Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on.

Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on. (Page 13)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2014, 01:37 PM
 
Strikes me less as suppression and more as general assholery. "Oh you guys want accessible bathrooms? Congratulations, now no-one gets to pee. Everyone, you can thank the handicapped if you need to pee and can't."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2014, 05:40 PM
 
Frankly, there's so much annoying shit in the ADA, the fact this isn't covered sets off the bullshit detectors.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2014, 11:28 AM
 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2014, 07:45 PM
 
I wonder if AG Holder will call Andrew Young and Bill Clinton racist.

Bill Clinton urges adding photos to Social Security cards for voter identification-The Washington Post

AUSTIN — With 34 states now requiring some form of identification at the polls, former president Bill Clinton and civil rights leader Andrew Young on Wednesday endorsed the idea of adding photos to Social Security cards as a way to prevent voter suppression.

The two made the recommendation in separate appearances at a conference at the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library, which is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Clinton and Young, a former mayor of Atlanta, expressed concern that the voter ID laws could discourage poor and minority voters from showing up at the polls, which would circumvent the intent of the Voting Rights Act.

“I’m not against photo identification, but only as long as the cards are free and easily accessible. Providing eligible voters the ability to obtain a photo on a Social Security card eliminates any genuine concern,” Young said. He called on Obama to issue an executive order making such photos available.

Clinton did not go so far as to urge executive action. However, he said, putting photos on Social Security cards would represent “a way forward that eliminates error,” without having to “paralyze and divide a country with significant challenges.”
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2014, 07:48 PM
 
I know this is foil hat territory, but making your SSC a photo ID is a horrible idea.

I guarantee you'll get "show us your papers" out of that at some point.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 02:48 PM
 
I think I got my SSC when I was 9 or something. Would it have a picture of me at 9 forever?

Also, Chongo seems to confuse the objection to requiring ID as racist because low income citizens are less likely to have it, with an objection to having photo ID, but that's par for the course.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 02:51 PM
 
The foil hat part is separate from paying for these things and updating them every 4 years.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 02:58 PM
 
That's not mentioned, at all.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 03:06 PM
 
Paying for it isn't mentioned?

Well knock me over with a feather.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 03:15 PM
 
Assumed sarcasm aside, it goes without saying that proposing a form of universal ID for the purposes of thwarting voter suppression is going to be offered for free (most ID is supposed to free in those voter ID states, anyway). What isn't addressed is when the photo is taken, nothing is mentioned about updating it, and I question why it would need to be done relatively frequently (every 4 years).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2014, 04:13 PM
 
"Free" means "paid with tax dollars". That's what I was getting at.

I made up 4 years because I was going to go with some snarky comment relating it to how often we elect a president, but I dropped the snarky comment part.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 03:31 PM
 
Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland, group finds | Fox News


Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland, group finds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2014, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland, group finds | Fox News


Over 40,000 voters are registered in both Virginia and Maryland, group finds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People who live in the DC area move from Maryland to Virginia all the time. Of course, the part actually matters you chose not to quote. From your own source ....

George acknowledged that the number of voters who actually cast multiple ballots is relatively small. In the case of Maryland and Virginia, he revealed that 164 people voted in both states during the 2012 election.
40K vs 164. Such post-and-runs are only persuasive to those who are too lazy to actually read the article. Try again.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 08:49 AM
 
And those responsible for making sure the votes are fair aren't doing their jobs, so this is yet another problem to be addressed. Photo ID?
Next they will compare the DC to VA and DC to MD registration rolls to see what numbers they will find.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 10:23 AM
 
164 duplicate votes is 0.0041 failure rate. What number is acceptable? Or do you expect perfection?

Edit: I might add, that 164 votes are extremely unlikely to be swinging any statewide elections. For the pragmatic among you.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 11:08 AM
 
Again, they are not done investigating it. Lets see if any of those names show up in other jurisdictions. Perhaps 164 folks voted in 4 or 5 places. with elections coming within 4 votes etc it just may have caused some problems.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
People who live in the DC area move from Maryland to Virginia all the time. Of course, the part actually matters you chose not to quote. From your own source ....



40K vs 164. Such post-and-runs are only persuasive to those who are too lazy to actually read the article. Try again.

