[The Final Dakar]

Actual voter fraud occurred. Well they tried at least. They got stopped.

Brazen Voting Fraud Alleged Among Ultra-Orthodox In Williamsburg: Gothamist

What appears to be an orchestrated pattern of voter fraud is being reported at a pivotal precinct in South Williamsburg. According to a Board of Elections poll worker and another poll watcher, groups of young Hasidic men attempted to enter the polling station at IS 71 and vote under the names of other citizens who have yet to vote. "They're signing signatures, but the ID they show doesn't match the signature on the forms. Yes, there's been some illegal stuff going on," BOE poll worker Antoinette Reaves said.

An NYPD officer standing outside IS 71 told us he had witnessed four men attempting to vote under the wrong name in the two hours he had been posted there.

While some of the attempts were made by men who looked to be of voting age, others struck poll workers as obviously fraudulent. "They're fourteen, fifteen years old, walking in here with a crowd of people. We stopped them and asked for ID—we know they're too young to go in there. They've been trying it all day," Reaves said. "The same faces are appearing."

"I would definitely expect there are more, it's got to be closer to 20 or two dozen," Greenberg said. "[The BOE workers] are seeing a lot of fraudulent stuff, people are trying to sneak in, so they're aggravated as all hell."

AFAIK NYC doesn't have voter ID, but the article refers to some ID. I know in PA I have to sign in and I believe they check my current signature to the one on file. That also seems implied in the article.

[OAW]

Hilarious yet very serious at the same time. Gotta love The Daily Show.

The Most Baldly Racist Daily Show Interview Ever -- Daily Intelligencer

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Hilarious yet very serious at the same time. Gotta love The Daily Show.

The Most Baldly Racist Daily Show Interview Ever -- Daily Intelligencer

OAW

You gotta love heavily edited comedic hit-pieces disguising as news? BTW, for those too lazy to watch the video itself, the little bulleted list is dishonest to the core. This is why I keep telling those on the left that clown punditry on Comedy Central is not near informative enough. For example, you might be kidding yourself that this man's terminology was more damnable than anything Bill Clinton or Harry Reid have said in interviews not hacked for their satiric value. Or you might be pretending that voter suppression is exclusively a Republican phenomena. You might've convinced yourself that the racist holding a confederate flag, standing by himself or herself at a Tea Party rally of thousands of people is something other than an admitted progressive plant not unlike those seen at Zimmerman rallies.

This stuff is right out of the Alinsky playbook; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

[The Final Dakar]

Man, give the people actual voter fraud and you get crickets.

---

As for the Daily Show segment, yes they admit they can edit those things however the hell they want. Given the deluge of stupid things this guy said, I don't think this is a case of tricky editing, though. Or that there is any context in which voter ID being implemented to kick Dems butts becomes less underhanded.

He's been disavowed anyway

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You gotta love heavily edited comedic hit-pieces disguising as news? BTW, for those too lazy to watch the video itself, the little bulleted list is dishonest to the core. This is why I keep telling those on the left that clown punditry on Comedy Central is not near informative enough. For example, you might be kidding yourself that this man's terminology was more damnable than anything Bill Clinton or Harry Reid have said in interviews not hacked for their satiric value. Or you might be pretending that voter suppression is exclusively a Republican phenomena. You might've convinced yourself that the racist holding a confederate flag, standing by himself or herself at a Tea Party rally of thousands of people is something other than an admitted progressive plant not unlike those seen at Zimmerman rallies.

This stuff is right out of the Alinsky playbook; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

I'm usually one the first to detect a hit piece where they're using quotes out of context. My experience with that is the writers use one quote so they have some plausible deniability WRT the misinterpretation being intentional.

Likewise, the quote giver doesn't get fired afterwards.

That article gives five quotes and the guy got sacked. This guy just may be a pig.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This guy just may be a pig.

