|
Post by freddfish on Aug 28, 2015 10:51:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Aug 28, 2015 12:16:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 28, 2015 12:22:34 GMT -5
*nods* there was a lot of crazyness in that thread. It's a pity no one wants to take these voter rolls seriously. And sad that so many don't seem to care about the possibility that ineligible people are voting.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 28, 2015 12:57:28 GMT -5
The Dems don't want them cleaned up, because they will lose even more elections if the dead can't vote for them. And now, with the introduction of so many illegals, voter ID would end their party.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 28, 2015 14:47:21 GMT -5
Because that organization, like this one, is a partisan organization whose interest is chiefly in purging the voter rolls of Democrats. This is partisanship attempting to disguise itself as something else. Maybe the rolls in these counties are screwed up. But I wouldn't trust partisans to make that determination honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 28, 2015 16:08:49 GMT -5
Because that organization, like this one, is a partisan organization whose interest is chiefly in purging the voter rolls of Democrats. This is partisanship attempting to disguise itself as something else. Maybe the rolls in these counties are screwed up. But I wouldn't trust partisans to make that determination honestly. This is blatantly not true. All this organization has done is noted the fact that there are more people registered to vote in a given area than there are people living there. These claims will be vetted by a judge, and if action is to be taken, it will be by the appropriate authorities to clean up the voter rolls. If there's anything partisan about that, it's because the Democrats don't think this is a problem - when it quite obviously is. That said, you're quite right to say they're trying to get Democrats off the rolls. Because everyone knows that ineligible voters (the dead, people who moved away 20 years ago, convicted felons, and foreigners) ALWAYS vote Democrat. It's illegal for them to do so, but that's how they vote. Which is obviously why the Democrats have no problem with there being more people on the voter rolls than actual residents.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 28, 2015 17:46:45 GMT -5
This is blatantly not true. Isn't it?That said, you're quite right to say they're trying to get Democrats off the rolls. Because everyone knows that ineligible voters (the dead, people who moved away 20 years ago, convicted felons, and foreigners) ALWAYS vote Democrat. It's illegal for them to do so, but that's how they vote. Organizations like this don't much mind if they get some eligible Democrats off the rolls, as well. There's a long history of Republican skulduggery in elections, too. I don't recall the Pubs here condemning that too loudly. Some examples, calling voters and encouraging them to stay home by pretending to be Democrats and telling them "we've got this won". Walking poor neighborhoods and telling the residents the police would be at polling places with cameras. Telling West Virginia voters the Democratic candidate wanted to ban the Bible. And perhaps the biggest Pub scam of all, voter IDs, which as far as actual studies have determined, are attempting to solve a problem that isn't serious. A problem the Republicans are certainly smart enough to realize isn't serious - and yet they press this agenda. One must wonder why. Well, one must unless one wants the Republicans to win and doesn't care how they do it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 28, 2015 17:57:07 GMT -5
No. It isn't. Trying to get counties to properly maintain their voter rolls - AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW - is not a partisan issue. Unless, of course, you're a Democrat and supportive of keeping ineligible voters on the voter rolls. This group has some legitimate questions, based on publicly available information. The fact that they're conservative doesn't make their concerns invalid. This group does not have the ability to remove ineligble voters from local voting rolls. All they are trying to do is get counties to DO THEIR JOB. As for voter ID, pretty much every other country on the planet uses them as a sensible way to ensure one voter, one vote. The idea that this is some sort of scam is, itself, a scam. The idea that there are somehow studies that are capable of determining whether or not people are casting fraudulent votes is kinda ridiculous. See, that's the problem with the secret ballot system we have in this country. There's no way to audit ballots and track them back to individuals. And if they're not required to present ID, there's no way to stop people from claiming to be someone that they're not. Or prove that they cast their ballot illegally after the fact. And now we get back to the heart of your premise: you're perfectly ok with counties which do not remove ineligble voters from their voter rolls, and you're ok with them not asking for ID at the polling places. How EXACTLY do you prevent ANYONE from claiming to be an eligible voter just by knowing one of the names on the voter roll and letting them vote? And then, how EXACTLY, do you show they cast an illegal vote after the fact? I do not understand how you can credibly make the claim that the cigarette counter at your local 7-11 should be more secure than a voting booth.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 28, 2015 18:59:03 GMT -5
