Post by: Lucifer on August 02, 2016, 06:34:28 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 03, 2016, 02:19:31 AM
Post by: Anthony on August 03, 2016, 04:54:39 AM
but the liberals insist that there is no massive voter fraud!
Why are the Democrats so afraid of voter I.D.?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 03, 2016, 05:03:14 AM
Why are the Democrats so afraid of voter I.D.?
excellent question... especially since the democrats don't care about honesty and integrity.
Post by: Anthony on August 03, 2016, 05:07:49 AM
excellent question... especially since the democrats don't care about honesty and integrity.
States will give FREE I.D. yet the Democrats don't want it. So, one must think that the Democrats want voter fraud to steal elections.
Post by: asechrest on August 03, 2016, 05:56:37 AM
This is called voter impersonation fraud. It is a slow, stupid way to attempt to steal an election. In fact, it's probably not useful for appreciably affecting any election. It is also easily detected, making it dangerous for the fraudster. This is why the number of cases of voter impersonation fraud tracked since 2000 is in the double digits nationwide, among over 1 billion votes cast. There is far more potential for fraud in other areas that voter ID will not affect.
The reason Democrats don't like voter ID is because the type of fraud it prevents is statistically non-existent and there is a perception that it will disenfranchise some number of voters who reliably vote Democrat. That perception is backed up by the fact that there is a certain portion of the population that has no photo ID at all. The GOP assertion that Democrats don't want it so we can fraudulently win elections is bullshit, since it's so difficult to fraudulently win elections by voter impersonation fraud.
So, again, if voter ID is so important to the right, maybe figure out how to articulate why it is needed, and come up with some proposals that would be a bi-partisan compromise.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 03, 2016, 06:20:54 AM
This is called voter impersonation fraud. It is a slow, stupid way to attempt to steal an election. In fact, it's probably not useful for appreciably affecting any election. It is also easily detected, making it dangerous for the fraudster. This is why the number of cases of voter impersonation fraud tracked since 2000 is in the double digits nationwide, among over 1 billion votes cast. There is far more potential for fraud in other areas that voter ID will not affect.
The reason Democrats don't like voter ID is because the type of fraud it prevents is statistically non-existent and there is a perception that it will disenfranchise some number of voters who reliably vote Democrat. That perception is backed up by the fact that there is a certain portion of the population that has no photo ID at all. The GOP assertion that Democrats don't want it so we can fraudulently win elections is bullshit, since it's so difficult to fraudulently win elections by voter impersonation fraud.
So, again, if voter ID is so important to the right, maybe figure out how to articulate why it is needed, and come up with some proposals that would be a bi-partisan compromise.
your claims of no fraud is complete BS. No one can claim no fraud when there isn't any means in place to detect the fraud.
otoh - if someone wants to assure massive fraud, make sure we automate voter registration, voting, and vote counting. With software, what could possibly go wrong?
Post by: asechrest on August 03, 2016, 07:00:50 AM
your claims of no fraud is complete BS. No one can claim no fraud when there isn't any means in place to detect the fraud.
Voter impersonation fraud is easily detected, especially if the attempt is coordinated in a way that would make a difference. You're wrong.
otoh - if someone wants to assure massive fraud, make sure we automate voter registration, voting, and vote counting. With software, what could possibly go wrong?
You're whining. We need a modern, opt-out voter registration system. It can be done, because it is being done.
Post by: nddons on August 03, 2016, 07:19:29 AM
This is called voter impersonation fraud. It is a slow, stupid way to attempt to steal an election. In fact, it's probably not useful for appreciably affecting any election. It is also easily detected, making it dangerous for the fraudster. This is why the number of cases of voter impersonation fraud tracked since 2000 is in the double digits nationwide, among over 1 billion votes cast. There is far more potential for fraud in other areas that voter ID will not affect.Your fallacy, and that of democrats, is that if voter fraud isn't prosecuted and punished, it doesn't exist. But those videos point out that once the person leaves the voting booth after casting his ballot, he is 100% anonymous. What are they going to do, track down his false name or go to his false address?
The reason Democrats don't like voter ID is because the type of fraud it prevents is statistically non-existent and there is a perception that it will disenfranchise some number of voters who reliably vote Democrat. That perception is backed up by the fact that there is a certain portion of the population that has no photo ID at all. The GOP assertion that Democrats don't want it so we can fraudulently win elections is bullshit, since it's so difficult to fraudulently win elections by voter impersonation fraud.
So, again, if voter ID is so important to the right, maybe figure out how to articulate why it is needed, and come up with some proposals that would be a bi-partisan compromise.
But you want bipartisan? How about the 2005 recommendation for voter ID from the Federal Election Reform Commission, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker?
"Critics of requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls say the practice would disenfranchise minority voters, and some even accuse proponents of being motivated by racism. They don’t mention, however, that a 21-member bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, advocated just such a policy in 2005.
"The commission, also co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, called voter identification one of “five pillars” that would “build confidence” in the integrity of federal elections. Only three of the 21 commission members voted against requiring photo identification of voters."
https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/federal-election-reform-commission-advocated-voter-photo-id/
So what's changed since then? Why was it right 11 years ago, and wrong today?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 03, 2016, 07:49:33 AM
Voter impersonation fraud is easily detected, especially if the attempt is coordinated in a way that would make a difference. You're wrong.
You're whining. We need a modern, opt-out voter registration system. It can be done, because it is being done.
No one is looking for voter fraud and there are no means in place to prevent voter fraud. Therefore your claim that it doesn't exist is, in fact, without foundation.
wrt software: I have to assume you know exactly richard about the challenges of making software work correctly without vulnerabilities. This makes you perfectly qualified to operate servers in the corrupt doormat's regmine.
Post by: asechrest on August 03, 2016, 09:07:18 AM
No one is looking for voter fraud and there are no means in place to prevent voter fraud. Therefore your claim that it doesn't exist is, in fact, without foundation.