'Daily Show' interview leads to GOP official resigning over 'offensive' remarks - TODAY.com

Yelton resigned on Thursday, but was unrepentant in an interview with the Asheville, N.C., Citizen-Times. "There's nothing I said that I would take back. So be it," he said.

[subego]

I see he was "asked to resign".

Not enough stones to just whack him I guess.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see he was "asked to resign".

Not enough stones to just whack him I guess.

Republican Who Resigned Over Racism on Daily Show Calls GOP 'Gutless'

The Buncombe County Republican precinct chairman whose disastrous Daily Show appearance cost him his position fired back at his party leaders yesterday, saying his forced resignation proved the GOP had "no guts."

Yelton also reiterated his claim that The Daily Show edited his words out of context.

[Shaddim]

wrong thread

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You gotta love heavily edited comedic hit-pieces disguising as news? BTW, for those too lazy to watch the video itself, the little bulleted list is dishonest to the core. This is why I keep telling those on the left that clown punditry on Comedy Central is not near informative enough. For example, you might be kidding yourself that this man's terminology was more damnable than anything Bill Clinton or Harry Reid have said in interviews not hacked for their satiric value. Or you might be pretending that voter suppression is exclusively a Republican phenomena. You might've convinced yourself that the racist holding a confederate flag, standing by himself or herself at a Tea Party rally of thousands of people is something other than an admitted progressive plant not unlike those seen at Zimmerman rallies.

This stuff is right out of the Alinsky playbook; “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Of course you realize I know the video is edited. Not edited a la "James O'Keefe" style ... but edited nonetheless. But at the end of the day ... dude said what he said. And he was fired for a reason. IJS

And here is the key takeaway. Even if you take the "racial" angle out of it. Dude clearly stated what other GOP operatives have stated on camera. These laws have nothing to do with "protecting the integrity of the vote". They are about suppressing DEM votes. It's as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. Restricting early voting has no other legitimate purpose other than to make it more difficult for working class people to vote. You know those people who punch a clock and can't take off work to wait HOURS to vote in ridiculous lines that somehow don't seem to occur out in the burbs.

OAW

[subego]

I'm not a Democrat. If the laws are such it's easy for people to vote, and said people happen to be Democrats, my job is to convince them to vote for me, not disenfranchise them.

It's really that simple.

[Shaddim]

So ideally the answer is for there to be no registration, no ID? Just walk in, give them your name, and vote, or is giving a name too much to ask as well?

[subego]

I'm happy with our system here.

You have a big book which lists all the voters registered in the precinct. Name, address, and signature.

If the election judge wants to be a prick, they can hassle you for proof you currently reside in the precinct. There are a half-dozen acceptable ways to do this including the card they mail you free of charge before every set of elections.

You sign an affidavit which states you are in fact, yourself, and the judge compares your signature with the one in the book.

Job's done.

[Shaddim]

What about people who rely on temporary housing (no permanent address), like living at a shelter? Aren't they essentially disenfranchised?

[subego]

TBH, I don't know. I can find out.

I'm guessing at some point, yes. There are probably ways to swing it if you can provide a legit address, even a temp one, but if you have no actual address, you don't belong to a precinct.

[subego]

The "Chicago way" appears to try and have it both ways.

Homeless people flat-out have the right to vote. There's state law supporting this, as well as a bunch of court decisions from all over the place.

Accordingly, you can list the street address of the box you're living in on your registration (or change of "address").

If you get challenged at the polls, you have two options.

1) Go through the demand a provisional ballot process, and go to the election board within the next two days, where they'll presumably call it legit. If they don't, I don't know... I guess you can sue them.

2) Provide two forms of ID, all of which need a legit address (such as: DL, utility bill, government check) excluding the college ID, and "copy of a current and valid photo ID", which is a little vague, but sounds like it would need an address.

[BadKosh]

Just today....

Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state | Fox News

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Just today....

Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state | Fox News

I like that they dressed that one up with "key swing state"

Seventeen non-citizens voted in the November 2012 election in Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday morning, but he acknowledged that there’s no evidence of an organized effort to register non-citizens.

