parliament. We could model ours after that. I also like the idea of the states having a significant enough role in the process so as to serve as a check-and-balance on the federal elections organization. Though I am certainly willing to listen to ideas.
I reject the assertion that we couldn't get it right. Plenty of other countries can do it. So can the greatest country on earth.
Verification of the system we have means that we it's not perfect and there are ineligible names on the list. We need to do a verification, such as a mail in verification card every X years or else you have to show ID at the polling place. Or maybe you don't have to show ID, but you must put your fingerprint on your ballot.
I am not averse to having fingerprints on the ballot. But our election system still needs modernization.
-
No I would not be comfortable with any president appointing a single person to decide who should be registered to vote. So far I tend to prefer the approach that Canada uses: an independent, non-partisan elections organization that reports to parliament. We could model ours after that. I also like the idea of the states having a significant enough role in the process so as to serve as a check-and-balance on the federal elections organization. Though I am certainly willing to listen to ideas.
I reject the assertion that we couldn't get it right. Plenty of other countries can do it. So can the greatest country on earth.
I am not averse to having fingerprints on the ballot. But our election system still needs modernization.
All elections should be handled at the state level. The "federal election" is actual an election at the state level for a federal position (office of the president). Absolutely no need in the federal government overseeing elections.
-
All elections should be handled at the state level. The "federal election" is actual an election at the state level for a federal position (office of the president). Absolutely no need in the federal government overseeing elections.
A fine opinion, for sure. But it is strange that you'd suggest there is no need for it in a thread that you created about dead people on the voter rolls.
-
A fine opinion, for sure. But it is strange that you'd suggest there is no need for it in a thread that you created about dead people on the voter rolls.
Again, states control their voter rolls, not the federal government. I see it as a state issue.
-
Again, states control their voter rolls, not the federal government. I see it as a state issue.
Yep, states currently control their voter rolls. Your opinion is fair, but you haven't suggested any state-based solutions unless I've missed it. And we'd need to come up with a way for information to flow between states.
-
Courts have established that qualified individuals have a constitutional right to vote. The proposal to "wipe the slate clean" every four years and make people re-register is essentially a mass revocation of that right from many who are known factually to be eligible. I don't see how it would ever survive the scrutiny of the courts.
People who do not vote for long periods of time are often deleted from voter registration roles. When did too lazy to show up and too stupid to register become constitutionally defined obstacles?
-
Huge numbers of verified eligible voters can vote one day and cannot vote the next. It'd never pass judicial scrutiny for a number of reasons, and I base that opinion on reading the judicial decisions from some of the voter ID cases.
Has my proposal been litigated?
-
Here's the thing. The beauty of my position on this issue is that it takes the legs out from under the complaints of each political side about the others' election desires.
I am willing to consider voter ID if it comes along with a universal automatic voter registration system, like so many other modern industrialized nations employ. This is my version of a bi-partisan approach to this issue. Because it includes voter ID, the Republican whining is quelled (to be replaced by other whining similar to what you see in this thread, but I digress).
Because the idea also employs an automatic universal registration system, the whining of the Democrats is quelled (to be replaced by other whining, I'm sure), because a proper implementation does about as best as a nation can do to ensure everyone who is eligible is registered and able to vote from the moment they are eligible until the moment they die.
The problem seems to be that ya'll are partisan hacks (term of endearment, I swear), and don't seem to understand what compromise means. My system gives no one everything they want, but gives both sides a big thing they want. A nice side effect is that it is likely to save us money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Electors#Audit) and bring us into the fold of modern election systems.
I've asked this before, and I don't recall whether you answered this, but it's very simple.
How does your universal registration establish someone's residency in a new state, whether it's 60 days before an election in a new state, or 5 days before an election? Does residency matter in your system?
-
I've asked this before, and I don't recall whether you answered this, but it's very simple.
How does your universal registration establish someone's residency in a new state, whether it's 60 days before an election in a new state, or 5 days before an election? Does residency matter in your system?
Residency matters. I wouldn't change the fundamentals of how our Republic works, just how it handles registration and voter rolls. When you move, there are multiple avenues by which your new residency could be known. You have likely filed a change of address form, updated your driver license, etc., and that information would be shared with the elections agency. You could also file your new address directly with the elections agency. There should also be a failsafe that allows some process by which a person can vote even if there is a SNAFU with the address.
As a datapoint: In Canada, 93% of eligible voters are registered, and 91% of that group is registered at their current address.
-
Has my proposal been litigated?
Not that I'm aware of.
-
I tend to prefer the approach that Canada uses: an independent, non-partisan elections organization that reports to parliament.
Yeah, because calling it non partisan would eliminate national partisan control of the process. (Insert derisive snort here). The people who get involved with this are there because they are partisan.
I trsut this to be non partisan the same way I trust judges, the Attorney General and the FBI to be non partisan.