Proof by repeated assertion, eh? The fraud in question is voter impersonation. It's the primary type of fraud that the typical voter ID law is designed to protect against. And it is, in fact, easily caught on any sort of scale that makes it meaningful. This is because it involves impersonation of actual individuals on the voter rolls, and when one of said individuals attempt to vote, the record shows they already voted, thus exposing the issue. It's a terrible way to try to steal an election, and requires knowledge of who you're impersonating, among other things. In my state of Florida, your impersonation attempt would force you to vote on provisional ballot, and your signature would be compared to the one on file. When it didn't match, your ballot would be thrown out. Unless you managed to practice the voter's signature. And by that point, if you think it's happening on any type of scale at all, then pigs are also flying out of my ass.
So yes, despite your assertion to the contrary, the current system is set up to guard against voter impersonation. It doesn't 100% protect against it, but then again, neither does a voter ID law. So we're back the part where you're unable to articulate the problem that voter ID solves.
wrt software: I have to assume you know exactly richard about the challenges of making software work correctly without vulnerabilities. This makes you perfectly qualified to operate servers in the corrupt doormat's regmine.
Perhaps you should not make so many assumptions, then? Anyway, you're the only one here suggesting an opt-out voter registration system would be 100% automated and software driven, without checks and balances.
Post by: Mase on August 03, 2016, 09:33:00 AM
A hundred "activists" doing so can swing an election.
This fraud gets even more interesting when it is done by absentee ballot.
Post by: Steingar on August 03, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Post by: asechrest on August 03, 2016, 12:09:06 PM
"Voter impersonation" can be used in conjunction with fake voter registration. One person registers a dozen times as different fake people, and then goes a dozen times to the polls, with no ID.
A hundred "activists" doing so can swing an election.
This is not feasible. You'd have to recruit a hundred voters to be in on the scheme, with fake names and real addresses (so they could get a voter registration card, and remember, PO Boxes or non-residential addresses are not allowed), and each at risk of thousands of dollars in fines and prison time if caught. The state typically cross-references voter registration forms with name and address databases, and strange ones or ones without a hit will get flagged for further follow-up. Address duplicates can also raise a red flag. If they do manage to get registered, showing up a dozen times at the polls is not likely to go unnoticed. But I guess you could pay the recruits large sums of money to take the risk, try to register the fake names in separate districts, have the fake voters wear costumes, and then hope like hell that no one notices or finds out.
Plus, the real problem with this scenario is voter registration fraud, not voter impersonation fraud, and voter ID laws do not prevent this. Indeed, the fraud could still be perpetrated with voter ID laws in place by creating a fake ID matching the fake voter name. (Interestingly, one of the best ways to handle voter registration fraud is by, well, handling voter registration automatically.)
This fraud gets even more interesting when it is done by absentee ballot.
Voter ID laws do nothing to fix this.
Post by: Number7 on August 03, 2016, 01:06:49 PM
Who is the real racist?
Post by: asechrest on August 03, 2016, 01:31:31 PM
The only pertinent question is why do progressives and liberals ALWAYS equate voter ID with racism when they demand every attendee at their own meetings show proof of identity to attend?
Who is the real racist?
No, that is not the only pertinent question. But good effort little buddy!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 03, 2016, 05:56:11 PM
Proof by repeated assertion, eh?
yep. the liberals keep claiming no fraud no fraud no fraud and never ever address the fact that no one is looking for it
(can't because there is no validation of eligibility)
Post by: bflynn on August 04, 2016, 03:53:48 AM
Voter impersonation fraud is easily detected, especially if the attempt is coordinated in a way that would make a difference. You're wrong.
How is it detectable? If I register myself at 1000 addresses around North Carolina and 1000 other people do the same thing, how will you find us? We now control a million votes and all we have to do is spend the early voting periods driving from early voting spot to early voting spot, fill out absentee ballotts, then drive from precinct to precinct on election day to vote. Can I hit 1000? Only 500? An organized group can certainly impact an election. And it is undetectable.
Post by: bflynn on August 04, 2016, 03:58:24 AM
The reason Democrats don't like voter ID is because the type of fraud it prevents is statistically non-existent and there is a perception that it will disenfranchise some number of voters who reliably vote Democrat. That perception is backed up by the fact that there is a certain portion of the population that has no photo ID at all. The GOP assertion that Democrats don't want it so we can fraudulently win elections is bullshit, since it's so difficult to fraudulently win elections by voter impersonation fraud.
But that perception ought to be nullified by the fact that states use voter ID and have experienced NO instances of anyone being prevented from voting. Zero. No one. Not a single person who wanted to vote was ever prevented from it.
Perhaps if you spent less time thinking of why GOP stuff is bullshit and just a few seconds trying to understand the concern of the integrity of the election process, you might gain something beyond more contempt for your opponent.
Post by: Number7 on August 04, 2016, 05:08:04 AM
No, that is not the only pertinent question. But good effort little buddy!You are pathetically narrow minded in your haste to pretend a lie.
Post by: asechrest on August 04, 2016, 06:54:24 AM
How is it detectable? If I register myself at 1000 addresses around North Carolina and 1000 other people do the same thing, how will you find us? We now control a million votes and all we have to do is spend the early voting periods driving from early voting spot to early voting spot, fill out absentee ballotts, then drive from precinct to precinct on election day to vote. Can I hit 1000? Only 500? An organized group can certainly impact an election. And it is undetectable.
But that perception ought to be nullified by the fact that states use voter ID and have experienced NO instances of anyone being prevented from voting. Zero. No one. Not a single person who wanted to vote was ever prevented from it.
Perhaps if you spent less time thinking of why GOP stuff is bullshit and just a few seconds trying to understand the concern of the integrity of the election process, you might gain something beyond more contempt for your opponent.
Perhaps if you spent less time typing and more time reading, you'd better understand a few things:
- What you've outlined above is voter registration and absentee ballot fraud, not voter impersonation fraud.
- You've actually identified one of the areas of greatest concern for fraud in our current system -- absentee ballot fraud.
- Unfortunately, voter ID as it currently exists and as usually proposed does nothing to prevent this, further bolstering the Democrat position that the GOP's obsession with these laws has ulterior motives.
- You are wrong about states having experienced no instances of voter ID preventing people from voting, and you ignore the possibility of depressed turnout (see GAO study) and the effects of voter ID issues increasing provisional ballots for legitimate voters (provisional ballots are less likely to be counted).
