If you remember the 2000 election OiT...it was the GOP in Fla. who refuted over 10k voters ballots because of similar names to banned voters. That is GOP style "voter fraud".......
They found voter fraud in Wi. Walker recall vote
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
If you remember the 2000 election OiT...it was the GOP in Fla. who refuted over 10k voters ballots because of similar names to banned voters. That is GOP style "voter fraud".......
Joel, ol' buddy, if you are going to talk about the Florida election in 2000, you better do some research. Don't just echo the bullshit party line. If the Democrats had followed the law, there wouldn't have been an automatic recount because the election wouldn't have been close enough to trigger it.
sorry Lone...we all have our causes.......GOP voter fraud prevented President Al Gore.......
You realize that what they do or don't "support" isn't the point. Understand that they bypassed reforming absentee ballots - where verifiable cheating takes place - in favor of requiring that everyone produce a specific ID in order to vote. And they did this in the face of zero evidence that impersonator in-person voter fraud was any kind of problem.
I'll have to ask for some verification of this wild-assed claim
Again? I've probably provided that four or five times when we've had this discussion in the past.
Briefly, the law banned the secretary of state from counting ballots that were not submitted by the deadline, for one thing; nearly 2,000 votes were cast in two pro-Gore counties by felons who shouldn't have been allowed to vote; the law -- and a large poster in every polling place, in two languages -- said that if a chad was not completely detached, the ballot was invalid.
Oh, grow up. For crissake. Because something wasn't included in a bill that's intended to do something else does not mean -- to rational adults -- that anyone was opposed to what they didn't include.
Absolutely no evidence to support that claim, Joel. None whatsoever. Despite incredibly exhaustive efforts by Gore partisans, both in and out of the mass media, to find some.
I don't believe that. Voter Fraud is a problem no matter who is benefiting.
This should be very simple. You need a photo ID to vote, it gets scanned into a database, and that ID cannot be scanned again that election.
Illinois was 27 Joe Kennedy and The Mafia
Texas's 24 Rigged by Landslide Johnson
Many persons believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy's running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine.[38] These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksenand Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election,[37] and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states.[43] Some journalists also later claimed that mobsterSam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy's victory in Illinois.[43]
Texas's 24 Rigged by Landslide Johnson
Many persons believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy's running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine.[38] These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksenand Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election,[37] and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states.[43] Some journalists also later claimed that mobsterSam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy's victory in Illinois.[43]
Cases of voter fraud were discovered in Texas. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.[37] In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received 187 votes to Nixon's 24, though there were only a total of 86 registered voters in the precinct.[37] When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.[37]
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon's case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley's recommendation), threw out a federal lawsuit filed to contend the voting totals,[37] the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[47] More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.[38]
However, a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, which did not result in convictions.[37] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[37] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house.[37] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois, but said that the totals did not match the Chicago fraud he found.[37] After Mazo had published four parts of an intended 12-part voter fraud series documenting his findings which was re-published nationally, he says Nixon requested his publisher stop the rest of the series so as to prevent a constitutional crisis.[37] Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune (which routinely endorsed GOP presidential candidates, including Nixon in 1960, 1968 and 1972) wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."[37] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote.
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon's case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley's recommendation), threw out a federal lawsuit filed to contend the voting totals,[37] the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[47] More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.[38]
However, a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, which did not result in convictions.[37] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[37] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house.[37] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois, but said that the totals did not match the Chicago fraud he found.[37] After Mazo had published four parts of an intended 12-part voter fraud series documenting his findings which was re-published nationally, he says Nixon requested his publisher stop the rest of the series so as to prevent a constitutional crisis.[37] Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune (which routinely endorsed GOP presidential candidates, including Nixon in 1960, 1968 and 1972) wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."[37] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote.
It blows my mind that the team that goes apoplectic about registering guns and drones would accept an electronic nationwide database registering all people and keeping track of how they participate in the government. That seems just a little disconnected.
Yeah, it does in a sense. It would really seem disconnected if there weren't a constitutional guarantee of the right to own a firearm. Or if the information in question weren't already required by government.
But you threw me for a loop with the drone reference. Who is objecting to regulation of drones? There's already considerable regulation of drones. Not enforced much.
There is also a little phrase in the constitution that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged" that we should all get familiar with. I bet we could fill a few pages debating what that might mean.
Drones was a topic here from yesterday, so fresh in my mind.