A voter ID requirement would not have stopped any of the 17 from voting, since they all had driver’s licenses, Husted said.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ohio-non-citizen-voting


A reminder that nobody claims voter fraud doesn't happen, just that it is both minuscule and not likely to be prevented by voter ID laws. In this case, both statements hold up as true.

[BadKosh]

Since Illegally voting is done in secret, and only *IF* someone checks do they find out to what extent... how do we even know what the full extent is?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So ideally the answer is for there to be no registration, no ID? Just walk in, give them your name, and vote, or is giving a name too much to ask as well?

Apparently, voter ID requirements are one of those few things occurring throughout most other democracies around the globe that we shouldn't try to emulate in the US. Never mind the fact that the Jimmy Carter-James Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform called heavily for Voter ID requirements in the wake of the election results of 2000, fraud is nothing to worry about as long as it's turning out (D) victories and thankfully now -- a small problem of ancient history. Maybe now we should focus at least some of our concern on the incredible disenfranchisement of the military voter.

[subego]

I could be mistaken, but don't most countries have a federal ID system?

Our society has firmly rejected that idea.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Since Illegally voting is done in secret, and only *IF* someone checks do they find out to what extent... how do we even know what the full extent is?

Is "we don't know what's happening" supposed to be a justification for Voter ID laws and all the suppression tactics that tend to follow them?

Originally Posted by subego 

I could be mistaken, but don't most countries have a federal ID system?

Our society has firmly rejected that idea.

Do they have to pay for their IDs, is it easier to get one, etc., etc.?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I could be mistaken, but don't most countries have a federal ID system?

Our society has firmly rejected that idea.

Some do and some don't, but I don't think any of the countries that do have a Federal ID system, hand-deliver them. You still have to get in line which seems to be the big deal-breaker in the US "voter suppression" narrative.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Some do and some don't, but I don't think any of the countries that do have a Federal ID system, hand-deliver them. You still have to get in line which seems to be the big deal-breaker in the US "voter suppression" narrative.

The difference is that in many civilized countries, you need an ID for all sorts of things that are not voting, while in the US you seem to get by rather well without one. If you want to implement voter ID without distorting the vote, start with an effort to get people to get IDs. Also don't say stupid stuff like the person in the original post did.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

The difference is that in many civilized countries, you need an ID for all sorts of things that are not voting, while in the US you seem to get by rather well without one.
If you want to implement voter ID without distorting the vote, start with an effort to get people to get IDs. Also don't say stupid stuff like the person in the original post did.

Really? Have you lived in the US without an ID? I'm not sure the OP was the stupidest statement of this thread. While I'm sure there are more, here's a short list of those things that require ID in the US;

• ObamaCare
• Boarding an airplane
• Writing a check
• Cashing a check
• Using a credit card
• Purchasing a bus pass
• Driving a motor vehicle
• Applying for a business license
• Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
• Getting a job
• Purchasing a house or real estate
• Renting a house or domicile
• Renting a motor vehicle
• Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
• Applying for a hunting or fishing license
• Purchasing alcoholic beverages
• Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
• Purchasing a motor vehicle
• Registering a motor vehicle
• Applying for a building permit
• Receiving prescription medicine
• Serving on jury duty
• Getting a bank account
• Cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater

If you've managed to effectively avoid all of the above, I can't possibly imagine what stake or interest you have in the election process other than someone promised to drive you to the polling place and buy you lunch for filling out the ballot a particular way.

[subego]

Bus pass isn't correct for the CTA.

I've never been asked for an ID for a job, but I've always freelanced.

AFAIK you can't skate on jury duty just because you don't have an ID.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bus pass isn't correct for the CTA.

Requirements here may vary by City.

I've never been asked for an ID for a job, but I've always freelanced.

Unless of course they're also paying you under the counter in cash, you'll need to cash that check.

AFAIK you can't skate on jury duty just because you don't have an ID.