- I understand the concern over integrity of the election process, which is why I'm the only one here offering a solution that would help solve many of our fraud issues while also having the potential of being bipartisan and modernizing our election system. It certainly fixes the issue you've stated here, so you're welcome to get on board!
Post by: asechrest on August 04, 2016, 07:35:14 AM
You are pathetically narrow minded in your haste to pretend a lie.
Is "pretend a lie" a double negative?
Post by: bflynn on August 04, 2016, 09:50:26 AM
- Unfortunately, voter ID as it currently exists and as usually proposed does nothing to prevent this, further bolstering the Democrat position that the GOP's obsession with these laws has ulterior motives.
- You are wrong about states having experienced no instances of voter ID preventing people from voting, and you ignore the possibility of depressed turnout (see GAO study) and the effects of voter ID issues increasing provisional ballots for legitimate voters (provisional ballots are less likely to be counted).
- I understand the concern over integrity of the election process, which is why I'm the only one here offering a solution that would help solve many of our fraud issues while also having the potential of being bipartisan and modernizing our election system. It certainly fixes the issue you've stated here, so you're welcome to get on board!
In NC - Voter ID does a great deal to prevent fraud because it requires a person to present themselves to get an ID and doing that fraudulently is a crime itself. You have to have your picture taken and stored in a database. They're not doing it yet, but it's possible to compare every picture with every other picture using facial recognition software and find people who are alike.
Without voter ID, you just have a name on a piece of paper and that name can belong to anyone. Fraud is completely undetectable.
Who are the people that were denied the ability to vote? Names, nobody ever gives names. Why were they denied the ability to vote? Was it because they had the energy to get out and register to vote but not the energy to also get an ID card? In NC you do both at the same time - when you get an ID card, you are registered to vote.
If you think I'm interested in voter ID in order to suppress black voters then show me anything I've ever written that would support your belief - trust me, the idea comes from you. I have far better things to do than sit around and scheme about how to keep people from voting. The evil Right Wing Conspiracy doesn't exist, we don't care enough to organize it.
I'm not sold on your solution. How does an opt-out system reduce voter fraud without also preventing people from voting? How are you going to opt everyone in and how will you know that the people you opt in are legitimate voters? How will it be any different than the voter rolls today?
Post by: nddons on August 04, 2016, 01:36:55 PM
Proof by repeated assertion, eh? The fraud in question is voter impersonation. It's the primary type of fraud that the typical voter ID law is designed to protect against. And it is, in fact, easily caught on any sort of scale that makes it meaningful. This is because it involves impersonation of actual individuals on the voter rolls, and when one of said individuals attempt to vote, the record shows they already voted, thus exposing the issue. It's a terrible way to try to steal an election, and requires knowledge of who you're impersonating, among other things. In my state of Florida, your impersonation attempt would force you to vote on provisional ballot, and your signature would be compared to the one on file. When it didn't match, your ballot would be thrown out. Unless you managed to practice the voter's signature. And by that point, if you think it's happening on any type of scale at all, then pigs are also flying out of my ass.You shouldn't project your experience with Florida's voter laws to the rest of the country.
So yes, despite your assertion to the contrary, the current system is set up to guard against voter impersonation. It doesn't 100% protect against it, but then again, neither does a voter ID law. So we're back the part where you're unable to articulate the problem that voter ID solves.
Perhaps you should not make so many assumptions, then? Anyway, you're the only one here suggesting an opt-out voter registration system would be 100% automated and software driven, without checks and balances.
Because voting records are public records, Wisconsin law allows you to request and download voter registration and PARTICIPATION rolls.
http://www.gab.wi.gov/clerks/svrs/voter-data
In previous elections, it is widely believed that such lists, which includes voter registration information and the fact that Sally Wolkowski of 123 Fake Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin, hasn't voted since 1996, were used to commit voter fraud in certain southern Wisconsin counties.
So Jane Sixpack from The Chicago Teachers Union "somehow" got this list when she was on a bus with other union members enroute to a Christmas shopping trip to Kenosha on a Tuesday morning in November. Jane memorizes Sally Wolkowski's name and address, and ironically the bus driver stops the bus, with Illinois plates, behind the polling station so the ladies can take a pee.
Jane casually walks up to the M-Z line, states "her" name and address, votes, and then gets back on the bus. Unfortunately, the shopping destination in Kenosha is closed, so the bus returns to Chicago so the teachers union members can Christmas shop on the "Magnificent Mile."
That's how voter fraud happens.
Post by: JeffDG on August 04, 2016, 02:12:13 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/undercover-video-exposes-eye-popping-ease-of-voter-fraud/ (http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/undercover-video-exposes-eye-popping-ease-of-voter-fraud/)You realize that quoting large sections of text from publications, without offering any comment, is a violation of copyright.
Fair use permits copying material for the purpose of comment or criticism. You simply copying content without adding anything is a clear violation of Title 17, USC.
Post by: MarkZ on August 04, 2016, 05:39:51 PM
Who? None other than master "journalist" Mr. James O'Keefe.
Post by: Gary on August 04, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
You shouldn't project your experience with Florida's voter laws to the rest of the country.
Because voting records are public records, Wisconsin law allows you to request and download voter registration and PARTICIPATION rolls.
http://www.gab.wi.gov/clerks/svrs/voter-data
In previous elections, it is widely believed that such lists, which includes voter registration information and the fact that Sally Wolkowski of 123 Fake Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin, hasn't voted since 1996, were used to commit voter fraud in certain southern Wisconsin counties.
So Jane Sixpack from The Chicago Teachers Union "somehow" got this list when she was on a bus with other union members enroute to a Christmas shopping trip to Kenosha on a Tuesday morning in November. Jane memorizes Sally Wolkowski's name and address, and ironically the bus driver stops the bus, with Illinois plates, behind the polling station so the ladies can take a pee.
Jane casually walks up to the M-Z line, states "her" name and address, votes, and then gets back on the bus. Unfortunately, the shopping destination in Kenosha is closed, so the bus returns to Chicago so the teachers union members can Christmas shop on the "Magnificent Mile."
That's how voter fraud happens.