OAW
I think the point is that it's not all that hard to defraud an election. 164 people did it (probably the majority of them by accident), but this is a gaping hole just asking for abuse. This is more an indication of the potential for abuse than abuse that's actually happened.

How many more oversight's like this exist in the current voting process? We have no idea, and I'm guessing those currently sitting it office don't want to know.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
^^^^

As Jay-Z once opined in a song .... "Numbers don't lie, check the scoreboard!" I'll just reiterate what's already been said:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
164 duplicate votes is 0.0041 failure rate. What number is acceptable? Or do you expect perfection?

Edit: I might add, that 164 votes are extremely unlikely to be swinging any statewide elections. For the pragmatic among you.
Even some of your own are beginning to question the hysteria on the right about all this ....

Sen. Rand Paul thinks the GOP might be over-hyping instances of voter fraud, and that Republicans shouldn’t scrap early voting.

“There is still some fraud, and so we should stop that,” the Kentucky senator, considered a leading potential contender for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination, told former Obama adviser David Axelrod during a sit-down Tuesday at the University of Chicago.

“Although the incidence of fraud is relatively small,” Axelrod said.

“It probably is, and I think Republicans may have over-emphasized this. I don’t know,” replied Paul, who made clear that, like most of his party, he supports voter ID requirements.

Republicans have cited fraud to justify a host of restrictions on voting in recent years, including strict voter ID laws in Texas, North Carolina, and other states. They’ve continued to seize on any opportunity to highlight fraud, even though studies have conclusively shown that the amount of such fraud is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

The senator’s willingness to ignore the party line on the issue may endear him to voting-rights advocates and Democrats. But it could also alienate the conservatives he’d need to win his party’s nomination.

As for early voting, which has been cut back lately in three key swing states—North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin—Paul said: “I don’t think early voting is biased one way or the other. So I think eliminating it is a mistake for the—Republicans who want to make their whole thing eliminating early voting, I think that’s a mistake.”

A bipartisan presidential panel recently recommended expanding early voting as one way to make the voting process smoother. The Republican National Lawyers Association, a group of GOP election lawyers, rejected the idea, saying early voting puts “convenience over thoughtful deliberation.”

Paul also has been fighting, both in Kentucky and Washington, to expand access to voting for ex-felons.
Rand Paul calls out GOP over voter fraud claims | MSNBC

I mean even if the electorate decided to throw the GOP a bone on the voter ID issue notwithstanding its demonstrable ineffectiveness at combating the "voter impersonation fraud" it is purported to address, I've yet to hear any semblance of a logical and just argument ... neither in this thread nor in right-wing media ... for cutting back on early voting hours. Especially in districts that already had lines so long that voters were waiting up to 8+ hours to cast a ballot.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Again, they are not done investigating it. Lets see if any of those names show up in other jurisdictions. Perhaps 164 folks voted in 4 or 5 places. with elections coming within 4 votes etc it just may have caused some problems.
Some of those precincts had win/loss margins of 20-30 votes.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:32 PM
 
The flaw in current system seems to be that states expect you to self-report when you move somewhere else and register. But much like every other opt-out mechanic, this doesn't work because people are lazy (And that's assuming voters know this, which I bet the majority don't. I certainly didn't). They need to redesign the system so new registrations also deactivate the old ones.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
164 duplicate votes is 0.0041 failure rate. What number is acceptable? Or do you expect perfection?

Edit: I might add, that 164 votes are extremely unlikely to be swinging any statewide elections. For the pragmatic among you.
So 40,000 illegal registrations doesn't bother you in the least bit? It's a hole in the system and because it's not currently being exploited we should do nothing about that? Could you imagine such a stance for a bank and it's software? Just because the exploit discovered isn't widely being exploited, there's no reason to patch it?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The flaw in current system seems to be that states expect you to self-report when you move somewhere else and register. But much like every other opt-out mechanic, this doesn't work because people are lazy (And that's assuming voters know this, which I bet the majority don't. I certainly didn't). They need to redesign the system so new registrations also deactivate the old ones.
This.

It's a security hole. Let's patch it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So 40,000 illegal registrations doesn't bother you in the least bit?
The vast majority is not out of malice or scheming, and further, 40,000 voters makes up 0.011% of Maryland's and 0.008% of Virginia's registrations (2012). So yes, it bothers me the "least" bit because the potential for success is so low. But as you see above, I have no objection to fixing an obvious hole.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Some of those precincts had win/loss margins of 20-30 votes.
I'm under the impression the GOP is most worried about fraud in national races, not local ones. The GOP already has the majority of state legislators and governorships; Its national congressional races and, really, the presidential election seem to be where they are alleging voter fraud is occurring (That's why the focus was 2012, right?).

