US Politics - Rampant Voter Fraud Fraud

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Continued.

Kal, we already know that no amount of evidence will keep FLOW from his belief (at least professed belief) that it exists.

Also FLOW, Raidne's thread was a purely intellectual exercise, not a serious belief that only vets or whatever other group should vote. You may also recall that I noted therein that any group that restricts voting rights to certain classes of the populace does do in the belief that these people will "rightly" believe the same things that they do. Like Reps restricting minority votes or Dems musing that only college-educated persons ought to have suffrage.

An important takeaway is that only one of these groups has actually attempted to restrict voting rights in recent history.

(null)

[lokisnow]

Thanks Kal for those statistics, the frightening specter of the FRAUD of a one-in-a-million confused elderly person voting for their recently deceased spouse is truly terrifying to behold! Clearly this FRAUD of the elderly is so terrifying, so horrifying, that we should immediately pass laws to try and suppress the votes of minorities and the poor (but not the votes of the elderly of course).

Also thanks to Raidne for breaking down the Florida laws.

I'd also point out that Republicans kept passing anti-abortion law after anti-abortion law for decades after Roe v Wade was decided. And their persistence, their long game, paid off, with hundreds of new laws depriving women of their rights both being passed and legally blessed by the coronated courts of the country having passed in the last decade. At this point the battle over abortion is over, Republicans have won because democrats broke and fled rather than do battle. Democrats retreated, and once an army has broken it doesn't really reform. In much of the country, a woman doesn't really have a right to make decisions over her own body anymore, the tide has completely turned against democrats and that freedom has drowned.

The same will hold true for voting rights. Republicans will continue to pass odious laws trying to create second class citizens, continue to pass laws stripping citizens of rights, continue to pass poll tests and grandfather clauses etc etc. They will keep getting struck down for decades. And they will gradually make progress. Bit by bit, they will win as a war of attrition progresses over decades. "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

[DocStrange]

Greg Palast wrote a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" if this issue is of interest to you then I recommend you check it out.

Whilst it's not exactly a page turner it is very interesting and/or terrifying. He's an investigative journalist so the book is very heavy on tables and statistics, i think there might even be a few graphs in there as well so it can be a bit of a slog but it's a real eye opener and goes into great detail on the Florida - Jeb Bush election scandal.

(on an unrelated note I feel as though he represents what seems to be a dying breed of investigative journalism)

[Sivin]

There are some remarkably short memories around here.

Am I the only person who remembers the thread Raidne started about limiting voting rights to veterans and some others? I recall some disagreeing with her, but I don't recall personal attacks and vitriol, despite the reality that her proposal would actually deprive many minorities of the legal right to vote.

I also recall a bunch of other people chiming in about how uninformed and ignorant so many voters are, and wouldn't it be nice if we could filter some of those people out? I don't remember much outrage or implications of racism being levied at those people. Restricting the franchise seemed perfectly legitimate to some in that context.

Of course, my position was that the right to vote was granted to all law-abiding citizens, and that Raidne's proposal to limit the franchise legally justified violent opposition/revolution. Anyone remember that discussion?

My position is that the same rules for registration and voting should apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation, race, or religious background. I think excessive absentee voting and third party involvement in processing voting materials risks too much fraud. I oppose both and see nothing wrong with expecting people to make that kind of minimal effort to vote. But I also support making election day a holiday to help in person turnout, and early voting to replace most absentee voting.

Yeah, I know that makes me a partisan bigot. Whatever.

Ah, before I logged into this new thread I was hoping that maybe Raids had actually advocated a little Heinlein-ean government structure. Too bad...

I honestly feel that only those who meet a pre-set intelligence standard should be given the privilege of voting. Too often I've seen people saying "I'mma vote Republican/Democrat because Obama/Bush is a Communist/Fascist." That's a small example, but gets the point across. It's disturbing to think that fools who listen to Talk-Radio and believe what they hear actually have as much power as I do in deciding who ruins our country.

