Should states require voters to show a photo ID? And other voter fraud stuff
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
Lone Clone and his "Voter ID/Voter Fraud" threads are making him the Wile E. Coyote of HROT....
Dammit!!! He's gonna GET that RoadRunner THIS time!!!!
How about we start with an up-to-date, nationwide, cross-verified registration database?
The e-file to the IRS can "verify" whether someone exists for purposes of taxes instantaneously, but States continuously complain about not knowing who lives in their state or is, you know, still alive or not.
The e-file to the IRS can "verify" whether someone exists for purposes of taxes instantaneously, but States continuously complain about not knowing who lives in their state or is, you know, still alive or not.
That's a double-edged sword, unless it's done carefully. Part of the reason it's so difficult to 'hack' our voter systems and voter registration rolls is because they are 'local' in nature. That means to infiltrate voter rolls, you'd need to hack into hundreds and hundreds of systems, not simply one.
Now, a "clearinghouse" for localities to upload information into, to more rapidly identify duplicate registrations in multiple localities (something that most audits CANNOT identify) might be useful. The problem with that is the people who would be intentionally registered in two locations (and perhaps voting in both, directly or absentee) are people who own properties or have physical addresses in both locations = e.g. snowbirds who live in Iowa or MN and go down to FL or AZ for the winter. And most of those folks aren't "Dems". Although it isn't that difficult to identify this retroactively - once you find registrations in >1 locality, just check to see which elections they actually submitted a vote for. And because those are records which are discoverable over long periods of time, it's probably why it doesn't happen often or at all - penalties are high.
But anything which would more quickly ferret out multiple registrations, along with requiring proof of eligibility when registering isn't really a bad idea. It's just that we haven't seen any evidence to date that the latter is needed: potential penalties of long prison sentences and $10K fines seem to work fairly well.
We are afraid of "hacking" now? Our government has enormous databases with all of this information as well as all of the largest companies as well. The proverbial ship sailed long ago.
It would be, presumably, quite simple to identify precisely what you are talking about. Vote for POTUS in one place? "Stopped" from voting for it in another. By stopped, I mean provisional balloting. Simple, easy solution with modern technology.
Audit after audit has shown (contrary to what the OP states) that voter impersonation is virtually non existent. But no audit can disprove disenfranchisement. Why? Because you can't audit a vote that isn't cast. The danger potential of disenfranchisement is far greater than the potential for fraud.
Also I don't believe politicians should be allowed to determine who should vote. I believe the voters should determine who the politicians are.
So to answer the OP's question: a long loud no.
Also I don't believe politicians should be allowed to determine who should vote. I believe the voters should determine who the politicians are.
So to answer the OP's question: a long loud no.
LC didn't want to start a climate denier thread so he went to his #2 troll.
He's the Wile E. Coyote of both topics.
Lone E. Coyote should be his nickname, and Rivals ought to permanently alter his avatar....
Not really; company databases and government ones are hacked into with reasonable frequency. And this is by cybercriminals, not state-sponsored entities. Putting that information online in a hackable database invites those state-hackers to attack them during the timeframe they are most vulnerable, and once the info is altered or hacked, you don't have the opportunity for election "do-overs". So, any aspect of making those into nationwide databases MUST address those risks. If that means taking them "offline" in the year prior to elections so the systems remain local, and only linking back up after elections for auditing, etc, that seems fine. But having a system that could be uprooted a week before election day, and voter rolls completely compromised with no capability of fixing before the elections seems like an unnecessary risk to me- particularly in light of not finding much fraud to date, anyway.
It's every bit as legitimate as the claim that Democrats oppose election reforms because they want ineligible voters to be able to cast ballots, since most of those go to Democrats.
Joe, why don't you save everybody some time and just declare that you have won yet another overwhelming victory in the Internet message board wars. If the past is any guide, that's what you're going to do, anyway, regardless of what is said. Get it out of the way now, so those of us who want to discuss the issue can do so. Thanks.LMAO!!!
We are regurgitating MORE Heritage Foundation BS again!!!
We already had their Op Ed on this linked by LC months ago; when the actual report was dredged up, the data in it DID NOT support the Op Ed. The VAST MAJORITY of voter fraud it found was at local (municipal, county) elections and barely 10 out of 1.6 billion votes cast were fraudulent in national elections. Yet he STILL clings to that nonsense. It truly is embarrassing for him (and apparently that is now considered a "personal attack" on the boards here)
My God...we're still regurgitating the same bullcrap.
Despite NO evidence it is happening at any reasonable level of concern....
You GO GET that RoadRunner, Wile E.!!! Use your ACME Audit Pack!!!
Why don't you save everybody the time by not reposting the same regurgitated talking points absent ANY new information which supports them?
I will visit you in prison. Actually, you don't have to worry. Hardly anybody who's caught violating voting laws is ever prosecuted.
Agree with the first sentence. So do the courts. That's why they've struck down several ID laws but sustained the one in Indiana (and Georgia, which is modeled after Indiana's).
I don't understand what you're saying. In the first place, a lot of Republicans absolutely object to the Oregon system. In the second place, if the primary concern of Republicans were to discourage minority and immigrant voters, they would be against the Oregon system even more than against conventional voting arrangements, because it's easier for those groups to vote, legally and/or illegally.
You are off the rails again, Joe, and once again demonstrating you don't read threads to which you reply. Take a timeout, why don't you?
Election Day workers are seldom the problem. I won't say "never" because there are so many of them that some are sure to be bad apples, but it's close enough to never for government work.
I don't think you understand what ANYONE in this thread calling you out as being woefully misinformed on this topic is saying. But I'll let them speak for themselves....
Of course, you could always just "scrap this thread" after your beatdown and start a new one....
Do most European countries have the history of voter suppression that we do?
No; voter registries are kept in local municipalities. Local Registrars. You'd need to individually hack or disrupt all of them. Certain possible; much more challenging than if it's a central system, because each county handles things differently and may have different infrastructure in place.
I don't doubt that has happened, and it's serious, but it doesn't really impact the subject of the thread. The poll tax -- a Democratic Party staple, if it matters -- was an egregious example, and so were some literacy tests, that kind of thing.
The last time we had this discussion, you and I agreed that a nationwide network was a good idea. Have you changed your mind?
That's a good one. Actually, I started this because there's another thread about North Carolina, and several posters kept posting stuff that wasn't related to the subject. So I started this thread to deal with posts on the general subject of voter fraud.
??????? You said Republicans don't object to the Oregon system; in fact, they do. So am I to understand that you intended to post something that wasn't true?
Should states require voters to show a photo ID? Could you state your case for or against it and provide data or lack of same to back up your stance?
Wait, "seldom [being] the problem," now matters to you and should be a factor in policy/making?
The hypocrisy!
A national DATABASE, that is NOT CONNECTED to a network. And has redundant safety backups.
Maybe you've confused me, how would that work if not "connected"?
The fact is that you have about a dozen posts in this thread, most of them attacking me, and haven't addressed any of the points made in the opinion piece I linked. You have claimed something by the Heritage Foundation was proven to be incorrect, but from reading your posts, nobody could have any idea what it might have been. And you have yet again misrepresented my position. That's three strikes -- which I assume to you constitutes hitting a home run.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty- Latest: swagsurfer02
-
-
-