Also, 20-30 votes out of 126 fraudulent ones would require a coordinated effort by 25% to focus on one precinct. Do you guys think it's this much of a conspiracy?

Edit: Also, there's nothing that indicates those 126 votes all lean towards one political party. Meaning it's ability to flip an election is even more overstated.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 03:03 PM
 
They very well could be for one party, we won't know until the full report comes out, I guess. How much would Gore or Bush have paid for those 126 votes in specific Fla precincts, back in 2000? What would they have done for them?

It's not the volume of the fraud, it's the location. Cheating big is stupid.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
They very well could be for one party, we won't know until the full report comes out, I guess. How much would Gore or Bush have paid for those 126 votes in specific Fla precincts, back in 2000? What would they have done for them?
How much would Gore have paid for Nader not to be there? Bush Buchanan? Both for voting technology that didn't involve chads? Those three items had way more impact that anything else.

Not to mention, I wonder how much human error screws up counts.

Edit:
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's not the volume of the fraud, it's the location. Cheating big is stupid.
That's a good point. Partisan redistricting makes that much easier.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2014, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The flaw in current system seems to be that states expect you to self-report when you move somewhere else and register. But much like every other opt-out mechanic, this doesn't work because people are lazy (And that's assuming voters know this, which I bet the majority don't. I certainly didn't). They need to redesign the system so new registrations also deactivate the old ones.

^^^^ This. For all I know I could still be registered to vote based on my mother's address which is in a different county. Same congressional district but a different city. And I haven't lived there in 25 years. I always registered to vote at my new address but I certainly didn't "de-register" at the previous one. Quite frankly, I simply assumed that within a given state at least this would happen automatically. Crossing state lines is another matter for sure. The point is that trying to attribute this to "fraud" is hyperbolic nonsense. I bet you could easily find that number of people who have a driver's license in more than one state too. It's just not that deep guys. Seriously.

OAW

PS: 13 pages into the thread and still no conservative defense for restricting/eliminating early voting. Imagine that.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2014, 01:56 PM
 
People are lazy... unless they're receiving federal dollars. Then they are victims of cigar-chomping vote suppression.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
PS: 13 pages into the thread and still no conservative defense for restricting/eliminating early voting. Imagine that.
I can't speak for others, but I've long been opposed to measures that seek to restrict/eliminate early voting as is often the case with the military ballot. I can see why this might be among the primary concerns of liberals these days; given the power structure of the US, it's apparent they're not struggling at the polls, but for whatever reason can't muster their time in office to produce anything truly defensible.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I can't speak for others, but I've long been opposed to measures that seek to restrict/eliminate early voting as is often the case with the military ballot. I can see why this might be among the primary concerns of liberals these days; given the power structure of the US, it's apparent they're not struggling at the polls, but for whatever reason can't muster their time in office to produce anything truly defensible.
Struggle at the polls? With thirty days of "early voting" is kind of hard not to struggle at the polls. Having the polls open for a MONTH prior to a POTUS election, that's ridiculous. Election day is "the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November of even numbered years." a lot of ballot box stuffing can take place in thirty days. Then there is the "October Surprise" scenario that happens just before election day and oops, I voted last week and if I knew then what I know now....

Eliminate absentee ballots, no. We need better regulations as to who can use them. In most states they don't get counted unless it involves a close race and there are enough ABs that could affect the result.

The overseas military vote is a tricky thing. Here's a thought; if the Iraqi government can set up polling stations at their embassies/consulates for expats to vote, why couldn't the military do the same on our overseas bases? I'm suuuuuure we could trust Diebold and their electronic voting booths to relay real time results. There is also the "Ross Perot" idea of "secure" internet voting. Have each state setup up a website for our military to log onto to vote. The problem with that is "Soldier, We see you voted for candidate X or Prop Y..."

Any way
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2014, 10:33 AM
 
Just like Open SSL is "secure"?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2014, 04:50 PM
 
I missed these.