In most places, summonses are drawn from the County DMV's drivers or identification card holder lists.

[subego]

Here it's based on voter registration.

If you give up your vote, no jury duty requirement.

[ebuddy]

That's not entirely correct. In Cook County for example, the list of names pulled for summons is compiled from residents from the Illinois Secretary of State (from their county DMVs), the Cook County Board of Elections, and the Chicago Board of Elections. These lists are then combined into one master list and names are randomly selected. i.e. it's possible if you've not registered to vote that you'd still be called to serve.

At that point, the following are required to serve on Jury Duty as listed on the "Jury FAQ" for the Cook County Court system;

To be qualified as a juror you must be:

• at least 18 years of age or older
• a U.S. citizen
• a resident of Cook County

If you do not meet ALL of these qualifications, please contact the Office of Jury Administration before the date you are supposed to serve. Please be prepared to support your belief that you are not qualified to serve.

I'd fully expect the "do you have ID?" question to pop up at some point as the simplest means of establishing the above 3 requirements.

[subego]

Interesting. Had no idea.

[subego]

But I should note, the thrust of my statement is still correct.

While you can be summoned because the SoS office knows about you, if they don't (i.e. because you don't have an DL or State ID), you still can get summoned for jury duty and (I presume) won't be allowed to skate just because you don't have a DL or State ID.

[subego]

And going back to your master list, many of those don't really apply to dirt-poor people, who aren't buying houses and cars, getting credit cards, going on flights, etc.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

But I should note, the thrust of my statement is still correct.

I threw a wall of copy-paste text at you and still you come back for more.

We can quibble over one or two of the 24 examples I listed earlier for sure, but the thrust of my point remains. You'll have a hard time convincing me that anyone who has effectively divorced themselves from all elements of existence requiring an ID is truly interested in voting.

For example, the dirt-poor people you're talking about need ID for Welfare benefits and they need ID for the new health care laws. They need ID to rent housing and they need ID for Section 8 housing. If we can exploit these folks by bussing them to the polls, we can bus them to the DMV.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Really? Have you lived in the US without an ID? I'm not sure the OP was the stupidest statement of this thread. While I'm sure there are more, here's a short list of those things that require ID in the US;

• ObamaCare
• Boarding an airplane
• Writing a check
• Cashing a check
• Using a credit card
• Purchasing a bus pass
• Driving a motor vehicle
• Applying for a business license
• Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
• Getting a job
• Purchasing a house or real estate
• Renting a house or domicile
• Renting a motor vehicle
• Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
• Applying for a hunting or fishing license
• Purchasing alcoholic beverages
• Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
• Purchasing a motor vehicle
• Registering a motor vehicle
• Applying for a building permit
• Receiving prescription medicine
• Serving on jury duty
• Getting a bank account
• Cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater

If you've managed to effectively avoid all of the above, I can't possibly imagine what stake or interest you have in the election process other than someone promised to drive you to the polling place and buy you lunch for filling out the ballot a particular way.

Hmmm, there's quite a few on here I haven't been carded for in quite some time:

• Writing a check
• Cashing a check
• Using a credit card
• Renting a house or domicile
• Purchasing alcoholic beverages
• Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
• Receiving prescription medicine

Admittedly I'm not 100% sure on the renting house thing, but all I remember is signing the lease, and the new owners haven't even met me, let alone gotten my ID. For prescription stuff, they usually just verify me by asking my address.

Since the ID controversy deals with the poor, I think we can safely ignore these:

• Boarding an airplane
• Applying for a business license
• Purchasing a house or real estate
• Purchasing a motor vehicle
• Applying for a building permit
• Cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater

So what's left?