For those who might not have noticed, I'm a bit of an elitist.

[Crazydog7]

(on an unrelated note I feel as though he represents what seems to be a dying breed of investigative journalism)

Already dead I think. Mike Wallace was the last.

[Sci-2]

Ah, before I logged into this new thread I was hoping that maybe Raids had actually advocated a little Heinlein-ean government structure. Too bad...

I honestly feel that only those who meet a pre-set intelligence standard should be given the privilege of voting. Too often I've seen people saying "I'mma vote Republican/Democrat because Obama/Bush is a Communist/Fascist." That's a small example, but gets the point across. It's disturbing to think that fools who listen to Talk-Radio and believe what they hear actually have as much power as I do in deciding who ruins our country.

For those who might not have noticed, I'm a bit of an elitist.

I think a basic requirement should be a government provided set of courses covering logical fallacies, statistics, and economics. The necessary passing score doesn't have to be super high so long as there's a renewal requirement.

[Guest]

Already dead I think. Mike Wallace was the last.

RIP, Mike Wallace. What a great person. What a life.

He was more badass at 88 years old than most people will ever be in their prime.

[ThinkerX]

I think a basic requirement should be a government provided set of courses covering logical fallacies, statistics, and economics.

Should be prerequisits for graduation from high school...but lucky to even be included as optionals.

Reason being, most of politics and organized religion *depends* on logical fallicies. Politics also depends on skewed statistics and dubious economic concepts as well. More people asking more intelligent questions would mean serious trouble for the powers that be.

[ThinkerX]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-parramore/capitalisms-dirty-secret_b_1408241.html?ref=business

Bad things happen when corporations are unconstrained by strong national policies that force players to think long term, behave decently, and refrain from dumping their short-term costs on the rest of us. They tend to focus single-mindedly on maximizing profits for shareholders at the expense of all else -- including jobs. Executives set their sights on a path to short-term boosts in share prices paved with layoffs, wage cuts, and jobs moved overseas, while slashing research and development and investing in the skills of their employees.

And yet Big Business still trumpets itself as the American Job Creator Fairy. Apple has released a report claiming to have created half a million domestic jobs -- a highly dubious number which takes credit for everything from the app industry to FedEx delivery jobs (never mind that drivers would be hauling someone else’s gadgets if Apple went out of business). It’s true that in the U.S. managers, engineers and other professionals have found good jobs at Apple. But the non-professional employees are just barely scraping by. A study of the iPod value chain in 2006 calculated that among Apple’s domestic employees, professionals earned around $85,000, not counting stock options, but the retail workers in Apple’s stores earned only $26,000. This is troubling because as Apple has grown in size, most of the employees it has hired in the U.S. work in retail. Are these jobs paths to long-term, stable careers? Quite likely they are not.

[Guest Raidne]

FLOW - are you really just saying that you oppose the 1993 Voter Registration Act? Just the part about third party voter registration activities, or also the part about being able to register when you get a state ID?

And are you opposed to the Bush-era 2006 renewal of the Voting Rights Act, with the preclearance requirements? Or what about the Reagan amendment that made voting laws with any discriminatory result illegal?

My previous thread was an exercise in how to increase a voter's perception of sunk costs in voting to increase participation of eligible voters in order to set up the voting public as a real check on special interests under public choice theory.

It's cleary not legal under the constitution.

Under the current system I support both acts, with the exception of the pre-clearance provision, possibly. I'd find it pretty draconian if there weren't ongoing efforts to disenfranchise minority voters, anyway.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW - are you really just saying that you oppose the 1993 Voter Registration Act? Just the part about third party voter registration activities, or also the part about being able to register when you get a state ID?

The former.

And are you opposed to the Bush-era 2006 renewal of the Voting Rights Act, with the preclearance requirements? Or what about the Reagan amendment that made voting laws with any discriminatory result illegal?