-
Yeah, because calling it non partisan would eliminate national partisan control of the process. (Insert derisive snort here). The people who get involved with this are there because they are partisan.
I trsut this to be non partisan the same way I trust judges, the Attorney General and the FBI to be non partisan.
So much for American Exceptionalism!
-
So much for American Exceptionalism!
Yeah. Obama pretty much killed that idea.
-
Yeah. Obama pretty much killed that idea.
Obama is term limited, donchaknow.
-
Obama is term limited, donchaknow.
Sometimes you can get rid of the disease, but the pain and scar tissue remains.
-
Sometimes you can get rid of the disease, but the pain and scar tissue remains.
Bull. This, too, shall pass. Same story every election.
-
Bull. This, too, shall pass. Same story every election.
Yes. Eventually.
-
Bull. This, too, shall pass. Same story every election.
The Media, Government, and Education has Fundamentally Transformed America. We are now a Communist/Progressive nation that will follow in the Obama tradition. When Hillary gets elected it will finalize the deal. Open borders, and the Feds transporting in Muslims will just continue our demise.
-
The Media, Government, and Education has Fundamentally Transformed America. We are now a Communist/Progressive nation that will follow in the Obama tradition. When Hillary gets elected it will finalize the deal. Open borders, and the Feds transporting in Muslims will just continue our demise.
So in 8 years, Obama managed to so transform the nation on every level, including the citizenry, such that we are now literally a communist nation that will never turn back? Are you building a bomb shelter, too?
Relax and get your guy in the white house.
Reports of our country's demise have been greatly exaggerated. - Adapted from Twain
-
deny deny deny
do worry, be happy.
-
So in 8 years, Obama managed to so transform the nation on every level, including the citizenry, such that we are now literally a communist nation that will never turn back? Are you building a bomb shelter, too?
Relax and get your guy in the white house.
Reports of our country's demise have been greatly exaggerated. - Adapted from Twain
You're very young. For those of us that are quite a bit older we grew up in way different times. There was unrest in the 60's for sure, but from where I stand I have witnessed a great decline in this country in the past 8 years compared to several decades previous.
BHO when elected said he would "Fundamentally transform the United States of America" and to a degree he has done that. We now have more people out of the workforce than ever, we have more people living on public assistance than ever, we have a disastrous healthcare system that we still haven't seen the full extent of, we have more racial division since the 60's. The middle class have gone backwards, not forward under Obama's administration. Class warfare has been ratcheted up to levels most have not seen in their lifetime. Our country is laughed at by the rest of the world and being taunted for our perceived weakness on the international stage. We are monetarily funding countries that want to destroy us and our way of life.
In an effort to "spread the wealth around" Obama has reduced everyone's standard of living (except for the elites) considerably. We have witnessed a President accumulate more debt in 8 years than every previous president together. For the first time we have witnessed an administration in 8 years with a GDP of less than 3%.
The damage of BHO will extend the rest of my life and well into my children's lifetime.
Just one old guy's take on the state of the union.
-
deny deny deny
do worry, be happy.
There are two extremes. Anthony is at the right extreme. The truth is likely to be somewhere toward the middle, reasonably spaced from the left extreme where everything is the best it has ever been and the right extreme where our country is now a communist nation in the last stages of decline.
-
You're very young. For those of us that are quite a bit older we grew up in way different times. There was unrest in the 60's for sure, but from where I stand I have witnessed a great decline in this country in the past 8 years compared to several decades previous.
BHO when elected said he would "Fundamentally transform the United States of America" and to a degree he has done that. We now have more people out of the workforce than ever, we have more people living on public assistance than ever, we have a disastrous healthcare system that we still haven't seen the full extent of, we have more racial division since the 60's. The middle class have gone backwards, not forward under Obama's administration. Class warfare has been ratcheted up to levels most have not seen in their lifetime. Our country is laughed at by the rest of the world and being taunted for our perceived weakness on the international stage. We are monetarily funding countries that want to destroy us and our way of life.
In an effort to "spread the wealth around" Obama has reduced everyone's standard of living (except for the elites) considerably. We have witnessed a President accumulate more debt in 8 years than every previous president together. For the first time we have witnessed an administration in 8 years with a GDP of less than 3%.
The damage of BHO will extend the rest of my life and well into my children's lifetime.
Just one old guy's take on the state of the union.
I appreciate your perspective, but don't agree with it. I'm ok, though, that we have different perspectives. I'm sure I have a dose of young guy naivete, and I believe you have a bit of old guy not-like-it-used-to-be syndrome. :)
It might be my tendency to opinions that are not so extreme. But that's served me well so far.
-
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”
-Socrates
It is the biggest damn pithy that the above quote is utterly fake.
-
Sometimes you can get rid of the disease, but the pain and scar tissue remains.