• ObamaCare
• Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
• Getting a job
• Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
• Applying for a hunting or fishing license
• Serving on jury duty
• Getting a bank account

I wouldn't call the bolded entirely likely or more lifestyle based (where I live, you don't get jury duty unless you're registered to vote). Further, one of the criticisms of the poor is they don't do banks – instead they use check cashing places where they get ripped off, and I imagine don't care about ID. That leaves – Obamacare and getting a job


Anyway, the list if overly padded with redundant stuff (banking/money related, car related, over 18 purchases). What I really wonder is how people are working without IDs – but given that illegals can enter the system and only get caught later, there must be some workarounds I'm unaware of. I wonder if a large segment of the poor are working under the table.

[subego]

I'm sure there are plenty of poor people who get paid under the table because they're getting paid less than minimum wage.

I'm talking US citizens.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll have a hard time convincing me that anyone who has effectively divorced themselves from all elements of existence requiring an ID is truly interested in voting.

This is the crux of it right here.

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

Lack of interest is not a suitable reason to make it more difficult for someone to exercise it.


Allow me to restate my earlier question. What's wrong with the system in use here? Signature comparison, along with a card sent to you by the Board of Elections?

Unless there's something wrong with this, this whole photo ID thing is "let's replace a working system for people to exercise their rights with a more difficult one.

I must be taking crazy pills or something, because that sounds unAmerican. I'm a little surprised at how many people really like the idea.

[subego]

And, as I've mentioned before, I can't help but notice the almost direct correlation with the people who like the idea of making voting more difficult and the party that's on the ropes.

As if this is the problem.


Hint: the problem is a philosophy which leads to conclusions like "making it harder to vote is a good idea".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is the crux of it right here.

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

Defrauding it is not meritorious. Rights often have to be protected so as not to harm or infringe the rights of others. If there is a perfectly reasonable means of protecting that right, I have no problem with it. Gun ownership is a right also, but there are several forms of ID required after waiting periods and the like in order to bolster the right while protecting others from criminal behavior.

Lack of interest is not a suitable reason to make it more difficult for someone to exercise it.

Your lack of interest is not a suitable reason to leave an election process open to fraud.

Allow me to restate my earlier question. What's wrong with the system in use here? Signature comparison, along with a card sent to you by the Board of Elections?

Chicago, noteworthy in its voter fraud?

Unless there's something wrong with this, this whole photo ID thing is "let's replace a working system for people to exercise their rights with a more difficult one.

Why can't it be; "instituting a reasonable precautionary measure to ensure everyone's vote means something"? This is not a Banana Republic. There's nothing wrong with the rule of law.

I must be taking crazy pills or something, because that sounds unAmerican. I'm a little surprised at how many people really like the idea.

It's not a huge issue with me, but I have an opinion on the matter. Identification is specifically designed for curbing fraud and if it's useful in protecting the sanctity of commerce, I don't see why it's all of a sudden draconian when considered for one of the most important civic responsibilities in existence. I don't think this is a geo-centric phenomena and while it may sound unAmerican to you, it sounds sensible to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

And, as I've mentioned before, I can't help but notice the almost direct correlation with the people who like the idea of making voting more difficult and the party that's on the ropes.

As if this is the problem.


Hint: the problem is a philosophy which leads to conclusions like "making it harder to vote is a good idea".

The example I began with in this thread were the recommendations of a Carter-Baker Election Commission who encouraged the use of ID after the 2000 election in which Al Gore lost. Some may view it as "making it harder to vote", while I consider it "ensuring each vote matters".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hmmm, there's quite a few on here I haven't been carded for in quite some time:

• Writing a check
• Cashing a check
• Using a credit card
• Renting a house or domicile
• Purchasing alcoholic beverages
• Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
• Receiving prescription medicine

Admittedly I'm not 100% sure on the renting house thing, but all I remember is signing the lease, and the new owners haven't even met me, let alone gotten my ID. For prescription stuff, they usually just verify me by asking my address.