Arkansas judge voids state voter ID law - The Washington Post

An Arkansas judge struck down the state’s new voter ID law on Thursday, saying it violates the state constitution by adding a requirement that voters must meet before casting a ballot.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox voided the measure in a lawsuit over the way absentee ballots are handled under the law. A separate lawsuit had been filed last week directly challenging the law, which requires voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot.
The Republican-led Legislature approved the law last year, overriding a veto by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate. Backers of the measure said it was aimed at reducing voter fraud, while opponents said it would disenfranchise voters.

A spokesman for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, says the state Board of Election Commissioners has asked McDaniel’s office to appeal Thursday’s ruling, and it will do so.

Federal judge strikes down Wisconsin voter ID law - The Washington Post
A federal judge in Milwaukee struck down Wisconsin’s voter identification law Tuesday, declaring that a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sided with opponents of the law, who argued that low-income and minority voters aren’t as likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them. Adelman said the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
Walker said last month that he would call lawmakers into special session if the courts ruled against the law
Wisconsin residents can get a free state ID from a Department of Motor Vehicles by presenting documents such as a certified birth certificate, passport or Social Security card. Each document must be unexpired, and the person’s name must be spelled identically on each document.

A number of witnesses testified the regulation was a problem, either because their names were misspelled on a key document or because they were born in rural areas during an era when birth certificates weren’t always issued.

...

“Although not every voter will face all of these obstacles, many voters will face some of them, particularly those who are low-income,” the judge wrote.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2014, 05:15 PM
 
Not fond of the headline, but this guy seems to have actually read the judge's opinion.

Wisconsin’s voter ID decision: Judge Lynn Adelman destroys the conservative argument of voter fraud.

Citing research on the incidence of in-person voter fraud in American elections, Adelman notes that, in eight years of Wisconsin elections—2004, 2008, 2010, and 2012—researchers could identify only “one case of voter-impersonation fraud.” And in that case, it was a man who “applied for and cast his recently deceased wife’s absentee ballot.” Likewise, after “comparing a database of deceased registered voters to a database of persons who had cast ballots in a recent election,” in Georgia, another researcher found “no evidence of ballots being illegally cast in the name of deceased voters.”
This part is pretty similar to an argument I put forth earlier in the thread.
Adelman even notes the sheer difficulty of committing in-person voter fraud, throwing water on the claim that this could ever be common. “To commit voter-impersonation fraud,” he says, “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.”

As for the burdens of voter identification? Adelman makes two important points. First, that a substantial number of registered Wisconsin voters—300,000, or 9 percent of the total—lack a qualifying ID. Of these voters, a substantial portion live at or below the poverty line. In practical terms, what this is means is that they lack the time or resources needed to get a valid ID. If you work a low-wage job, odds are good that you can’t take time off to go to the DMV, and even if you could, you would need the cash to obtain the documents you need to prove your identity, like a birth certificate or a passport.
Adelman’s second point elaborates on the burden. If you drive, you receive a daily benefit from the act of gathering one’s documents and getting a license. If the voter ID requirement does anything, it offers the benefit of voting at “no additional cost.” By contrast, he notes, a “person whose daily life did not require possession of a photo ID prior to the imposition of the photo ID requirement is unlikely to derive any benefit” from owning one. At most, they can keep voting. Or, put another way, they have to pay the same costs without the same benefits. It’s unfair.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2014, 06:28 PM
 
^^^^

Once again we see hard evidence that these voter ID laws are a "solution in search of a problem" at best. And thinly-veiled "voter suppression" at worst. At this stage in the game that's just undeniable.

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2014, 09:01 AM
 
The judge is not only factually incorrect, but philosophically incorrect. First, let's be clear here -- Wisconsin is a critical swing-state and I'm sure this Clinton-appointee understands this while legislating as a mini-governor from the bench. He would understand that in 2004 for example, Kerry edged out Bush by just 11,000 votes.