The disease has metasasized and been seeded throughout the government in places like the IRS, EPA, OSHA, HHS, DOJ, DOT and the courts and will take years to remove, if ever.
-
I appreciate your perspective, but don't agree with it. I'm ok, though, that we have different perspectives.
Curious, asechrest ... "perspective"doesn't seem an apt term for what we see happening. Do you disagree with all observations stated in the quote below (enumerations mine), or just some, or are you viewing them through another lens? Do elaborate. I get that you want to take the larger view, as do most of us, but the future is in fact determined by the directions set by today's actions. If anything is crystal clear, it is that foresight is not being used; the directions set are leading to decline (family, religious freedom, a host of other freedoms,reverence for life, etc. etc.) in some of the most important underpinnings of our very life on this planet.
...
1) I have witnessed a great decline in this country in the past 8 years compared to several decades previous.
2) We now have more people out of the workforce than ever
3) we have more people living on public assistance than ever
4) we have a disastrous healthcare system that we still haven't seen the full extent of
5) we have more racial division since the 60's
6) The middle class have gone backwards, not forward under Obama's administration
7) Class warfare has been ratcheted up to levels most have not seen in their lifetime
8] Our country is laughed at by the rest of the world and being taunted for our perceived weakness on the international stage
9) We are monetarily funding countries that want to destroy us and our way of life.
10) In an effort to "spread the wealth around" Obama has reduced everyone's standard of living (except for the elites) considerably
11) We have witnessed a President accumulate more debt in 8 years than every previous president together
12) For the first time we have witnessed an administration in 8 years with a GDP of less than 3%
...
Adding to those, what your perspective have been if Mr. Obama had promised when running for president that he would put men in women's restrooms? That he would support the shutting down of free speech and the creation of "safe zones?" That he would orchestrate a change in the definition of marriage for everyone, despite clean legal channels for partners to have rights without marriage, and that he would force businesspeople to participate in and support "marriages" between two men, easily seen as the tip of the iceberg in creating all manner of other pairs/groups in "marriage?" That he would limit your choice of doctors and raise your insurance premiums?
Your perspectives are important to me.
-
There are two extremes. Anthony is at the right extreme. The truth is likely to be somewhere toward the middle, reasonably spaced from the left extreme where everything is the best it has ever been and the right extreme where our country is now a communist nation in the last stages of decline.
When people are Communists, they think that is the middle. Obama, Hillary, the Democrats, the Media, our government, and our education system think that is normal. I don't. The Democrat elite gain from it, and use the other people as useful idiots making them think they are working for "the greater good" when the opposite is true.
-
The vote fraud doesn't exist people love to ignore these types of facts because it fails to fit their agenda.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/washington-state-shooter-a-non-u.s.-citizen-voted-in-three-elections/article/2004596
-
The vote fraud doesn't exist people love to ignore these types of facts because it fails to fit their agenda.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/washington-state-shooter-a-non-u.s.-citizen-voted-in-three-elections/article/2004596
But that story can't be true. We've been told over and over again that there is no voter fraud.
-
But that story can't be true. We've been told over and over again that there is no voter fraud.
Their only measure is whether there are prosecutions for voter fraud, so if he wasn't prosecuted for voter fraud, it didn't happen.
-
Even more dead people signing up to vote.
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_e008ce00-0365-57a2-95c0-4d9aa70012f9.html
-
Even more illegal voting.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-1000-illegal-votes-cast-eight-virginia-localities/
-
Even more illegal voting.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-1000-illegal-votes-cast-eight-virginia-localities/
But, but, but . . .
The 1,046 Virginia voters may just be the tip of the iceberg, as it’s only the number found in eight Virginia localities, the report reads. The report found that the most illegal votes were cast in 2012, followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term. In both years, Obama won Virginia.
It’s a felony for non-citizens to vote in Virginia. But in Virginia, no proof of citizenship is required when voters register.
Of course, if Virginia doesn't prosecute,
then it never happened, and they can still go on claiming it doesn't exist.
-
No, it all still happened. Soros, Virginia, the ballot boxes in Ohio...
There appears to be evidence of a massive fraud. I guess it's time for Republicans to counter with their own voter fraud? I think that is the only way the left will admit that it is happening.
-
No, it all still happened. Soros, Virginia, the ballot boxes in Ohio...
There appears to be evidence of a massive fraud. I guess it's time for Republicans to counter with their own voter fraud? I think that is the only way the left will admit that it is happening.
however, the left will only see the vast right-wing conspiracy doing evil. The left is incapable of admitting their own sins.
-
Yes, well they believe they are doing it for the right reasons because they're the special ones. They're not, there are no special people in a land of equals. But they have forgotten that, never learned it or never recognized their own hypocrisy.
-
Yes, well they believe they are doing it for the right reasons because they're the special ones. They're not, there are no special people in a land of equals. But they have forgotten that, never learned it or never recognized their own hypocrisy.