When I'm writing a check, the recipient uses my ID to write my Driver's License number across the top. Never not been carded to cash a check unless I'm using my bank card -- which required ID to get. I've never not been ID'd for prescription medication and they'll often do it now for over-the-counter stuff because folks are making meth out of it. I've never not been asked for ID when renting or buying homes. If you look old enough, I suspect you wouldn't have to be carded for cigarettes and alcohol, but if it's questionable and they don't, huge potential problem for them. While some will break rules for convenience-sake, ID is the single-most effective means of guarding against fraudulence or criminal behavior. If it's sensible and reasonable in general commerce, I don't see how it's all of a sudden draconian at the polls.

So what's left?

• ObamaCare
• Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
• Getting a job
• Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
• Applying for a hunting or fishing license
• Serving on jury duty
• Getting a bank account

I wouldn't call the bolded entirely likely or more lifestyle based (where I live, you don't get jury duty unless you're registered to vote). Further, one of the criticisms of the poor is they don't do banks – instead they use check cashing places where they get ripped off, and I imagine don't care about ID. That leaves – Obamacare and getting a job

Way back in the day, when I was into trouble -- I used a check-cash express place where they not only took my ID, but my fingerprint. A lot of folks think their jury summons comes exclusively from their election commission whereas in most places it's actually a combination of the DMV through your State secretary and the election board. All welfare that I'm aware of from Medicare and Medicaid (which I was on at one time) foodstamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, etc. all required ID on file.

Anyway, the list if overly padded with redundant stuff (banking/money related, car related, over 18 purchases). What I really wonder is how people are working without IDs – but given that illegals can enter the system and only get caught later, there must be some workarounds I'm unaware of. I wonder if a large segment of the poor are working under the table.

Good point. I suspect many are working under the table for money, namely drug dealers and illegal immigrants etc... Otherwise, self-employed people need to be licensed for their business and issued a tax ID # which require ID.

[subego]

The voter fraud thing in Chicago, while somewhat more recent, is like going "Chicago... Al Capone". Those fraudulent practices were based on having a political machine to provide cover. That's why Harold Washington getting elected back in the day was such a big deal. He was able to do that even with the machine trying to crush him. The machine never recovered from that blow, which was 30 years ago. Most of the people who ran that game are dead or on parole, and the current generation know the Feds are listening.

Is there something about the system which strikes you as particularly subject to abuse?

I agree wholeheartedly protecting rights goes both ways, and fraud is obviously harmful to the process. Unfortunately, we're kinda screwed on that front. It is a legal requirement to allow someone to vote without providing any identification, or in fact, showing up. Also known as an absentee ballot. This system is and has been subject to large scale fraud. I can drive a truck through this hole, but instead I'm going to convince someone to commit felonies, in person, for a value to me of exactly one vote.

It's a little preposterous.

[subego]

I know I've said it in the thread before, but it bears repeating.

The reason I take a what some may call extreme position here, is I hold our election system to a standard very similar to what I hold our legal system to.

It is far better to let 20 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person be judged as guilty.

The thing is though, the signature check with voter card system isn't exactly letting "guilty" votes fly through the system, and even if it was, by the above standard, I'm going to have high tolerance for it.

But it's not, so then making it harder for "innocent" votes is really grinding my gears.


Edit: and if it isn't clear, there is almost zero political overlap between myself and the people I consider need to be protected. The fact that protection dilutes what I would consider to be good choices by the electorate is a lump I have to take. This is one of those "price of freedom" things, just like letting people have guns means people are going to get shot up.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The example I began with in this thread were the recommendations of a Carter-Baker Election Commission who encouraged the use of ID after the 2000 election in which Al Gore lost. Some may view it as "making it harder to vote", while I consider it "ensuring each vote matters".

I owe you an apology here. That was a needlessly snarky post. This is a hot-button topic for me.

[ebuddy]

I think your point on emotions-running-hot on this is well-taken. I still believe that if the sanctity of commerce deserves protections through the use of identification, so too should perhaps the most important civic responsibility we'll have as American citizens.

