Making it easier to vote makes it easier to cheat. Making it harder to cheat makes it harder to vote. Where to draw the line is the ??

[Woodznutz]

This voting thing. Why the big fuss? Once elected candidates go to Washington and are never heard from again, until they reappear as multi-millionaires.

 

[Thunk]

They should also be punished severely if they vote for a Democrat.

They are! Their children go hungry and they either get experimental shit injected into their veins or they lose their job.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think in order to answer this question, we need to see how bad of a problem voter/election fraud really is.

The Heritage Foundation keeps a running database of all proven voter fraud. Right now that number stands at 1375. That is 1375 nationwide since 1982.

In Presidential elections since that time there have been 1,170,176,733 votes cast. Add in half that much more for the mid-terms, to be conservatives and we are up to 1,775,265,100 total votes cast. And this does not include votes cast in local elections nor primaries.

But just using that number of votes we have one proven case of vote fraud for every 1,276,556 votes cast, and that not even adding in local, state or primary election.

Is this really a big enough problem that we need to take the chance of keeping someone from voting to try and fix it?

The flaw in that is assuming that "proven voter fraud," is the only cheating we have to worry about.

Suppose a bank had a policy of no id or account number needed to withdraw money up to $500. Just walk in, tell them you've got an account and they give you the money.

A year later, only a few have been proven to have committed fraud, but the bank is running out of money.

Fix the problem or don't do anything because if you fix it someone might not be able to get their money?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The flaw in that is assuming that "proven voter fraud," is the only cheating we have to worry about.

I do not assume that. But even if we assume that only 1 out 100 cases of it are proven, that is still one hell of a secure system.

Just a terrible analogy by the way. Not even worth quoting

 

[pknopp]

The flaw in that is assuming that "proven voter fraud," is the only cheating we have to worry about.

Suppose a bank had a policy of no id or account number needed to withdraw money up to $500. Just walk in, tell them you've got an account and the give you the money.

A year later, only a few have been proven to have committed fraud, but the bank is running out of money.

Fix the problem or don't do anything because if you gix it someone might not be able to get their money?

You didn't state a problem. No state allows you to just walk in and vote.

You really need to stop listening to whoever it is you are listening to.

Unless the problem is you.

 

[candycorn]

There isn't enough voter fraud to make a difference in a federal level election.

The important governing happens on a municipal level. Therefore picture IDs should be required--as long as they are free of charge and easily accessible--as a voter registration card.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I do not assume that. But even if we assume that only 1 out 100 cases of it are proven, that is still one hell of a secure system.

Just a terrible analogy by the way. Not even worth quoting

Stumped ya, huh?

I happen to think a vote is worth more than 500 bucks.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Stumped ya, huh?

I happen to think a vote is worth more than 500 bucks.

Yes, your stupidity did indeed stump me.

 

[Bobob]

Because he can, like millions of others.

Hypocritical, don't you think? He should practice what he preaches, yes?

 

[sealybobo]

Almost any kind of requirement to vote besides just walking up to a polling place and saying "I want to vote," will mean that some people will be excluded from voting.

For example, picture ID seems a very reasonable requirement to ensure election integrity. It is required for almost any other important transaction. But there will always be someone who loses their ID over the weekend, and can't get off on Monday to go replace it, so they can't vote on Tuesday. So the question is will that happen often enough to be a significant concern, more significant than the danger of letting people vote without ID, and will that affect one type of voter more than other types of voters so that the election results would be affected?

My answer is that it is significant for even one person to be disenfranchised, but the few who would actually not be able to vote due to a lost ID or some other reason not to have one do not outweigh the need for elections we can trust. I also don't see why voters of one party are more likely to lose their ID than voters for another party.

Another example, mail in ballots. If they are unlimited, with every remote ballot mailed in or dropped off automatically counted with no recourse, that would be an open invitation to cheating. But if you eliminate mail-in ballots, that guarantees that some people will not be able to vote, and if you make the restrictions so hard that the very people who need a mail-in ballot cannot comply with the restrictions, you also disenfranchise people.

That is a tougher one, and a good solution would require good-faith negotiations. Shut-ins might need help with compliance with ID requirements for a mail-in ballot. Non-partisan volunteers could help make sure they can vote, but how to tell non-partisan volunteers who want to make sure older people get a say in elections from community organizers harvesting ballots to help one candidate win?

I don't have a solution that would please everyone. I do have a very distasteful idea that I'm afraid it may come to. I'll post that on another thread.

All you need to see is what Republicans are doing in Texas. They are removing polling stations at college campus'. So clearly the intent is so that less of these liberal kids will vote. If you move voting off campus I bet half of them won't vote. And that's what Republicans want.

Texas lawmaker proposes bill to prohibit polling places at colleges

If HB 2390 is passed, it will go into effect in early September.

www.kbtx.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

All you need to see is what Republicans are doing in Texas. They are removing polling stations at college campus'. So clearly the intent is so that less of these liberal kids will vote. If you move voting off campus I bet half of them won't vote. And that's what Republicans want.

Texas lawmaker proposes bill to prohibit polling places at colleges

If HB 2390 is passed, it will go into effect in early September.

www.kbtx.com

So college kids are incredibly lazy, and the Republicans know it? The hope to make it an effort to vote for those future student loan deadbeats who are sure to vote for loan cancelation promising Democrats? That's your theory?

Not a bad theory, but I would love to see you prove it.

If that is the GOP plan, it may backfire. If any place would be nearly as ripe for ballot harvesting as old folks homes, college campuses would be it. Not having in-person voting handed to them with maximum convenience means they are more likely to vote by mail, which was the source of much of the cheating in 2020.

College Democrats are noted for their aggressiveness, including physical aggressiveness in politics. I can see them strong arming students not interested in voting into signing off on a ballot, having "chosen" whoever the community organizer points to.

 

[sealybobo]

So college kids are incredibly lazy, and the Republicans know it? So, the hope to make it an effort to vote for those future student loan deadbeats?

Maybe so . . .

If that is the GOP plan, it may backfire. If any place would be nearly as ripe for ballot harvesting as old folks homes, college campuses would be them. Not having in-person voting handed to them with maximum convenience means they are more likely to vote by mail, which was the source of much of the cheating in 2020.

College Democrats are noted for their aggressiveness, including physical aggressiveness in politics. I can see them strong arming students not interested in voting into signing off on a ballot, having "chosen" whoever the community organizer points to.

How was mail in voting cheating?

You're paranoid. And not being intellectually honest if you believe that.