In 2008: Last week Mike Sandvick, head of the Milwaukee Police Department's five-man Special Investigative Unit, was told by superiors not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day. He was also told his unit would be disbanded. In February, Mr. Sandvick's unit released a 67-page report on what it called an "illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of (the 2004) election in the state of Wisconsin" -- a swing state whose last two presidential races were decided by less than 12,000 votes. The report found that between 4,600 and 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once. The investigative unit believed at least 16 workers from the Kerry campaign, and two allied get-out-the-vote groups, "committed felony crimes." But local prosecutors didn't pursue them in part because of a "lack of confidence" in the abysmal record-keeping of the city's Election Commission.
Here, the solution was to disband the only entity calling out the fraud with hard evidence of voter fraud and concerns of horrible Election Commission record-keeping. If I'm a police officer and I simply ignore criminal activity or if I'm generally not paying attention, I can convince myself there is no criminal activity going on and I can prove it by the lack of any criminals held. This doesn't mean there isn't criminal activity going on merely by virtue of the fact that few were caught. It might just mean they're not being caught because the folks who would do the catching aren't paying attention.

The ol' "let's bury our heads in the sand" defense.

The authors of the report and the Republicans citing it were derided as being paranoid. Unfortunately...

Wisconsin 2004 - Milwaukee Police Dept confirms reports of more ballots cast than voters recorded. During a section dealing with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for example, the report states, “over 10 percent of the ballots cast in Ward 39 during the 2004 General Election were not properly certified by the Election Inspectors or were ineligible to be cast in this Ward.” (page 23) “Over 2600 additional persons who do not live in Sandburg Hall are registered and able to vote from an address where they do not reside.”
10% in a single ward?!? So the report citing up to 5,300 fraudulent votes was confirmed true and constitutes nearly half the number of votes needed to push Kerry into the lead in 2004... in a system with horrible record-keeping.

Just last year in 2013 - More Vote Fraud in Milwaukee County, 10 Charged. Milwaukee County prosecutors charged 10 individuals with a range of voter fraud crimes that included double voting, felon voting, and recall signature fraud.
Folks, vote fraud is real and it can affect elections. The judge's claim that workers are just too busy to get to the DMV is patently false. If you work any legitimate job where they're not paying you under the table in also defrauding the tax system, you need ID. Period. No ifs ands or buts about it. These workers are not too busy from work to get to the DMV because they had already gotten to the DMV to get the ID they needed to work. Another activist, Democratic judge legislating from the bench. Nothing to see here other than a cover for fraud that ironically seems to consistently benefit -- Democrats. Walker will appeal and I hope he is able to stop what is an apparent problem in Wisconsin.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2014, 01:04 PM
 
Where does it say "voter impersonation at the polls", or words to that effect?

Your statement about people with jobs having IDs doesn't address all the people without jobs.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2014, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where does it say "voter impersonation at the polls", or words to that effect?
You beat me to it. I've already stated, if there's a grand conspiracy to rig an election (as the 2004 one purports) voter ID isn't going to stop it.

The last entry is mostly felons and people registering at multiple precincts (which I assume requires some kind ID to begin with). The only straight up impersonation is actual voting, but signing names to a petition:
• Caitlin B. Haycock, 24, is charged with a misdemeanor for signing her name and both her parents' names to a Walker recall petition on Nov 15, 2011. Haycock said she told the petition circulator she wanted to sign for her parents, retired teachers who were then out of the country, according to a complaint.
Interestingly, same-day voter registration might be the problem here. I'm in favor of it, but I'm also fine with more stringent measures if we are to enable it universally. I think my past concession was that places to get ID had to be open that day as well, so the only real barrier becomes time (Which we should have voting day off anyway). Not sure how subego would feel about that.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2014, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where does it say "voter impersonation at the polls", or words to that effect?
Exactly. Ballot stuffing is a completely different issue than voter impersonation fraud. Must this be pointed out AGAIN? Jeez!

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2014, 10:38 AM
 
Guys, I'm still struggling with how you identify voter impersonation if you're not looking for it. i.e. ID'ing for it. Most of the instances of people voting in multiple districts and filed against multiple home addresses could be remedied by having to present ID, but I agree that's only applicable if one is actually casting their ballots at the polls and I can't find a citation differentiating the voting methods, just references to "this many more ballots cast than registered voters" and I don't have the heart to dig through the 67-page Wisconsin police report detailing the various elements of voter fraud, but this was their conclusion in the report:

“It is the opinion of Task Force investigators that more than any other recommendation we could make, our investigation has concluded that the one thing that could eliminate a large percentage of fraud or the appearance of fraudulent voting on any given Election is the elimination of the On-Site or Same Day voter registration system… Given the inability of Election Inspectors to check the eligibility of a voter on the day of any election, there is no other way to ensure that only eligible voters are voting on Election Day.