Well, the right of citizens to vote is denied to every citizen who isn't 18 years of age; to felons in many states; to people who get the polls after they close; to people who go to the wrong place to vote; etc., etc., etc., etc. When it comes to ID laws, the courts have been pretty strict about protecting the individual's franchise. Laws in some states, like Texas, haven't passed muster; those in a few, notably Indiana and Georgia, have. And voter participation by minorities in those states increased after the laws were passed at a greater rate than did participation for whites.
As for drones, it's been illegal for quite some time to operate them anywhere they might conflict with airline traffic. Everybody who flies RC models should know this -- although I'm sure a great many of them do not. I see guys flying them who scare the crap out of me. In fact, some RC clubs ban them at their flying areas.
Wow, another decent, agreeable post from LC. I must be having an off-day not finding much to complain about.
Although I think the "participation" rise is non-attributable, it is a positive to the mess. As always LC the pushback really isn't about the IDs per se, it is a pushback against the people pushing for them and their invidious reasons for doing so. For a terrible example, it isn't exactly a tragic thing to have Jews were stars, homosexuals wear pink triangles....except for the basic underlying fact that the people demanding the use want to do so for disgusting, vile, terrible reasons. The fight isn't always about IDs it is about disenfranchisement. Which, to me, is clearly evidenced by the emphasis put only on IDs and not on rolls. Well that and every time an official pushing for IDs opens his mouth and admits their true agenda.
Back to your post, yes, we have many unconditional rights (although voting wasn't an original one) that we condition in many ways. But it is important that we remember and review the unconditional aspect of it every so often to reign in our encroachment. Sure we can regulate guns, but the farther we get from remembering "shall not be infringed" the easier it is to remove the right entirely.
Why don't groups/orgs/local gov'ts/states who want to push IDs simply go out and push IDs....without the requirement of it to vote, yet. Reach out to the community and make it extremely easy to distribute IDs, figure out the concerns and spend the money to make it widespread. Then, when they are even more ubiquitous than they are now you revisit the voter ID and can acknowledge your efforts to preempt the Constitutional concern.
In terms of my conduct, my only excuse is that I'm tired. Walked 18 holes and did 3.5 miles on the treadmill. I'm just not myself.
You are, of course, assigning motives to millions of people (including moi) and then basing your position on believing your assumption is correct. No doubt there are advocates of voter ID who are motivated by a desire to reduce turnout by people on the other side; similarly, there are opponents who are motivated by a desire to facilitate voting by people who aren't legally eligible to vote. I've been pretty careful not to claim that this is the primary motive of opponents here or in the real world.
How was your game today, Lone? I managed to finance the game I was involved in. Tough day on the links for me. Must have been the hour of water aerobics that did me in.
If you're going to quote the Constitution, it's important to quote the entire sentence. Because the entire sentence provides a bit more context.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Requiring identification at the polls does not deny or abridge anyone's right to vote on account of their race or color or previous condition of servitude.
Well it's in there a couple times, so the repeated part seemed the important bit we should argue about. Quoting whole sentences is never the standard in other constitutional debates.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional. So rights are abridged if you have to pay to get the ID...or you have to pay to get the documentation to get the ID.
It's important to examine the entire sentence because the partial quote, as you presented it, gives the impression that no requirements can be placed on voting rights. In reality, the law does not prohibit requirements unless they disproportionately impact a particular group.
The entire 2nd Amendment is predicated on the necessity for a state militia - if you read the entire thing. So if you're a member of a recognized state militia you have a right to bear arms? Otherwise...not so much?
As I have stated many times before, states should provide free IDs to people who are on public assistance.
And, as I have also stated many times before, ID should not be limited to drivers licenses. Some states are too restrictive with their voter ID laws. But some states get it just about right. Ohio is one of those states. We can use a state ID card or a military ID or a student ID. We can use a utility bill or a cell phone bill. We can use a paycheck stub or a government check stub. Basically we can use any current document that shows who you are and that you are a resident.
It's not a perfect system, and no system ever will be. But it makes it just a bit more of a hassle to vote as someone else without making it a hassle to vote as yourself. And I think that should be the goal of voter ID laws.
That's an interpretation. Its also an interpretation that this isn't always necessary, see the 2nd amendment debates. When it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." and later adds sex in the 19th, does that mean you can abridge for any other reason not listed? Can we deny old people the vote? How about Mormons or people who don't own property? It gets a little tricky if you think the entire statement is the entire story because that's not how the constitution talks about the right to vote.
I played one of the worst rounds of the year. Won't even mention the score. I hit a bucket of balls on the range before playing, and probably hit them as consistently well as ever in my life -- all the clubs. Then I went to the course and it was like I was swinging a leg of lamb.