The arguments against Voter ID; it suppresses votes and is a solution looking for a problem. The number of documented, prosecuted cases of voter impersonation are actually very low whereas the suppression of elderly, minority, and poor votes are real.

The arguments for Voter ID; it validates votes and is a very reasonable solution to a problem that permeates all aspects of existence; fraud. While the number of documented, prosecuted cases of voter impersonation are rare, that's simply the product of how difficult it is to catch in our current system. i.e. just because it's an effective deception doesn't mean it's rare. Other means can be taken to ensure those without IDs can get them.

• To date, 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud.
• More than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, yet remain on the rolls nation-wide.
• There are over 1.8 million dead voters still eligible on the rolls across the country.
• More than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.
• True The Vote recently found 99 cases of potential felony interstate voter fraud.
• Maryland affiliates of True The Vote uncovered cases of people registering and voting after their respective deaths.
• This year, True The Vote uncovered more than 348,000 dead people on the rolls in 27 states. California - 49,000, Florida - 30,000, Texas - 28,500, Michigan - 25,000, Illinois - 24,000
• 12 Indiana counties have more registered voters than residents.
• The Ohio Secretary of State admitted that multiple Ohio counties have more registered voters than residents.
• Federal records showed 160 counties in 19 states have over 100 percent voter registration.
• The Florida New Majority Education Fund, Democratic Party of Florida and the National Council of La Raza are currently under investigation for alleged voter registration fraud.

How reasonable is a Voter ID requirement?

• 74% of Americans support it. A strong majority of African Americans support it as do 71% of Latinos.
• Contrary to popular myth, there is broad bipartisan support for Voter ID requirements.

[subego]

I'll make a post which covers more, but I want to point out voter registration fraud is a different problem.

[subego]

I'm still getting stuck on the RoI of sending individuals to polling places vs. the RoI of getting a stack of absentee ballots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll make a post which covers more, but I want to point out voter registration fraud is a different problem.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm still getting stuck on the RoI of sending individuals to polling places vs. the RoI of getting a stack of absentee ballots.

Again, voter impersonation (physically, at the polls) is difficult to catch in our current system because there are few means of truly validating each voter. It is the aforementioned registration fraud that necessitates validation at the polls. In short -- it's not a different problem, it's the very foundation of the problem.

With regard to absentee ballots, there are different means of validating the identification and are already on the absentee ballot including witness signature of one commissioned by the State or other. The RoI would be whatever it is today I suspect.

[subego]

What I'm saying is the RoI on fraudulent absentee ballots is higher. Like, by at least an order of magnitude.

It takes less effort, you have more time, it's way safer, and you can potentially cast thousands of ballots at once.

To put it another way, doing it at the polls is Darwin Award territory.

Saying we aren't catching people at the polls because it's hard to catch while possible, doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test as well as the other options. A much simpler explanation is "fraud takes the path of least resistance", which are absentee ballots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm saying is the RoI on fraudulent absentee ballots is higher. Like, by at least an order of magnitude.
It takes less effort, you have more time, it's way safer, and you can potentially cast thousands of ballots at once.

To put it another way, doing it at the polls is Darwin Award territory.

So you're saying that by eliminating fraud at the polls, you'll drive fraudulence in absentee balloting? Do you have anything to substantiate this relationship? I mean, I can imagine absentee ballots being more susceptible to fraud, but it seems some reasonable measures could be taken here as well. For example, you have to apply for an absentee ballot and most states that allow early or absentee balloting require some qualification for that need. This can easily be isolated to specific cases and massive increases in this reason or that should raise the eyebrows of the election commission. Not to mention any requests for several thousand ballots.

Saying we aren't catching people at the polls because it's hard to catch while possible, doesn't pass the Occam's Razor test as well as the other options. A much simpler explanation is "fraud takes the path of least resistance", which are absentee ballots.

I guess I don't see this as a valid cause for failing to safeguard poll-voting with very reasonable measures.

[subego]

You have it flipped.

I'm saying there is little in person fraud because there is a better option already available.