Rigged Elections and Voter Fraud - how common is fraud? Not very.

[Coyote]

No one ever said it didn't happen. It's just very rare and therefore doesn't matter. Again, you people didn't give two shits about this issue before repubs in office started whining over it in 2012.

You mean people are rarely caught, the way the system is set up, it encourages fraud, there are no meaningful ways to check citizenship and without ID you have no way to check if it is the person registered.

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Here in PA, you'd have top sign that book & your signatures compared.

They don't check signatures here, you just sign a computer printout.

They do in my state - I sign right next to a scan of my signature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one ever said it didn't happen. It's just very rare and therefore doesn't matter. Again, you people didn't give two shits about this issue before repubs in office started whining over it in 2012.

You mean people are rarely caught, the way the system is set up, it encourages fraud, there are no meaningful ways to check citizenship and without ID you have no way to check if it is the person registered.

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Then issue every voter a registered voter card when he or she registers. Show the card when the person votes.

Ok, I'm Joe Smiths kid, I just take the card out of his wallet and vote for him.

So what works better?

 

[OKTexas]

No, the bill would only prove your address theoretically. But using it as one form of ID along with a picture ID should be sufficient. There is no reason to make it as restrictive as some of those laws have been.

One of the problems here is that a voter can use just a utility bill to vote. And if there is a requirement to also have a picture ID, why not a government issued ID?

Because that is where people start to have difficulties and it starts to become unduly burdensome for particular groups of people.

Speeding fines that are set according offense effect the poor disproportionally as a percentage of income, are they discriminatory also? I still don't understand why you regressive keep fighting to allow an ineligible vote to cancel your valid vote by not demanding every safeguard possible.

Voting is a right, there is a requirement to not unduly make it burdensome for people to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle is not.

Owning a firearm is a right also, but we still verify a persons eligibility to do so. Would you favor the same lax standard you apply to voting to owning a firearm, should we get rid of those unduly burdensome regulations as well?

 

[koshergrl]

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

“A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
​

Courts are finally pointing out the racism behind voter ID laws

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”


The documents acceptable for proving voters’ identity in North Carolina were the ones disproportionately held by whites, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs, and the ones that were left out were the ones often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law was designed the same way: There, officials accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs. The Texas legislature was repeatedly advised of the likely effect on minority voters but rebuffed nearly all amendments that would have eased its harsh impact.​

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

You fuckers are a real piece of work.

Do you know what disproportionately means? Didn't think so. You whioers are just plain dumber than sh*t.

Yep, I know exactly what it means, I can also recognize bullshit when I see it, and you're full of it.

If you knew what it meant, you would not have made the comment you did.

Say you have a bowl of red & green marbles where it is 20% red.

If I take some out & put them in a different bowl & this bowl had 40% red marbles, then it would be disproportionately Red even though there were more green marbles in both bowls.

Suppose that there are 40% of the people at are Republican & 40% Democrat & 20% other. If we stopped a million people at random from voting, then the resulting loss in votes would coincide with the expected.

If you stop a million poor people from voting, you stop a sample that is disproportionately poor & thereby disproportionately Democrat voters.

Yep, you've lost your marbles.

You're claiming a subset (minoritites) of a subset (the poor), are effected more than the subset(the poor) as a whole. That sir is bullshit.

Well it's based on his belief that they're stupider than the population as a whole.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean people are rarely caught, the way the system is set up, it encourages fraud, there are no meaningful ways to check citizenship and without ID you have no way to check if it is the person registered.

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Here in PA, you'd have top sign that book & your signatures compared.

They don't check signatures here, you just sign a computer printout.

They do in my state - I sign right next to a scan of my signature.

I just found out I need to call my State legislatures, neither the drivers license or CHL distinguish a non citizen form a citizen. Meaning neither can be used to verify a persons citizenship when they vote even though it's verified at the time the ID is issued.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the bill would only prove your address theoretically. But using it as one form of ID along with a picture ID should be sufficient. There is no reason to make it as restrictive as some of those laws have been.

One of the problems here is that a voter can use just a utility bill to vote. And if there is a requirement to also have a picture ID, why not a government issued ID?

Because that is where people start to have difficulties and it starts to become unduly burdensome for particular groups of people.

Speeding fines that are set according offense effect the poor disproportionally as a percentage of income, are they discriminatory also? I still don't understand why you regressive keep fighting to allow an ineligible vote to cancel your valid vote by not demanding every safeguard possible.

Voting is a right, there is a requirement to not unduly make it burdensome for people to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle is not.

Owning a firearm is a right also, but we still verify a persons eligibility to do so. Would you favor the same lax standard you apply to voting to owning a firearm, should we get rid of those unduly burdensome regulations as well?