And it makes it just a tiny bit more of a hassle to impersonate someone at the polls and vote. The law doesn't solve anything...and it's important to understand that there's no demonstrated problem here that even needs solving.
NO ONE is going to try and influence an election in such a difficult manner. Registration fraud...absentee ballot fraud...vote-buying...those are the methods used to influence elections. So the question remains - WHY is voter ID the centerpiece of the GOP election reform plan?
True. That's why the courts have thrown out such laws while approving laws like those in Indiana and Georgia.
To answer your last question first, I think it's because it's the most logical, simplest, cheapest, obvious aspect of election reform. As such, it should be the least controversial, a no-brainer. It eliminates the graveyard vote, a practice of both parties that was accepted as a problem by just about everybody until the liberals suddenly decided they had been wrong about it for roughly 200 years.
As to the other points, it's hilarious to see you advocating steps to prevent absentee ballot fraud in the same thread where you earlier implied that such steps are attempts to deprive people of their franchise.
Registration fraud is relatively unlikely in terms of ID .... because it requires a person to present an ID. Why this is acceptable to libs for registration, but not for voting, remains a mystery.
Not sure what you mean by vote-buying. If you're talking about the general influence of money in politics, that's one thing. If you're talking about the practice of rounding up vagrants and paying them to vote, that's another.....which would be prevented by adequate registration and ID requirements.
I think we agree on at least one thing. With today's technology, there is no reason there can't be a nationwide clearinghouse online for voter registration, which would prevent people from voting in more than one place.
The point is that the 15th Amendment and the VRA of 1965 do not prohibit the implementation of requirements in the voting process. They prohibit requirements that are discriminatory. You can't have poll taxes because they discriminate against the poor. You can't have literacy tests because they discriminate against the uneducated.
Even without requiring ID there are still other requirements in the process. By your reasoning we should eliminate those as well since they violate your view of the 15th Amendment. We require that people register prior to voting. What a pain in the ass. Let's get rid of that requirement.
And what's up with telling me where I have to go in order to vote? What if there is another polling location that is more convenient for me? I should be able to vote wherever the hell I want to vote.
Those sound like good changes worth considering. Why can't you vote at any polling location or even online or by phone? We should get that done pronto. If you recognize that testing people or charging people is wrong, you must have an issue with many of the voter ID laws that are in effect tests with a cost.
If you want to stop people from showing up and voting multiple times, there is a very simple method that doesn't violate any rights. But I don't think that's really the goal because that's not really a problem.
tarheel....please turn around and face downwind when pissing here....The 2nd Amendment says what the NRA says it says...."a well regulated militia" is one of the missing phrases from interpreting the Constitution by folks fron the more conservative side.
There is no "graveyard vote". You can't point to ANY evidence to indicate otherwise. If dead people are voting in any numbers, you can bet it's being orchestrated by the very election officials who are supposed to check ID's. And requiring an ID doesn't eliminate anything. It just requires that someone create fake ID's. I know...the idea is laughable - who would do that?
I have no idea what you're talking about...and I suspect that neither do you.
What about registration fraud committed by election officials? What about registration fraud where someone registers in multiple locations UNDER THEIR OWN NAME? Once again, I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. And are you seriously claiming that someone who DID want to register under an assumed name couldn't fabricate an electric bill?
Seriously? You don't know what's meant by vote-buying? Here:
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/03/26/1197075/jury-convicts-all-8-defendants.html
It's where you pay REGISTERED VOTERS to vote like you want. And if I'm going to the trouble of creating false registrations for vagrants, why wouldn't I take the extra step to provide them with fake ID's?
Of course, there's a reason. $$$$.
So....you deny graveyard voting has ever, or is now, an issue, and you ignore what's been written in this thread. and you -- once again, this is getting old -- try to conflate other kinds of fraud with ID fraud.
Try reading this:
If dead people are voting in any numbers, you can bet it's being orchestrated by the very election officials who are supposed to check ID's.
Feel free to edit your post so you don't appear to be so uninformed.
And I'm not conflating anything. I'm telling you, of all the possible ways to commit voter fraud that would affect an election in ANY way...in-person impersonator voter fraud is the worst, dumbest, most idiotic way to do it. That's kinda why it isn't done.
LOL. Try reading what you wrote, the sentence preceding the one you just cited:
There is no "graveyard vote". You can't point to ANY evidence to indicate otherwise.
This in a thread where another poster has already provided precisely the evidence you claim doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, you continue to discount other forms of fraud by pretending someone has said they would be prevented by an ID law. Maybe "conflating" is the wrong word; if so, I apologize for misusing it.
If you have paid any attention at all to what I have written in this and many other threads then you already know the answer.