No. It isn't. Trying to get counties to properly maintain their voter rolls - AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW - is not a partisan issue. Unless, of course, you're a Democrat and supportive of keeping ineligible voters on the voter rolls. This group has some legitimate questions, based on publicly available information. The fact that they're conservative doesn't make their concerns invalid. No, it doesn't. However, the Pubs have a history of trying to get even eligible Dems not to vote in various ways, as I pointed out. This makes me leery of a conservative group's agenda here. For example, suppose the court orders an audit, and suppose a conservative organization happens to step up with a low bid. And "accidently" removes a few too many Democrats from the rolls. This actually happened in Florida. As for voter ID, pretty much every other country on the planet uses them as a sensible way to ensure one voter, one vote. The idea that this is some sort of scam is, itself, a scam. I didn't say it was a scam. I said it was trying to solve a problem that actually wasn't serious. Like using a pile driver to put in a 16d nail. The nail goes in, but there might be just a little collateral damage. And now we get back to the heart of your premise: you're perfectly ok with counties which do not remove ineligble voters from their voter rolls, and you're ok with them not asking for ID at the polling places. How EXACTLY do you prevent ANYONE from claiming to be an eligible voter just by knowing one of the names on the voter roll and letting them vote? And then, how EXACTLY, do you show they cast an illegal vote after the fact? I do not understand how you can credibly make the claim that the cigarette counter at your local 7-11 should be more secure than a voting booth. What you don't understand is what I said, which this isn't. You've constructed a strawman. It seems to be a hobby with you, constructing such. I'll have to mention you to the local farmers.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 28, 2015 19:18:45 GMT -5
No. It isn't. Trying to get counties to properly maintain their voter rolls - AS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW - is not a partisan issue. Unless, of course, you're a Democrat and supportive of keeping ineligible voters on the voter rolls. This group has some legitimate questions, based on publicly available information. The fact that they're conservative doesn't make their concerns invalid. No, it doesn't. However, the Pubs have a history of trying to get even eligible Dems not to vote in various ways, as I pointed out. This makes me leery of a conservative group's agenda here. For example, suppose the court orders an audit, and suppose a conservative organization happens to step up with a low bid. And "accidently" removes a few too many Democrats from the rolls. This actually happened in Florida. Well then, perhaps the counties should just do their jobs. It's NOT acceptable that they're not maintaining their lists. And it's not a conspiracy when a Tea Party group points this out. Yes, actually you did call it a scam. Your words were "And perhaps the biggest Pub scam of all, voter IDs." Requiring someone to provide ID isn't a 'pile driver' in ANY other scenario. Whether it's buying cigarettes, or getting on a commercial airplane. Nearly everyone already has one, and government is bending over backwards to provide them for free to the tiny minority that doesn't. You're opposed to people who try to get county voting authorities to maintain their lists, and you're opposed to requiring people to produce ID to vote. And then, after you've gone and made it impossible to actually tell if people are casting illegal ballots, you argue there's no proof that people are doing so. Yes. That's what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 0:29:29 GMT -5
*nods* there was a lot of crazyness in that thread. It's a pity no one wants to take these voter rolls seriously. And sad that so many don't seem to care about the possibility that ineligible people are voting. Yes, there was... and you were responsible for most of that crazyness... Here's what I said early in that thread: "Purging the rolls may not work... the only sure thing with regard to dead people?... is NO ABSENTEE VOTING... but that will not eliminate other things like people moving an registering in a new location while remaining registered in the old location... NATIONAL VOTER ID CARD?... (that can't be duplicated)... which can be voted only ONCE?... may be the only solution..." And I still stand by that...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 0:31:25 GMT -5
The Dems don't want them cleaned up, because they will lose even more elections if the dead can't vote for them. And now, with the introduction of so many illegals, voter ID would end their party. Clarke County, one of the 4 Mississippi counties on the list... is solid RED... not Democrat... I don't know what the other three are yet... but I will soon...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 0:35:22 GMT -5
Because that organization, like this one, is a partisan organization whose interest is chiefly in purging the voter rolls of Democrats. This is partisanship attempting to disguise itself as something else. Maybe the rolls in these counties are screwed up. But I wouldn't trust partisans to make that determination honestly. Voter rolls are supposed to be purged by the election commissioners here... who are elected on a non-partisan ballot... our commissioners do a good job keeping the rolls up to date... but it is a big job... and believe it or not, many individuals in jail are legally on the rolls and have to be delivered a ballot so they can vote... even on serious convictions such as manslaughter...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 0:37:33 GMT -5