To the Democrats, the ends justify the means, even it is illegal and immoral. Just like any other totalitarian regime.
-
To the Democrats, the ends justify the means, even especially when it is illegal and immoral. Just like any other totalitarian regime.
ftfy
-
Totally agree Bob. The Democrats (Communists) have made illegal, immoral acts an art form.
-
More:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/
And more:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2016/10/04/state-police-raid-indy-office-growing-voter-fraud-case/91540816/
-
And more:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/dead-people-and-illegal-immigrants-are-being-registered-to-vote-all-over-america
-
Even more:
http://fox59.com/2016/10/06/state-police-expand-indiana-voter-registration-project-investigation-to-57-counties/
-
And this:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/ice-officials-tell-trump-illegals-allowed-vote-thats-wont-deport-criminals/
-
To the democrat party the gutter is an upward direction. We've always known that and now they are proud of their corruption and lawlessness. Proud enough to have their campaign committee - the MSM - play the tune and let the low information democrats dance to whatever tune they're told to dance to.
-
Dad sent me something the other day along the lines of..."your mother was a life-long Republican. Always voted Republican, even if she wasn't that fond of the candidate because she had to support the party. Voted Republican right up until the day she died.
And has voted for Democrats ever since."
-
http://nypost.com/2016/10/11/elections-official-caught-on-video-blasting-de-blasios-id-program/
The videographer asked point-blank, “You think they should have voter ID in New York?”
Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”
-
Dad sent me something the other day along the lines of..."your mother was a life-long Republican. Always voted Republican, even if she wasn't that fond of the candidate because she had to support the party. Voted Republican right up until the day she died.
And has voted for Democrats ever since."
Memes arise from truth!
-
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.
Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
Nothing to see here. Move along.
RACIST!!!
-
This guy needs a long jail sentence:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/meet-young-virginia-democrat-registered-19-dead-people-vote-virginia (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/meet-young-virginia-democrat-registered-19-dead-people-vote-virginia)
"Meet The Young Virginia Democrat That Registered 19 Dead People To Vote In Virginia"
-
Wait, didn't our resident liberals state quite emphatically that voter fraud doesn't exist?
are you suggesting that they lied to us?
-
Wait, didn't our resident liberals state quite emphatically that voter fraud doesn't exist?
No, we didn't. Or at least I didn't. However, I did say that the type of voter fraud that voter ID protects against is very rare. If you're interested in hearing my proposed solution for the forty-thousandth time, we could rehash it. ;D
-
No, we didn't. Or at least I didn't. However, I did say that the type of voter fraud that voter ID protects against is very rare. If you're interested in hearing my proposed solution for the forty-thousandth time, we could rehash it. ;D
I suppose we could also rehash the flaws in your proposed solution for the forty-thousandth time.
At the very least it would be more entertaining and interesting than witnessing the bottomfeeders attack each other.
-
Wait, didn't our resident liberals state quite emphatically that voter fraud doesn't exist?
are you suggesting that they lied to us?
Yep. The good Dr Steingar's benchmark for proof of voter fraud is prosecutions.
So if a local District Attorney doesn't want to chase a case, then no fraud can possibly exist.
-
Yep. The good Dr Steingar's benchmark for proof of voter fraud is prosecutions.
So if a local District Attorney doesn't want to chase a case, then no fraud can possibly exist.
Isn't that exactly how the leftists look at Comey and Lynch not prosecuting Clinton?
...nothing to see here because we told you not to look...
-
People bussed from poll to poll in NY...
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-election-official-who-spoke-his-mind-on-vote-fraud/ (http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-election-official-who-spoke-his-mind-on-vote-fraud/)
-
-
There is no election fraud.
-
There is no election fraud.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
-
There is no election fraud.
"There IS no improper relationship"
Bill Clinton, on the meaning of IS.
-
the type of voter fraud that voter ID protects against is very rare.
Well, since it isn't checked against, you cannot prove when voter impersonation fraud happens.
The kind of fraud that I believe is going on is a combination of fraudulent registration using an assumed name followed by using that registration to vote. It looks just like a legitimate voter. How would someone ever be caught under this combination?
We know voter registration fraud happens, ACORN was caught at it. Hundreds of bogus names like Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mouse were struck from Florida's voter roles. Now if you've taken the risk to commit registration fraud, what is the purpose except to then use that registration to vote with?
Voter ID will catch exactly this kind of fraud. Or prove that it does not exist.
-
We know voter registration fraud happens, ACORN was caught at it. Hundreds of bogus names like Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mouse were struck from Florida's voter roles. Now if you've taken the risk to commit registration fraud, what is the purpose except to then use that registration to vote with?
As I recall, ACORN had quotas and offered bonuses based on number of registrations. That was the impetus in that case at least.