I think it's time for a "smart" federal ID card,... Use it for voter registration, voting, employment, domestic air travel, etc., etc. etc....
...all gun purchases...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it's time for a "smart" federal ID card,... Use it for voter registration, voting, employment, domestic air travel, etc., etc. etc....
Is this really the game you're playing? Demand a substantive response, which you're actually getting, then pretend that you didn't get them?
How about we start with an up-to-date, nationwide, cross-verified registration database?
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.
LC didn't want to start a climate denier thread so he went to his #2 troll.
What's his 3rd go to? Some old man rant about trickle down?LC didn't want to start a climate denier thread so he went to his #2 troll.
Nope. Kids on his lawn.What's his 3rd go to? Some old man rant about trickle down?
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'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.Why is it so hard for "the poor and minorities" to get a photo ID? Seriously.....this seems like a red herring argument to me.
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)
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.
I will visit you in prison. Actually, you don't have to worry. Hardly anybody who's caught violating voting laws is ever prosecuted.Lone....if my name is on the voter registration lists, and I walk in and Identify myself...in a precinct where I have voted for 25 years, why?
I have vowed, starting this year, I will never show any picture ID to get a ballot..and if refused a ballot, I am prepared to be arrested and will go to court.
My right to vote in any election where I am qualified to vote will never be infringed. You are all about "originalists" judges....show me where I need a photo IDto vote.
This is nothing more than some folks trying to cull the voting pool from folks they don't agree with politically.
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.
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).If the state comes to your house and gives you an ID for free, then sure. If it's any inconvenience or it costs anything to obtain an ID, it's essentially a poll tax which is unconstitutional.
So are we for the constitution or bigger government giving people "free stuff" here?
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.Who would check IDs for those? If you can imagine that showing up and impersonating people is a problem, you can sure imagine mail fraud a lot easier. That fact that Rs never care about this shows you their real motivation. And that's fine, disenfranchisement so that your smaller group can win is the goal after all. That's why I'm very for ID if we couple it with mandatory participation. Libs win when people show up, cons win when they don't. That's what this debate is really about.
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?I really don't want to have to search back for the 5 other threads and paste my responses that you avoided or ignored back then. Because you'll just pretend they don't exist here, either.
We've asked, DOZENS of times, for the DATA which indicates the voter fraud you are concerned about exists in high enough numbers to justify a law. We get NOTHING. ZERO.
And now you're starting ANOTHER thread with the same 'data'. Are you truly so ignorant, uninformed and stupid that you do not understand the point here?
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.Hahaha. I've been an election day official and chairman and the people I've been with do care. Pretty long hours for minimum wages,if that's all they want. Your bottom line sounds like it came out of your bottom. Get ready for spending some money if you are going to get these wonderful younger "judges."
I don't understand what you're saying.
Do most European countries have the history of voter suppression that we do?Most European countries require presenting proof of citizenship to vote. Just sayin....
I'm saying the information is already online and hackable.
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.It's not a question so much of being hard for them, although it is for many. Part of the problem is the Republican controlled states have also limited the times and days that they can register., and that has carried over to voting. It doesn't have to be a problem, if both sides and not just the Democrats made a concerted effort to help those people register, etc.
The last time we had this discussion, you and I agreed that a nationwide network was a good idea. Have you changed your mind?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.
It sounds like you understood just fine.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.
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.LC didn't want to start a climate denier thread so he went to his #2 troll.
??????? 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?It sounds like you understood just fine.
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.
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.
The last time we had this discussion, you and I agreed that a nationwide network was a good idea. Have you changed your mind?
A national DATABASE, that is NOT CONNECTED to a network. And has redundant safety backups.
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.Why don't you save everybody the time by not reposting the same regurgitated talking points absent ANY new information which supports them?
??????? 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?
Wait, "seldom [being] the problem," now matters to you and should be a factor in policy/making?
The hypocrisy!