Because that organization, like this one, is a partisan organization whose interest is chiefly in purging the voter rolls of Democrats. This is partisanship attempting to disguise itself as something else. Maybe the rolls in these counties are screwed up. But I wouldn't trust partisans to make that determination honestly. This is blatantly not true. All this organization has done is noted the fact that there are more people registered to vote in a given area than there are people living there. These claims will be vetted by a judge, and if action is to be taken, it will be by the appropriate authorities to clean up the voter rolls. If there's anything partisan about that, it's because the Democrats don't think this is a problem - when it quite obviously is. That said, you're quite right to say they're trying to get Democrats off the rolls. Because everyone knows that ineligible voters (the dead, people who moved away 20 years ago, convicted felons, and foreigners) ALWAYS vote Democrat. It's illegal for them to do so, but that's how they vote. Which is obviously why the Democrats have no problem with there being more people on the voter rolls than actual residents. Some really dumbass comments here... Juts telling it like it is...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 1:07:23 GMT -5
When we vote we sign by our printed name on the roster, are given a voting machine card by the poll workers, insert the card into the voting machine which pulls up the ballot and allows us to vote... with a national ID card, the machines could be modified to require the poll worker's card AND our own national ID card which has the voter's national ID number encrypted into the magnetic strip... before allowing the voter to vote... you lose the card or forget to bring it and you don't vote... the card cannot be used twice...
When a person dies or moves out of their own voting precinct, the death certification should be sent to the circuit clerks office and the name removed from the voter roll and the national ID number cancelled... when a voter moves, it should be their responsibility to change their voter registration to the new precinct where they then reside... the national ID card should only work in one particular voting precinct... the one where they reside... if a voter forgets their ID card, they will either have to go get it or not vote... if it's lost and they haven't got a new one by election day... tough... they don't vote...
I am in favor of a national voter ID card such as the one I mentioned here... but not simply an ID to vote... every voter is issued a voter registration card (blue, indicating name and voting precinct) when they register... that card could be a national voter registration card such as the one I mentioned... (with name and number encrypted )... I also think that card should be updated periodically... at least every 10 years...
|
|
|
Post by freddfish on Aug 29, 2015 7:51:53 GMT -5
Ranger John: Requiring someone to produce ID to vote is not even in the same league, or in the same game even, as putting barriers in the way of voters ability to cast their ballot. And EY? When you tell this to people who might have to flash a state-issued ID about 3x a day just in the course of normal affairs, and trying to make it a partisan issue, you just sound silly.
Ranger John: This pretty much sums it up, EY. Based on what you have posted, you don't care about voter fraud, and are willing to take no realistic steps to halt it, or even it's possibility in the future.
So much for "every vote counts"
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Aug 29, 2015 8:30:00 GMT -5
A couple years back we actually had a Democrat candidate for 1st district House of Rep vote in 2 states in the previous election. She had to drop out, she "claimed" she forgot she had voted in Florida first. Well she was either stupid or lying, So purging the voters rolls. Would have either #1 Protected her and us from her stupidity. #2 Protected us from her lies.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 29, 2015 8:30:24 GMT -5
Ranger John: Requiring someone to produce ID to vote is not even in the same league, or in the same game even, as putting barriers in the way of voters ability to cast their ballot. And EY? When you tell this to people who might have to flash a state-issued ID about 3x a day just in the course of normal affairs, and trying to make it a partisan issue, you just sound silly.Ranger John: This pretty much sums it up, EY. Based on what you have posted, you don't care about voter fraud, and are willing to take no realistic steps to halt it, or even it's possibility in the future.
So much for "every vote counts"
It's really sort of creepy when someone argues that obtaining ID is some sort of barrier. The simple reality is that almost everyone already has a valid ID for this purpose, and of the remaining people who do not, a voter ID is being provided free of charge. There Is a tiny fraction of a fraction who lack the documentation necessary to obtain a valid ID. But it never seems to occur to the critics that if you can't prove who you are, you can't prove that you're eligible to vote.
|
|
|
Post by freddfish on Aug 29, 2015 9:20:02 GMT -5
A couple years back we actually had a Democrat candidate for 1st district House of Rep vote in 2 states in the previous election. She had to drop out, she "claimed" she forgot she had voted in Florida first. Well she was either stupid or lying, So purging the voters rolls. Would have either #1 Protected her and us from her stupidity. #2 Protected us from her lies. Agreed. (Now...if only we had something in place to protect us from #1 and #2 on behalf of Hillary.....)