Voting isn't a right.
Bearing arms is. You don't have to prove that you have the right to bear arms, you're born with it.
You do have to prove you have the right to vote, because it's not a right..it's a privilege and not nobody is born with it..nor is it one of the rights granted to all people by GOD.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean people are rarely caught, the way the system is set up, it encourages fraud, there are no meaningful ways to check citizenship and without ID you have no way to check if it is the person registered.

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Then issue every voter a registered voter card when he or she registers. Show the card when the person votes.

Ok, I'm Joe Smiths kid, I just take the card out of his wallet and vote for him.

So what works better?

Neither.

 

[koshergrl]

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Here in PA, you'd have top sign that book & your signatures compared.

They don't check signatures here, you just sign a computer printout.

They do in my state - I sign right next to a scan of my signature.

I just found out I need to call my State legislatures, neither the drivers license or CHL distinguish a non citizen form a citizen. Meaning neither can be used to verify a persons citizenship when they vote even though it's verified at the time the ID is issued.

Yeah driver's licenses don't verify citizenship. Neither do social security numbers or cards.

 

[Coyote]

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Here in PA, you'd have top sign that book & your signatures compared.

They don't check signatures here, you just sign a computer printout.

They do in my state - I sign right next to a scan of my signature.

I just found out I need to call my State legislatures, neither the drivers license or CHL distinguish a non citizen form a citizen. Meaning neither can be used to verify a persons citizenship when they vote even though it's verified at the time the ID is issued.

Why would it need to be re-verified?

 

[Coyote]

One of the problems here is that a voter can use just a utility bill to vote. And if there is a requirement to also have a picture ID, why not a government issued ID?

Because that is where people start to have difficulties and it starts to become unduly burdensome for particular groups of people.

Speeding fines that are set according offense effect the poor disproportionally as a percentage of income, are they discriminatory also? I still don't understand why you regressive keep fighting to allow an ineligible vote to cancel your valid vote by not demanding every safeguard possible.

Voting is a right, there is a requirement to not unduly make it burdensome for people to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle is not.

Owning a firearm is a right also, but we still verify a persons eligibility to do so. Would you favor the same lax standard you apply to voting to owning a firearm, should we get rid of those unduly burdensome regulations as well?

Voting isn't a right.
Bearing arms is. You don't have to prove that you have the right to bear arms, you're born with it.
You do have to prove you have the right to vote, because it's not a right..it's a privilege and not nobody is born with it..nor is it one of the rights granted to all people by GOD.

Voting is a right.

Voting: Right or Privilege?

Which constitutional right is the most important? You might answer "freedom of speech" or "free exercise" of religion. Some think it's "the right to keep and bear arms." Criminal lawyers think of the guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures," trial lawyers of jury trial in civil cases.

But which right appears most often in the Constitution's text?

It's "the right to vote."

...The Constitution mentions "the right to vote" five times.​

 

[koshergrl]

Because that is where people start to have difficulties and it starts to become unduly burdensome for particular groups of people.

Speeding fines that are set according offense effect the poor disproportionally as a percentage of income, are they discriminatory also? I still don't understand why you regressive keep fighting to allow an ineligible vote to cancel your valid vote by not demanding every safeguard possible.

Voting is a right, there is a requirement to not unduly make it burdensome for people to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle is not.

Owning a firearm is a right also, but we still verify a persons eligibility to do so. Would you favor the same lax standard you apply to voting to owning a firearm, should we get rid of those unduly burdensome regulations as well?

Voting isn't a right.
Bearing arms is. You don't have to prove that you have the right to bear arms, you're born with it.
You do have to prove you have the right to vote, because it's not a right..it's a privilege and not nobody is born with it..nor is it one of the rights granted to all people by GOD.

Voting is a right.

Voting: Right or Privilege?

Which constitutional right is the most important? You might answer "freedom of speech" or "free exercise" of religion. Some think it's "the right to keep and bear arms." Criminal lawyers think of the guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures," trial lawyers of jury trial in civil cases.

But which right appears most often in the Constitution's text?

It's "the right to vote."

...The Constitution mentions "the right to vote" five times.​

I already explained this, dum dum:

"Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

 

[koshergrl]

The atlantic, lol.

Commie rag. Of course they like to pretend there's a *right to vote*. It allows the commies to perpetuate voter fraud.

 

[Tilly]

There is no explicit guarantee of the right to vote in the constitution. And:

... In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.

Beyond the Voting Rights Act: Why We Need a Constitutional Right to Vote

 

[koshergrl]

According to the Gods of the left, SCOTUS:

" The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1."

BUSH v. GORE

 

[koshergrl]

People be all stupid n shit.

"...the US is stuck with previous generations of half-baked intellectuals and hippies in the United States who no longer understand what Western Culture stands for.

"The result is the obvious creeping cultural decay, courtesy of Marxism-Leninism."