I remember your work concerning organization of the voting rolls - kudos to you for actually doing something!! Wish more people got involved in their local governmental affairs.
Do have a question, you used the words "widely believed" to start the discussion of how voter fraud occurred. Was this actually proven? Would think that if this type of fraud was so prevalent and blatant, the losers of the elections would be in court the next day with a slam dunk case to overturn the election.
Don't disagree that fraud could happen in this manner, just wondering if it actually did.
Post by: nddons on August 04, 2016, 09:14:23 PM
I remember your work concerning organization of the voting rolls - kudos to you for actually doing something!! Wish more people got involved in their local governmental affairs.
Do have a question, you used the words "widely believed" to start the discussion of how voter fraud occurred. Was this actually proven? Would think that if this type of fraud was so prevalent and blatant, the losers of the elections would be in court the next day with a slam dunk case to overturn the election.
Don't disagree that fraud could happen in this manner, just wondering if it actually did.
I tried to demonstrate how it's very difficult to prove, and I can't take the time to search past elections, but this article starts to scratch the surface.
"Bernier, who chairs the Assembly’s Committee on Campaigns and Elections and served as Chippewa County Clerk from 1999 to 2011, is concerned about the anonymity maintained by those convicted of election fraud. And she sees fundamental problems with the lack of checks and balances between Wisconsin and its border states, making it easier, Bernier says, for out-of-state voters to illegally vote in Wisconsin elections.
"But perhaps the state’s biggest elections weakness, the representative asserts, is the inability to believe voters could game the system. Because prosecution of election fraud falls on the shoulders of county district attorneys already strapped for resources, Bernier said such cases are rarely investigated, and hardly ever prosecuted. D.A.’s also must consider the high threshold of proving election fraud, weighing against the demands of other higher profile cases."
http://watchdog.org/112022/voterfraud-milwaukee-voterid/
Post by: asechrest on August 05, 2016, 07:33:07 AM
You shouldn't project your experience with Florida's voter laws to the rest of the country.
Because voting records are public records, Wisconsin law allows you to request and download voter registration and PARTICIPATION rolls.
http://www.gab.wi.gov/clerks/svrs/voter-data
In previous elections, it is widely believed that such lists, which includes voter registration information and the fact that Sally Wolkowski of 123 Fake Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin, hasn't voted since 1996, were used to commit voter fraud in certain southern Wisconsin counties.
So Jane Sixpack from The Chicago Teachers Union "somehow" got this list when she was on a bus with other union members enroute to a Christmas shopping trip to Kenosha on a Tuesday morning in November. Jane memorizes Sally Wolkowski's name and address, and ironically the bus driver stops the bus, with Illinois plates, behind the polling station so the ladies can take a pee.
Jane casually walks up to the M-Z line, states "her" name and address, votes, and then gets back on the bus. Unfortunately, the shopping destination in Kenosha is closed, so the bus returns to Chicago so the teachers union members can Christmas shop on the "Magnificent Mile."
That's how voter fraud happens.
Voter participation data being public is not unique. Voter information, including when you voted, is public data in Florida. Anyway, let's run through a couple of things. The allegation that a busload of union members came to Wisconsin to vote illegally was based on an anonymous radio call-in and was widely discredited, including by law enforcement. Since you're a Wisconsinite, you'll probably correct me if my memory is mistaken. Also, keep in mind that voter participation data is not real-time. There is no way to ascertain whether Sally Wolkowski, despite having not voted since 1996 according to the records, has voted or will vote in the current election for which you are trying to commit fraud. The consequences of getting caught are severe. It would be much more safe to use our shitty voter rolls to impersonate a recently-dead voter. More on that later.
The State of Wisconsin had a prime opportunity to investigate and prove or bring forth evidence of widespread voter impersonation fraud in Frank v. Walker (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1063530969059077396&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), wherein they were charged with justifying the state's voter ID law. Keep in mind that preventing voter impersonation fraud was -- literally -- justification number 1 for the State's implementation of the law. Tellingly, the State was unable to identify even a single case of this type of fraud. Not a single one. Further, they could not substantiate an assertion that in-person voter impersonation is difficult to detect, nor could they substantiate that fraud laws are underenforced.
The decision also suggests methodology that could be used to uncover the fraud -- comparing voter participation data with deceased persons data to see if anyone was impersonating recently-deceased voters. This methodology was suggested by the State's own expert witness from the University of Georgia, who used similar methodology in GA and found no evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud. Similarly the State could use voter participation data along with a survey of a subset of the voters, to see whether any amount of those voters were surprised to learn the data showed they had voted when they actually hadn't, thus uncovering impersonation fraud. Again, tellingly, the State could provide absolutely no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is occurring, thus fundamentally failing to substantiate the supposed number one stated reason for the voter ID law.
So in review, as I've been saying, there is no evidence of statistically meaningful in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the type of fraud that voter ID protects against. The reason there is no evidence is because it is not happening in a meaningful way. And as Judge Adelman remarks:
Quote
As the plaintiffs' unrebutted evidence shows, a person would have to be insane to commit voter-impersonation fraud. The potential costs of perpetrating the fraud, which include a $10,000 fine and three years of imprisonment, are extremely high in comparison to the potential benefits, which would be nothing more than one additional vote for a preferred candidate (or one fewer vote for an opposing candidate), a vote which is unlikely to change the election's outcome. Tr. 1017-19, 1342. Adding to the cost is the fact that, contrary to the defendants' rhetoric, voter-impersonation fraud is not "easy" to commit. To commit voter-impersonation fraud, a person would need to know the name of another person who is registered at a particular polling place, know the address of that person, know that the person has not yet voted, and also know that no one at the polls will realize that the impersonator is not the individual being impersonated. Tr. 1341. The defendants offered no evidence at trial to support the notion that it is easy to obtain this knowledge. Thus, given that a person would have to be insane to commit voter-impersonation fraud, Act 23 cannot be deemed a reasonable response to a potential problem.[
Post by: Gary on August 05, 2016, 08:09:12 AM
The State of Wisconsin had a prime opportunity to investigate and prove or bring forth evidence of widespread voter impersonation fraud in Frank v. Walker (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1063530969059077396&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), wherein they were charged with justifying the state's voter ID law. Keep in mind that preventing voter impersonation fraud was -- literally -- justification number 1 for the State's implementation of the law. Tellingly, the State was unable to identify even a single case of this type of fraud. Not a single one. Further, they could not substantiate an assertion that in-person voter impersonation is difficult to detect, nor could they substantiate that fraud laws are underenforced.