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Aug 29, 2015 9:22:38 GMT -5
Good post Ranger.
I'm certain I'm in the minority here but I am in the camp where the voting process is not a Right. So the entire issue seems silly to me. I just conclude that based upon the Constitution each state can establish their own requirements. Always have. Still do. All the "Rights" are either suspended, manipulated or greatly altered. And.... all require ID!
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 29, 2015 10:36:14 GMT -5
The simple truth of voter ID is that in a 'secret ballot' system, there are very few opportunities to ensure the one-voter, one-vote ideal.
In a society where someone can lose their job for supporting proppsition 8, as happened to Brandon Eich, the secret ballot remains absolutely necessary. So, if we can not tie an individual voter to a ballot; presenting an ID to be matched against a voter roll is the most basic thing we can do. It's either that, or everyone comes out with a blue finger like in Iraq. But we don't even do that.
When we are presented with cases where localities are CLEARLY not maintaining their rolls properly they are inviting fraud. And the notion that studies aren't showing a wide spread problem, in a system that precludes audit by its nature, is - to use a favorite EY term - flummery.
It may turn out that the lists weren't maintained out of neglect, and that no vote fraud has occurred. But the fact that these localities have not even done what they are required to do by law to prevent it, does raise questions about whether or not these localities are being gamed.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 11:41:28 GMT -5
The simple truth of voter ID is that in a 'secret ballot' system, there are very few opportunities to ensure the one-voter, one-vote ideal. In a society where someone can lose their job for supporting proppsition 8, as happened to Brandon Eich, the secret ballot remains absolutely necessary. So, if we can not tie an individual voter to a ballot; presenting an ID to be matched against a voter roll is the most basic thing we can do. It's either that, or everyone comes out with a blue finger like in Iraq. But we don't even do that. When we are presented with cases where localities are CLEARLY not maintaining their rolls properly they are inviting fraud. And the notion that studies aren't showing a wide spread problem, in a system that precludes audit by its nature, is - to use a favorite EY term - flummery. It may turn out that the lists weren't maintained out of neglect, and that no vote fraud has occurred. But the fact that these localities have not even done what they are required to do by law to prevent it, does raise questions about whether or not these localities are being gamed. National Voter Registration ID Card... like I said... And there likely has been very little fraud, if any, in these counties... (keeping the voter rolls purged properly is a very difficult and ongoing task)... the right-wingers don't want to determine that no fraud took place... they want every dumb ass out here to think that it has... and that only Democrats were guilty...
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Aug 29, 2015 12:01:28 GMT -5
The simple truth of voter ID is that in a 'secret ballot' system, there are very few opportunities to ensure the one-voter, one-vote ideal. In a society where someone can lose their job for supporting proppsition 8, as happened to Brandon Eich, the secret ballot remains absolutely necessary. So, if we can not tie an individual voter to a ballot; presenting an ID to be matched against a voter roll is the most basic thing we can do. It's either that, or everyone comes out with a blue finger like in Iraq. But we don't even do that. When we are presented with cases where localities are CLEARLY not maintaining their rolls properly they are inviting fraud. And the notion that studies aren't showing a wide spread problem, in a system that precludes audit by its nature, is - to use a favorite EY term - flummery. It may turn out that the lists weren't maintained out of neglect, and that no vote fraud has occurred. But the fact that these localities have not even done what they are required to do by law to prevent it, does raise questions about whether or not these localities are being gamed. It may turn out that the lists weren't maintained out of neglect, (probably 9 times out of 10)and that no vote fraud has occurred. (Agree) But the fact that these localities have not even done what they are required to do by law to prevent it, does raise questions about whether or not these localities are being gamed. (Agree the system should be based on trust, without active over site of the rolls How can we trust it? Laziness should NOT be an excuse)
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Aug 29, 2015 12:24:09 GMT -5
Age ID's plus US citizenship IDs should be mandatory
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 29, 2015 13:16:07 GMT -5
Age ID's plus US citizenship IDs should be mandatory Only U.S. citizens should be able to obtain a "National Voter Registration Card"...
|
|