Against both. Just because a law has a discriminatory effect does not make it a bad law. For example, and I'm going to be blunt to make the point, outlawing murder disproportionately affects demographic groups that commit murder. That doesn't make it a bad law.

My previous thread was an exercise in how to increase a voter's perception of sunk costs in voting to increase participation of eligible voters in order to set up the voting public as a real check on special interests under public choice theory.

I was not pointing a finger at you, because you weren't being blindly partisan and disingenuous n the last thread. But honestly, I'm starting to think the reasoning/partisanship of most of the rest is just a very bad joke. In the first page of this thread, we've seen three people chime in with high school graduation requirements (and you know the disparate impact of that result), completing certain government-required courses (and I don't think we need to really go into the problems with that, including bias), and a preset intelligence standard. The Bell Curve, anyone? And they just lined up one right after the other, without a hint of objection from anyone.

Are those people just blind, ignorant, or just so partisan that a horrible, incredibly biased idea is somehow improved because it comes out of their mouths? It's just stunning. My idea is just a very feeble riff of yours. You were discussing ensuring that people were vested in the system by having completed some form of national service. You were setting a much higher bar than mine, which was simply to ensure that the people who vote cared enough to put in the minimal amount of effort to show that they gave a shit. Asking someone to register and actually vote in person is hardly as extreme or exclusive as any of the other ideas tossed around in here.

Back in 1995, I moved from an apartment into a house in a different city. When voting day came, it popped into my head that I'd failed to change my voting registration, so I didn't get to vote. Guess who I blamed for that? Me. I didn't whine because I wasn't spoon fed a registration, or that nobody reminded me. I was embarrassed that I hadn't put forth the effort to ensure my right to vote. So after the election, I took care of it because it was important to me. And honestly, if someone doesn't give enough of a shit to put forth the effort, I'm not going to worry if they don't get to vote. If it is that important to you, then fucking take care of it for next time. Is that really to much to expect.?

As to the extent of voter fraud, the arguments being put forth here are not even honest. They're just gamesmanship, because by the nature of voting fraud, successful fraud goes undetected. It's no different than looking at the number of convictions for tax fraud and assuming those are the only people who cheat on their taxes, because that's the only proof there is. The problem with voter fraud is that it is so difficult to detect, and occurs without anyone ever getting caught. So nobody knows exactly how much of it occurs. But we do know that the system makes it relatively easy, and that there is a clear incentive to do it. Not plugging those holes because we cannot prove how much does or does not occurs is sheer partisan stupidity.

Fuck, that nitwit O'Keefe just managed to walk into Attorney General Eric Holder's precinct, claimed to be Eric Holder, and got his ballot.

http://www.breitbart...e-Holder-Ballot

Wanna cast an extra vote, just search the local obituaries, claim to be that person, and vote. Here's what recently happened in new Hampshire. The sad part is that had this not been done for purposes of proving a point, the fraudulent votes would have been cast, and no-one would have been the wiser. And though a minority of poll workers did ask the right questions, the person ended up just walking out, so there wouldn't have been a prosecution or record of attempted fraudulent vote.

http://www.unionlead...S0605/701129979

It's cleary not legal under the constitution.

But that has nothing to do with the morality of such a proposal, or how it compares in terms of potential "disenfranchisement" with just expecting people to follow basic procedures. As I've said repeatedly before, I support making election day a holiday. I'd even go so far as to support the "purple finger" method for the sake of simplicity over photo i.d's. Make it all simple, and no burden. But most on the left here have opposed even that.

I mean, it is a joke. The most reliable, fraud proof method we could use in Iraq, and people oppose it here. Apparently because they care more about fraud in Iraq than fraud in their own country.

[Sci-2]

Are those people just blind, ignorant, or just so partisan that a horrible, incredibly biased idea is somehow improved because it comes out of their mouths? It's just stunning.