The Frank vs. Walker case was certainly an interesting read! To me, voting is a very important part of the process and should be as easy as possible. Since actual cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, I'm still grasping why an additional layer of bureaucracy needs to be imposed on a system that currently exists. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 08:19:16 AM
The Frank vs. Walker case was certainly an interesting read! To me, voting is a very important part of the process and should be as easy as possible. Since actual cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare, I'm still grasping why an additional layer of bureaucracy needs to be imposed on a system that currently exists. Why fix something that isn't broken?
you can't know that fraud exists if there is no effort to validate eligibility. Therefore your claim that fraud is exceedingly rare is without foundation.
Post by: asechrest on August 05, 2016, 08:53:15 AM
you can't know that fraud exists if there is no effort to validate eligibility. Therefore your claim that fraud is exceedingly rare is without foundation.
You keep saying this and it is not true. In addition to in-built validation, people have looked for fraud. In fact, I just got finished writing about one of them (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2165/), which examined over 2 million votes in Georgia in order to look for evidence of impersonation of deceased voters. No evidence was found. It is not the only study that has been done.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 08:58:02 AM
You keep saying this and it is not true. In addition to in-built validation, people have looked for fraud. In fact, I just got finished writing about one of them (http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2165/), which examined over 2 million votes in Georgia in order to look for evidence of impersonation of deceased voters. No evidence was found. It is not the only study that has been done.
tell me how fraud can be detected.
tell me how voter eligibility is validated.
go ahead.
of course, there is also the fallacy of thinking you don't need any validation of eligibility because you think there is no voter fraud. Integrity of the process? bah! but of course, lack of integrity is not an issue of concern for the liberal.
Post by: asechrest on August 05, 2016, 09:01:57 AM
tell me how fraud can be detected.
tell me how voter eligibility is validated.
go ahead.
No. Let's focus on what I just posted, which is a methodology (and results) for detecting impersonation fraud. Now, you tell me why you believe that Georgia study is worthless.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 05, 2016, 09:06:19 AM
No. Let's focus on what I just posted, which is a methodology for detecting impersonation fraud. Now, you tell me why you believe that Georgia study is worthless.
big deal, a methodology for detecting one kind of fraud. Is it used anywhere? anywhere at all? What about other types of fraud?
But, if you can't/won't defend your assertion that fraud doesn't exist, well, that is perfectly understandable.
Post by: acrogimp on August 05, 2016, 09:06:26 AM
Basic terminology, logic, math and other foundational elements of communication are apparently so far out of phase to the point that actual communication is not possible.
It's kind of sad really.
'Gimp
Post by: Gary on August 05, 2016, 09:16:18 AM
This thread and a few others have convinced me that we truly have become two separate nations that are no longer compatible.
Basic terminology, logic, math and other foundational elements of communication are apparently so far out of phase to the point that actual communication is not possible.
It's kind of sad really.
'Gimp
I agree!!
Post by: asechrest on August 05, 2016, 09:19:32 AM
big deal, a methodology for detecting one kind of fraud. Is it used anywhere? anywhere at all? What about other types of fraud?
But, if you can't/won't defend your assertion that fraud doesn't exist, well, that is perfectly understandable.
If you're not going to read the things I post, just don't bother wasting my time with responses. If you had bothered to read my posts or click through my links, you'd see that the methodology was used to study millions of votes in GA and it uncovered no fraud of the type it is designed to detect. My focus is on voter impersonation fraud because A) that's what the OP is about and B) that's what the typical voter ID law supposedly protects against. That continues to be my focus in this thread.
Now, I ask again. Why do you believe that GA study is worthless? If I take the time to post other studies that I know of, do you intend to read them?
Post by: asechrest on August 05, 2016, 11:56:06 AM
This thread and a few others have convinced me that we truly have become two separate nations that are no longer compatible.
Basic terminology, logic, math and other foundational elements of communication are apparently so far out of phase to the point that actual communication is not possible.
It's kind of sad really.
'Gimp
I beg to differ. This entire thread is communication. I'm especially appreciative of Stan's responses, which have come complete with links to support his position. I don't happen to agree with him vis a vis in-person voter impersonation fraud, and I have attempted to provide my own data to support my competing argument.
Post by: Steingar on August 05, 2016, 01:08:53 PM
Post by: Gary on August 05, 2016, 03:14:19 PM
you can't know that fraud exists if there is no effort to validate eligibility.
Can you clarify what that means? Are you saying there is no data, one way or the other, that voter fraud is a major problem? I believe every state has a procedure to pass muster to vote - are they all meaningless?
If you want to discuss the existing processes of maintaining and updating the rolls themselves, yep, that does need improvement.
Therefore your claim that fraud is exceedingly rare is without foundation.
I'd be happy to consider any data you have that shows voter fraud is a common occurrence. Asecrest linked to a number of studies that specifically looked for fraud, they found very little. Seems as though the overwhelming number of voters are pretty honest when they go to the polls.
Post by: bflynn on August 05, 2016, 03:44:18 PM
as I've been saying, there is no evidence of statistically meaningful in-person voter impersonation fraud, which is the type of fraud that voter ID protects against.
Voter ID protects against more than voter impersonation fraud. The idea that it targets only impersonation is a silly little canard of yours. I would agree that there is virtually no voter impersonation fraud.
Unknown is how much voter registration fraud there is. We know that ACORN performed a lot of it. If ACORN had been required to show up in front of a law enforcement officer, present fraudulent documents such as a forged birth certificate and risk going to jail just to get an ID then the risk/reward on registration fraud becomes as high as impersonation fraud. Without voter ID, the chances of getting detected or catching registration fraud are virtually nil.