Knowing that fraud exists among essentially all elements of mankind and that ID is the most basic stop-gap against fraud, why not take that safeguard? Folks are calling it a poll-tax and I totally agree with that concern, but what if the ID is free? If the ID is free, but the birth certificate required to get it is not, something needs to be done about that, but they can't write it up for you -- you still have to go and get it. If someone is employed and on any sort of legitimate payroll, they have to have ID on file. If you want healthcare, you have to have ID on file. If the person is not employed, they're not struggling with their boss to let them off during the day to get the necessary ID. And folks, I'm not out of touch with being poor, or without the means of transportation. I've been alone and I've wondered where the next meal is going to come from. I've been there. I'm not some cigar-chomping Republican fat-cat who wants to disenfranchise voters. Assuming you all believe fraud in an election is a bad thing and knowing that fully half the number required to push Kerry over Bush in Wisconsin for example were found to be errant or fraudulent ballots, what are your solutions to the problem?

I see support for the absentee ballot. I see support for same day voting and registration. But I also see opposition to requiring ID so... what are the proposed solutions for safeguarding against defrauding an election? Merely saying Republicans are bent on disenfranchising voters when most, including minorities, the elderly and those of all the alleged disenfranchised classes, and those of all political persuasions in the US support ID'ing voters, is not enough. It is ideological, but it's certainly not exclusive to Republicans. So, let's ditch that tired line of reasoning and just conceive of ways to secure the election process against the obvious mathematical problems inherent in it. If ID can't play a role here, what can?
( Last edited by ebuddy; May 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
So let's kill same-day registration.

See? Reasonable.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2014, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So let's kill same-day registration.

See? Reasonable.
But how is that not a similar imposition on the voter? They're going to have to register to vote at one time and vote another time. Given the number of ballots submitted same-day, there's obviously a need. Why is it reasonable to support this imposition, but not ID?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2014, 02:26 AM
 
The fact people use the system I do not think constitutes a need. A demand? Yes. A need? That requires more than just people using it.

Likewise, an ID system affects every vote. A registration system only affects registrations. Much less impact in terms of potential disenfranchisement.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2014, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The fact people use the system I do not think constitutes a need. A demand? Yes. A need? That requires more than just people using it.
Agreed in part that it could be procrastination or negligence, but that could apply to those without ID as well. I don't think it's fair to broadly conclude it isn't a need for those with demonstrable challenges in satisfying the ID/documentation criteria.

Likewise, an ID system affects every vote. A registration system only affects registrations. Much less impact in terms of potential disenfranchisement.
The only purpose of the registration system is voting. I can see where an ID requirement may pose greater potential for disenfranchisement, but the States with Voter ID laws do not show this in terms of pre/post ID requirement turn-out.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2014, 10:53 AM
 
If turnout is the same, doesn't sound like it's stopping votes, fraudulent or otherwise.

So what's the point, again?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2014, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If turnout is the same, doesn't sound like it's stopping votes, fraudulent or otherwise.

So what's the point, again?
The point of ID here is the point of ID everywhere it's necessary, to avoid fraudulence. It's too late to ask for ID after the fact.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 04:10 PM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 10:29 PM
 
The question at this point is will the denial continue?

OAW
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 09:05 AM
 
Why on earth would most African-Americans support a discriminatory policy? In fact, why would a majority of any of the allegedly disenfranchised blocs support a discriminatory policy?

The study measured the difference in responses to an anglophone name vs a Latino name from proponents of voter ID laws and opponents of voter ID laws in States that don't have the law. I'm not sure that study is strong evidence of anything other than a greater propensity to respond from opponents wanting to correct the mistaken notion that the laws already existed. To Voter-ID opponents, this equates to a loss before the actual legislative loss and begs correction while proponents are experiencing a win before the legislative win. Notwithstanding, many of the initial emails were sent in Spanish. A representative does not respond to their own email, but their staff does. The staff of a representative who enjoys 10% of the Latino community's support for example may not have as many bilinguals on their staff as one who enjoys 60+% of the Latino community's support and budgets are limited.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
^^^^

That would be a yes.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:40 PM
 
I don't think it's proof positive of anything, but rather than trying to disprove the study, I'd simply cite that it's one study. Let's wait for some more to roll in.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2