Um, I thought it was clear that Sivin and or at least I weren't being serious? Heck, my requirements if implemented would likely result in far more democrats being disenfranchised.

ETA: Though changing US curriculums to cover the three things I mentioned would be a good thing, because on the whole I agree with Sivin.

[Kalbear]

But we do know that the system makes it relatively easy, and that there is a clear incentive to do it.

Actually we know neither of those things. If what you say is true (that voter fraud is very hard to detect) how would we know, well, anything about whether it's easy or not? And as to the incentive - yes, there's a very clear incentive to do it. There's also a very, very BIG disincentive to do it - each count of voter fraud is a felony worth 5 years in jail and $10k in fines.

As to the detection of fraud, it's pretty simple and was done in Washington State. You can simply look up every single person who voted. You have their name, you have their voter ID and where they voted. If you need to (and they did this in some cases) you can interview them and investigate them afterwards. It may be hard to detect at the time of the vote, and if that's what you were saying I apologize for not understanding - but it's certainly not hard to detect after the vote. Routine audits like this are done quite often, actually.

So again I wonder what you're actually complaining about here. In Washington state the election was close enough that they had a recount and then another recount and then an investigation, and that was just for the governor. For elections that aren't close, you wouldn't bother (unless you're implying that voter fraud is happening at the hundreds of thousands of people scale, in which case HAH), and for elections that are you get recounts and audits. What is the flaw here, FLOW?

[Brienne the Beauty]

But that has nothing to do with the morality of such a proposal, or how it compares in terms of potential "disenfranchisement" with just expecting people to follow basic procedures. As I've said repeatedly before, I support making election day a holiday. I'd even go so far as to support the "purple finger" method for the sake of simplicity over photo i.d's. Make it all simple, and no burden. But most on the left here have opposed even that.

By "purple finger" do you mean hand-stamping people who have voted? Because I think that is a very good idea. It is used in 3rd world countries where no-one has ID. I say there should be 2 possibilities: either you show up with ID, or you get your hand stamped with indelible ink. If the Republicans still have a problem with individual voter fraud after that, I have no idea what on Earth could please them, aside from banning "those sort of people" from voting altogether.

[TrackerNeil]

I mean, it is a joke. The most reliable, fraud proof method we could use in Iraq, and people oppose it here. Apparently because they care more about fraud in Iraq than fraud in their own country.

I'd care more about fraud that happened more often than almost never.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

By "purple finger" do you mean hand-stamping people who have voted? Because I think that is a very good idea.

Yup. SImple, and forget the photo I.D. I'd be fine with that. Easy solution, virtually eliminate voting-day fraud, and not disenfranchise anyone.

I also think absentee voting must be limited because the potential for fraud is so much greater. It shouldn't be too much to expect that people actually trot on down and vote in person.

[TrackerNeil]

I also think absentee voting must be limited because the potential for fraud is so much greater. It shouldn't be too much to expect that people actually trot on down and vote in person.

We bank online, file our taxes online...why should voting be harder and less convenient than that?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I like the idea of making election day a national holiday, but even that still wouldn't affect people who work for Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, etc., i.e. the working poor, whose companies ignore holidays altogether.

Fine. I'd support an election day law that limits any person to working no more than 8 hours on election day. In most places, polls are open for more than 12 hours a day. Frankly, this is more likely to be a pain in the ass for all those more likely to be employed Republicans. Students and the indigent/unemployed are disproportionately Democrats.

And absentee balloting is a huge assist to the working poor in being able to vote, since most of the time their places of employment will not allow them to leave to go vote.

I understand your personal concern for fraud, but to me its like fishing with dynamite. The disenfrachisement of legitimate voters will be entirely out of proportion with the few more cases of fraud that get caught.

I don't consider it disenfranchisement when you are expected to comply with reasonable rules for voting.

And you can't deny that the Republican concern is not with fraud, but is with supressing the minority and poor voters, because these are the people these laws will affect the most.