Post by: bflynn on August 05, 2016, 03:48:05 PM
I'm the only one here offering a solution that would help solve many of our fraud issues while also having the potential of being bipartisan and modernizing our election system. It certainly fixes the issue you've stated here, so you're welcome to get on board!
I'm not sold on your solution. How does an opt-out system reduce voter fraud without also preventing people from voting? How are you going to opt everyone in and how will you know that the people you opt in are legitimate voters? How will it be any different than the voter rolls today?
Have you given up on trying to promote your opt-out solution? I'm not sold on it, so convince me.
Why do you believe you are the only one proposing a solution which eliminates fraud? Voter ID is also a solution - it addresses the miniscule amount of impersonation fraud as well as the larger and much more difficult to detect registration fraud.
Post by: nddons on August 05, 2016, 08:46:09 PM
I beg to differ. This entire thread is communication. I'm especially appreciative of Stan's responses, which have come complete with links to support his position. I don't happen to agree with him vis a vis in-person voter impersonation fraud, and I have attempted to provide my own data to support my competing argument.Thank you. 👍
Post by: nddons on August 05, 2016, 08:49:58 PM
This is an utterly hilarious line of reasoning. You can't know if voting fraud occurs because its undetectable, therefore we must have all these laws to protect ourselves against it. The only way it could be sillier is if I substituted the noun "leprechauns" for "voting fraud". Of course, breathtaking quantities of money are surrendered to houses of organized religion on nearly the same premise and reasoning.
Using your line of reasoning, there are only two illegal aliens in the US. Why? Because you saw them speak at the DNC convention. But there are 11 million illegal aliens, some say? Well, that can't be. If that were true, they would be arrested, charged, and sentenced. Since that rarely happens, the only logical answer is that there are only two illegal aliens in the US.
Post by: nddons on August 05, 2016, 08:52:08 PM
Can you clarify what that means? Are you saying there is no data, one way or the other, that voter fraud is a major problem? I believe every state has a procedure to pass muster to vote - are they all meaningless?
If you want to discuss the existing processes of maintaining and updating the rolls themselves, yep, that does need improvement.
I'd be happy to consider any data you have that shows voter fraud is a common occurrence. Asecrest linked to a number of studies that specifically looked for fraud, they found very little. Seems as though the overwhelming number of voters are pretty honest when they go to the polls.
Pass muster? Before voter ID in Wisconsin, the "muster" you needed to pass was simply knowing someone's name, and address. Period, end of story.
Post by: WildEye on August 07, 2016, 03:39:47 PM
This is not feasible. You'd have to recruit a hundred voters to be in on the scheme, with fake names and real addresses (so they could get a voter registration card, and remember, PO Boxes or non-residential addresses are not allowed), and each at risk of thousands of dollars in fines and prison time if caught. The state typically cross-references voter registration forms with name and address databases, and strange ones or ones without a hit will get flagged for further follow-up. Address duplicates can also raise a red flag. If they do manage to get registered, showing up a dozen times at the polls is not likely to go unnoticed. But I guess you could pay the recruits large sums of money to take the risk, try to register the fake names in separate districts, have the fake voters wear costumes, and then hope like hell that no one notices or finds out.
Plus, the real problem with this scenario is voter registration fraud, not voter impersonation fraud, and voter ID laws do not prevent this. Indeed, the fraud could still be perpetrated with voter ID laws in place by creating a fake ID matching the fake voter name. (Interestingly, one of the best ways to handle voter registration fraud is by, well, handling voter registration automatically.)
Voter ID laws do nothing to fix this.
There is an easy solution - the US made the people of Afghanistan do - dip they finger in ink when they vote..... its even called "Election ink" FGS.
One person - one vote.
Post by: bflynn on August 07, 2016, 04:16:30 PM
This is not feasible. You'd have to recruit a hundred voters to be in on the scheme, with fake names and real addresses (so they could get a voter registration card, and remember, PO Boxes or non-residential addresses are not allowed), and each at risk of thousands of dollars in fines and prison time if caught. The state typically cross-references voter registration forms with name and address databases, and strange ones or ones without a hit will get flagged for further follow-up. Address duplicates can also raise a red flag. If they do manage to get registered, showing up a dozen times at the polls is not likely to go unnoticed. But I guess you could pay the recruits large sums of money to take the risk, try to register the fake names in separate districts, have the fake voters wear costumes, and then hope like hell that no one notices or finds out.
Plus, the real problem with this scenario is voter registration fraud, not voter impersonation fraud, and voter ID laws do not prevent this. Indeed, the fraud could still be perpetrated with voter ID laws in place by creating a fake ID matching the fake voter name. (Interestingly, one of the best ways to handle voter registration fraud is by, well, handling voter registration automatically.)
You assign far more effort to states than they actually put forth. I am aware of no state that does much more than deregistering people upon death. They certainly do not anaylze voter registration rolls for "strange names" or even try to match names against any list, probably because any such matching would be deemed racist. What name is strange?
There are private organizations which attempt to anaylze these things. I have done some of my own analysis, finding some duplicate registrations: for example, Rachel B Jones and R Brenda Jones, same age at the same address. Or are they twin sisters? I have found records which have a lot of people registered to the same street address, but how many become suspicious? I have found a lot of addresses that I cannot tie to a record in the county's tax database, but what does that show? I have found a few addresses that I cannot physicaly find when I drive down the street - 1211, 1215, 1219...but no 1217. Is that fraudulent?
How is fradulent registration detected after the fact? Maybe ID required for registration is the answer?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on August 07, 2016, 05:17:45 PM
There is an easy solution - the US made the people of Afghanistan do - dip they finger in ink when they vote..... its even called "Election ink" FGS.
One person - one vote.
Even the illegals I suppose. ;)
Sorry, I meant undocumented Democrats. ::)
Post by: Steingar on August 08, 2016, 07:45:02 AM
Using your line of reasoning, there are only two illegal aliens in the US. Why? Because you saw them speak at the DNC convention. But there are 11 million illegal aliens, some say? Well, that can't be. If that were true, they would be arrested, charged, and sentenced. Since that rarely happens, the only logical answer is that there are only two illegal aliens in the US.
No one has said that illegal immigrants are invisible, and can't be detected. That is a property ascribed only to identity based voter fraud.