Must See: How The KGB Used Leftists As 'Useful Idiots', to Destroy America (Video)

 

[Coyote]

Speeding fines that are set according offense effect the poor disproportionally as a percentage of income, are they discriminatory also? I still don't understand why you regressive keep fighting to allow an ineligible vote to cancel your valid vote by not demanding every safeguard possible.

Voting is a right, there is a requirement to not unduly make it burdensome for people to exercise that right. Driving a vehicle is not.

Owning a firearm is a right also, but we still verify a persons eligibility to do so. Would you favor the same lax standard you apply to voting to owning a firearm, should we get rid of those unduly burdensome regulations as well?

Voting isn't a right.
Bearing arms is. You don't have to prove that you have the right to bear arms, you're born with it.
You do have to prove you have the right to vote, because it's not a right..it's a privilege and not nobody is born with it..nor is it one of the rights granted to all people by GOD.

Voting is a right.

Voting: Right or Privilege?

Which constitutional right is the most important? You might answer "freedom of speech" or "free exercise" of religion. Some think it's "the right to keep and bear arms." Criminal lawyers think of the guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures," trial lawyers of jury trial in civil cases.

But which right appears most often in the Constitution's text?

It's "the right to vote."

...The Constitution mentions "the right to vote" five times.​

I already explained this, dum dum:

"Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

Apparently, "dum dum", your explanation is lacking universal acceptance.

Yes, There Is A Right To Vote In The Constitution | Constitutional Accountability Center

As Professor Epps makes clear, not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.​

Funny how some folks are so keen to remove that right from citizens for partisan purposes.

 

[RealDave]

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

“A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
​

Courts are finally pointing out the racism behind voter ID laws

In North Carolina, the legislature requested racial data on the use of electoral mechanisms, then restricted all those disproportionately used by blacks, such as early voting, same-day registration and out-of-precinct voting. Absentee ballots, disproportionately used by white voters, were exempted from the voter ID requirement. The legislative record actually justified the elimination of one of the two days of Sunday voting because “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”


The documents acceptable for proving voters’ identity in North Carolina were the ones disproportionately held by whites, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs, and the ones that were left out were the ones often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law was designed the same way: There, officials accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs. The Texas legislature was repeatedly advised of the likely effect on minority voters but rebuffed nearly all amendments that would have eased its harsh impact.​

Blah, blah, blah, blah, typical regressive double speak and situational bullshit.

If a conservative mentions all the minorities on welfare, the left charges out, pointing at more whites being on welfare rolls than minorities.

Now a proposal is made that would effect ALL poor people exactly the same, but no, it's suddenly racist and disproportionately effects only poor minorities.

You fuckers are a real piece of work.

Do you know what disproportionately means? Didn't think so. You whioers are just plain dumber than sh*t.

Yep, I know exactly what it means, I can also recognize bullshit when I see it, and you're full of it.

If you knew what it meant, you would not have made the comment you did.

Say you have a bowl of red & green marbles where it is 20% red.

If I take some out & put them in a different bowl & this bowl had 40% red marbles, then it would be disproportionately Red even though there were more green marbles in both bowls.

Suppose that there are 40% of the people at are Republican & 40% Democrat & 20% other. If we stopped a million people at random from voting, then the resulting loss in votes would coincide with the expected.

If you stop a million poor people from voting, you stop a sample that is disproportionately poor & thereby disproportionately Democrat voters.

Yep, you've lost your marbles.

You're claiming a subset (minoritites) of a subset (the poor), are effected more than the subset(the poor) as a whole. That sir is bullshit.

I understand how difficult this is for you residents of Whiner World.

All poor would be affected the same. But by restricting the poor, you restrict more Democrat voters than Republican voters. Do ya get it yet???????

Your party is perfectly willing to deny Republicans from voting as long as they say to more Democrats that they can't vote.

It ios not thaty diffucult of a concept. Either you people are too dense to get it or you like cheating to win.

 

[koshergrl]

You just cited a piece that cited the Atlantic again, and "Professor Epps" lol.

You send Epps to talk to the SCOTUS, retardo.

 

[koshergrl]

Epps is an anti-American, anti-Constitution nutbag, one of the "Useful Idiots" in academia that the commies make use of, then kill, when they purge the schools and the press.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What?????? You have to give a name. That name must appear in a voting book that dshows they are registered.

And without ID you don't know who is voting. Joe Smith is registered, I walk in and say I'm Joe Smith, what the poll worker has no way of knowing is Joe Smith died yesterday or was in a bad car accident and in the hospital in a coma. How do you stop me for casting Joe Smiths vote and mine, we vote at different locations?

Then issue every voter a registered voter card when he or she registers. Show the card when the person votes.

Ok, I'm Joe Smiths kid, I just take the card out of his wallet and vote for him.

So what works better?

Neither.

When you register, you receive a registration card that becomes you identification on election day. If you want want picture ID on election day, then have it photocopied onto the registration card when the person registers.