I can't speak for everyone else. However, my sense of it is that many Republicans honestly believe that Democrats will cheat like hell if given the chance, and don't view reasonable procedural requirements as unfair. As I've said, I'm willing to make it a national holiday, limit hours worked, and use ink on thumbs in lieu of photo I.D.'s. In my state, early voting begins in September for a November election, and anyone can go to the Board of Election and cast their vote during that period. I don't buy any excuse except military service and medical extremis for people unable to vote during that period of time, regardless of when their boss makes them work.

IMHO, when you oppose all those measures, you're no longer really interested in preventing disenfranchisement, but actually enabling fraud.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Actually we know neither of those things. If what you say is true (that voter fraud is very hard to detect) how would we know, well, anything about whether it's easy or not? And as to the incentive - yes, there's a very clear incentive to do it. There's also a very, very BIG disincentive to do it - each count of voter fraud is a felony worth 5 years in jail and $10k in fines.

As to the detection of fraud, it's pretty simple and was done in Washington State. You can simply look up every single person who voted. You have their name, you have their voter ID and where they voted. If you need to (and they did this in some cases) you can interview them and investigate them afterwards. It may be hard to detect at the time of the vote, and if that's what you were saying I apologize for not understanding - but it's certainly not hard to detect after the vote. Routine audits like this are done quite often, actually.

So again I wonder what you're actually complaining about here. In Washington state the election was close enough that they had a recount and then another recount and then an investigation, and that was just for the governor. For elections that aren't close, you wouldn't bother (unless you're implying that voter fraud is happening at the hundreds of thousands of people scale, in which case HAH), and for elections that are you get recounts and audits. What is the flaw here, FLOW?

Figuring out there was fraud in an election after the fact does little good when ballots have already been cast. "Yup, well, it turns out there was fraud that may have swayed the election, but ballots obviously don't come with names attached, so there's not much we can do about it."

We bank online, file our taxes online...why should voting be harder and less convenient than that?

Never heard of online bank fraud? And crap, imagine the conspiracy theories that would come out of that.

One concern I have is that, for awhile now, more and more people are claiming that elections are "fixed" or "fraudulent'. That is alleged by both parties, and I think that belief is dangerous. Because once a significantly large minority believes that elections are being stolen, the ballot box is no longer an alternative. So, we need a system where fraud is made very difficult, with all sides being able to keep their eyes on the process at all times. So that like the result or not, we have a significant degree of confidence that the results reflect the votes that were actually cast.

I worked as a challenger in 2004 in Ohio, which was set up to be really controversial. We ended up having observers and/or challengers, often attorneys, from both sides in virtually every polling place in the state. The virtue of this was that nobody could get away with anything shady. It basically resulted in everyone just making sure all the rules were followed, and nothing fishy was going on. That's why Kerry didn't challenge anything -- they had attorneys all over the place, and everyone told him it was all on the up and up. That's a good thing.

I don't want to disenfranchise any lawful voters. So I support things like voting holidays (I think pairing it with Martin Luther King would be a cool idea), purple ink on fingers, expanded early voting, etc. If there is going to be a photo id requirement, it must come with a free option, and the government must expand access to getting an I.D.. I don't like third party registration drives where they actually handle the ballots, but I see nothing wrong with informational drives, coordinated with expanded government registration sites, maybe rotating among the various polling places so that people can come down and register at the place where they'll actually vote.

There is a way to do this that would remove suspicion on both ends, and give us all more confidence in the final vote totals. But in general, I do think people should actually have to come down and vote themselves on election day, or in early voting. A lot of this absentee stuff actually involves one person filling out a ballot for someone else (whether it is a crackhead, person with Alzheimer's, whatever), which is B.S.

[The Progressive]

It is most amusing that Flow was utterly silence on the fraudulent outcome of the Republican Iowa primary, lol.