Post by: asechrest on August 08, 2016, 08:20:01 AM
Have you given up on trying to promote your opt-out solution? I'm not sold on it, so convince me.
Why do you believe you are the only one proposing a solution which eliminates fraud? Voter ID is also a solution - it addresses the miniscule amount of impersonation fraud as well as the larger and much more difficult to detect registration fraud.
I am the only one here proposing a solution that protects against fraud and could be bi-partisan. The idea is an automatic, opt-out style system, of some similarity to those systems used in most other mature republics/democracies. No longer is it up to the voter to register. They are registered automatically, if/when eligible. Information sharing is key. Voter rolls are kept much more current.
Interestingly, a number of states have already implemented automatic voter registration.
Post by: nddons on August 08, 2016, 03:11:35 PM
I am the only one here proposing a solution that protects against fraud and could be bi-partisan. The idea is an automatic, opt-out style system, of some similarity to those systems used in most other mature republics/democracies. No longer is it up to the voter to register. They are registered automatically, if/when eligible. Information sharing is key. Voter rolls are kept much more current.And you're the one here who has ignored everything I've said about it, including the lack of proof of residency after this "automatic" registration takes place.
Interestingly, a number of states have already implemented automatic voter registration.
Post by: asechrest on August 08, 2016, 08:18:54 PM
And you're the one here who has ignored everything I've said about it, including the lack of proof of residency after this "automatic" registration takes place.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean.
Post by: JeffDG on August 08, 2016, 08:20:26 PM
And you're the one here who has ignored everything I've said about it, including the lack of proof of residency after this "automatic" registration takes place.Canada does it pretty simply: Revenue Canada has a checkbox on your tax return every year that says "Do you give Revenue Canada permission to share your address information with Elections Canada for inclusion on the National Register of Voters"
Every year you update your address.
Post by: pilot_dude on August 09, 2016, 05:50:39 AM
Canada does it pretty simply: Revenue Canada has a checkbox on your tax return every year that says "Do you give Revenue Canada permission to share your address information with Elections Canada for inclusion on the National Register of Voters"How does that work for college students who reside, part time, in a different province than their parents when said child does not have income to report? Does the student vote in the province in which they attend university? Absentee ballot (if one exists in Canada)? How do they become registered to vote? Inquiring minds want to know.
Every year you update your address.
Post by: Little Joe on August 11, 2016, 04:48:21 PM
Canada does it pretty simply: Revenue Canada has a checkbox on your tax return every year that says "Do you give Revenue Canada permission to share your address information with Elections Canada for inclusion on the National Register of Voters"What happens if they don't check the box?
Every year you update your address.
Post by: JeffDG on August 11, 2016, 06:06:30 PM
What happens if they don't check the box?They have to either let Elections Canada know any address changes, or be excluded from the voter's list. It's simply a convenience, but even for something so innocuous, the privacy laws forbid Revenue Canada (Canada's IRS) from sharing information with another government agency without the explicit consent of the taxpayer.
Post by: bflynn on August 12, 2016, 12:59:45 AM
I am the only one here proposing a solution that protects against fraud and could be bi-partisan. The idea is an automatic, opt-out style system, of some similarity to those systems used in most other mature republics/democracies. No longer is it up to the voter to register. They are registered automatically, if/when eligible. Information sharing is key. Voter rolls are kept much more current.
Interestingly, a number of states have already implemented automatic voter registration.
I am not convinced. Those with low government interaction, rural folks, etc will be missed. The very people that you claim would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws would be disenfranchised by your system.
You think this is so clever, but computer lists never emcompass reality. In 25 years, I have never seen them accurate.
Post by: bflynn on August 12, 2016, 01:05:16 AM
They have to either let Elections Canada know any address changes, or be excluded from the voter's list. It's simply a convenience, but even for something so innocuous, the privacy laws forbid Revenue Canada (Canada's IRS) from sharing information with another government agency without the explicit consent of the taxpayer.
Well, they would be included on their previous address voters list.
College location registrations are a big source of voter roll inaccuracies in the US, as are homeless shelters and both are ripe for voter impersonation fraud.
Post by: Little Joe on August 12, 2016, 05:46:50 AM
Well, they would be included on their previous address voters list.I am staunchly in favor of voter ID, but the two groups you mention don't vote enough to make any difference. (The exception was Obama's first run).
College location registrations are a big source of voter roll inaccuracies in the US, as are homeless shelters and both are ripe for voter impersonation fraud.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 12, 2016, 06:31:52 AM
I am staunchly in favor of voter ID, but the two groups you mention don't vote enough to make any difference. (The exception was Obama's first run).
otoh - I believe that every vote matters, even the moderates and conservatives here in Taxachusetts should have their votes respected.
Post by: asechrest on August 12, 2016, 06:42:43 AM
I am not convinced. Those with low government interaction, rural folks, etc will be missed. The very people that you claim would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws would be disenfranchised by your system.
You think this is so clever, but computer lists never emcompass reality. In 25 years, I have never seen them accurate.
You are apparently not very world wise. This is not my "clever idea", it's status quo for most modern republics/democracies. Our system is a pile of shit. Our voter rolls are a mess; full of dead people and bad information. Our registration rate is pitiful. Our voter turnout is pitiful.
So let's review. You want to slap voter ID on a bad system. Its effectiveness is arguable. It does nothing for anything except perhaps some voter fraud, if it exists in a meaningful quantity. It arguably disenfranchises some people. The supreme court is calling current implementations unconstitutional. Democrats are against it.
I want to give you what you want, while also revamping our registration system to bring us into the fold with the rest of the free world. It has the potential to be bi-partisan. It will increase registration and voting rates. It will save money. The devil is always in the details of implementation, but your tired canard of "we can't do it <something something> computers whaaa" is the same BS it always was. You could always wrest up your big boy panties, grab a chunk of your forgotten American Exceptionalism, and help figure out a way to do it. We have lots of countries from which we can draw ideas.
Post by: bflynn on August 12, 2016, 07:39:31 AM
Do you seriously think that giving corrupt Republicans control over the voter rolls would be a confidence inspiring move? Or corrupt Democrats? Both sides are so caught up in winning at all costs, I am not in favor of allowing either of them to decide which computer lists get to vote.
How are you going to allow the homeless to vote? When I last looked, there were over 1000 people registered using a shelter address just in Wake County where I live. And how do you know they are actually who they're registered as when they come to vote? Couldn't I show up at the shelter, say my name is Joseph Fairling and get an extra voter registration? Maybe do that every so often with a few of my corrupt Republican friends and then absentee vote the lot of them. How will your system detect that? BTW, these real homeless people are more likely to be black, so your system is discriminatory.
And you didn't answer my question before about those who live a very rural life. Granted there are fewer and fewer of these people but there are still people who are born at home, never get a birth certificate and may never attend school. Every vote counts, right? BTW, these people are also more likely to be black, so again your system is discriminatory.
College kids...they are rather transient too. How long do you keep their registration open? Is 13 years too long? Assuming they actually did the registration, right?
You and whoever you got this from are so caught up in "perfection" of your solution that you didn't really think this through. And I'm only using the exact same argument the NAACP used against voter ID.
Shall I keep going?
Post by: asechrest on August 12, 2016, 08:05:42 AM
Shall I keep going?
Sure! Would you like me to pick apart each complaint? I suggested an outline of a system. Then you poorly built said system in your own head, and are arguing against it as if it was mine! You don't even seem to understand the concept, which means you've done no reading on it. You're acting like the whole thing is controlled by computers with no provisions for flexibility, when no one ever suggested that.
Also, what part do you not get about the majority of the rest of the free world does it? It is not some system dreamed up by me and some secret cabal of liberals. So I'll say it again: let's come to a compromise - you get your voter ID, I get a reformed automatic voter registration system.
PS - And some of our own states are already running an automatic voter registration system. Oh the horrors!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on August 12, 2016, 10:17:13 AM
Also, what part do you not get about the majority of the rest of the free world does it?
oh please. the rest of the free world does it is not a justification.
sure, it's reasonable to ask people to consider it, but "the rest of the free world is doing it" is worthless as justification.
Post by: asechrest on August 12, 2016, 10:27:34 AM
oh please. the rest of the free world does it is not a justification.
sure, it's reasonable to ask people to consider it, but "the rest of the free world is doing it" is worthless as justification.
That's not the justification. That's refutation of his idea that this is some little clever idea I've personally cooked up.
Post by: nddons on August 12, 2016, 12:25:28 PM
What happens if they don't check the box?What happens if they don't have to file returns? Millions of wage earners don't have to file returns. Thank you, George Bush.
Post by: Little Joe on August 12, 2016, 01:43:52 PM
Florida has tried that several times. The Democrats pitched a fit.
A few years ago, Florida engaged the Company I worked for to create a list of "potential" invalid voters. The idea was that this list would be provided to the Supervisor of Elections in each county. This way, they would have a finite number of people to investigate, and remove from the voter rolls if warranted.
But a couple of supervisors just took the list and removed everyone on it, without investigating, and naturally all of the voters-right groups had a fit when legitimate voters were removed. They claimed the "list" was a Republican plot to keep people from voting. Well, it was sort of. It was designed to find invalid voters. But the list was (some say) purposely misused in order to invalidate it.
There have been a couple of attempts in Florida to clean up the rolls but each time, Democrats scream bloody murder.
But I still think it is a good idea, if the damned elections officials would do their damned jobs.
Post by: bflynn on August 12, 2016, 02:41:22 PM
Would you be willing to give me sole authority over whose name will be in the voter list and whose will not? No, I didn't think so. So why would I accept you or anyone else to be in that position?
Post by: nddons on August 12, 2016, 03:00:53 PM
You are apparently not very world wise. This is not my "clever idea", it's status quo for most modern republics/democracies. Our system is a pile of shit. Our voter rolls are a mess; full of dead people and bad information. Our registration rate is pitiful. Our voter turnout is pitiful.I have a lot of problems with what you wrote.
So let's review. You want to slap voter ID on a bad system. Its effectiveness is arguable. It does nothing for anything except perhaps some voter fraud, if it exists in a meaningful quantity. It arguably disenfranchises some people. The supreme court is calling current implementations unconstitutional. Democrats are against it.
I want to give you what you want, while also revamping our registration system to bring us into the fold with the rest of the free world. It has the potential to be bi-partisan. It will increase registration and voting rates. It will save money. The devil is always in the details of implementation, but your tired canard of "we can't do it <something something> computers whaaa" is the same BS it always was. You could always wrest up your big boy panties, grab a chunk of your forgotten American Exceptionalism, and help figure out a way to do it. We have lots of countries from which we can draw ideas.
First, as to registration rates and voter turnout, I'm sorry but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of catering to the lowest, laziest, most ill-informed common denominator among us.
Freedoms and Liberty are not free. Voting should be a responsibility, not an effort-free entitlement.
The difference between the US and other republics and democracies is, sadly, the poor level of engagement of many of our fellow citizens. Have you ever gotten into a political discussion with an Aussie, a Brit, a Canadian, or an Irishman? I think it's fair to say that they are miles ahead of your average American in terms of knowledge and awareness of political matters.
They seem to give a shit. Many Americans do not. So why should we make it easier for the uninformed to be driven to the polls and given a carton of smokes and being told for whom to vote?
Second, as far as voter ID, this "disenfranchisement" is a canard, and in state after state, lawsuit after lawsuit, the opponents have been unable to produce a single legitimate case of someone who was or would be disenfranchised for having to produce proof of who they are and where they live in order to vote.
Frankly, voter ID used to be the cause of the left, and has been championed by Jimmy Carter as late as 2008. What happened? Why are people being disenfranchised today that weren't an issue in 2008? I've asked you this question before, but never received a response.
The Supreme Court is NOT calling our current implementations unConstitutional. It recently refused to block Texas' voter ID law, and the same with Wisconsin last year. I don't know where you are getting that. In fact, most states have modeled their voter ID law after Indiana specifically because that state's voter ID law was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2008 (Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd.)
I don't trust government, and so I don't trust a "government" owned and controlled list. But I trust local governments much more than I do the federal government, because I'm closer to it.