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

[RealDave]

Apples and oranges.

Nebraska, for one.

I don't actually know how many, but even if one does - it calls into question the ID as somehow being proof of citizenship. Required documentation for a permit varies per state.

It's no more reliable than a student ID. But student's tend to vote Democrat...

According to your link, they allow "legal" non-citizens to obtain a permit.

Yes. And even legal non citizens aren't allowed to vote.

You mean they're aren't supposed to vote, the WI mall shooter voted in 3 elections even though he wasn't supposed to. It was discovered only after he committed another crime. How many more are out there like him?

Did he have a photo ID?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Federal law says a person only needs to declare themselves a citizen on the voter registration, it's no verified at the time of registration unless they register at the same time they get the ID. So it wouldn't be reverified.

 

[Tilly]

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists....

....Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal....

FairVote - The Right to Vote Amendment

 

[koshergrl]

its not a right, its a privilege determined by the state.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You might have a point IF there were more minority poor, which there is NOT when raw totals are considered.

Which number would be larger, 18% of 70% of the population, or 26% of 20% of the population?

 

[Coyote]

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.

You do realize, don't you, that your source does not say voting is NOT a right. You read it right?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Really, my registration cards are mailed, I've never registered in person, in fact most people do it by mail. They just take the persons word that they are an eligible citizen. If an ID doesn't verify eligibility they're useless, so the best defense against fraud in verification of eligibility at the time of registration and having an ID that proves your the person registered when you vote.

 

[OKTexas]

Apples and oranges.

Nebraska, for one.

I don't actually know how many, but even if one does - it calls into question the ID as somehow being proof of citizenship. Required documentation for a permit varies per state.

It's no more reliable than a student ID. But student's tend to vote Democrat...

According to your link, they allow "legal" non-citizens to obtain a permit.

Yes. And even legal non citizens aren't allowed to vote.

You mean they're aren't supposed to vote, the WI mall shooter voted in 3 elections even though he wasn't supposed to. It was discovered only after he committed another crime. How many more are out there like him?

Did he have a photo ID?

Didn't need one at the time.

 

[Coyote]

its not a right, its a privilege determined by the state.

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."

 

[Coyote]

Voting is a right, not a privilege

The deepest argument revolves around the moral status of voting. Last year, Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers said, "I think (voting is) a privilege; it's not a right. Everybody doesn't get it because if you go to jail or if you commit some heinous crime, your (voting) rights are taken away. This is a privilege."


This claim rests on an obvious confusion. Anybody who believes in the Declaration of Independence will affirm that liberty is among our inalienable rights. Nonetheless, certain sorts of crimes are thought to warrant incarceration, which is a deprivation of liberty. Does that transform liberty from a right into a privilege? Of course not.


The real logic is different. Our society presumes (as some do not) that all human beings are equal in their possession of both human and civil rights and that the burden of proof in restricting those rights must be set very high. Some people argue that no reason is compelling enough to override the right to life, for example, which is why the death penalty will always be a contentious issue.


Hardly anyone makes that argument about liberty, which is why a life sentence without parole is widely regarded as a legitimate substitute for the death penalty. Without the ability to deprive some law-breaking citizens of their liberty, our entire justice system would come crashing down. But no one thinks that turns liberty into a privilege.


Voting is much the same. All citizens are presumed to be equal in their right to vote. Yes, most felons do forfeit their right to vote, at least temporarily. (We argue about whether permanent forfeiture is legitimate, even after felons have "paid their debt to society.") But if we take the equal right to vote seriously, we must not pass laws that implicitly treat voting as a privilege that some are fitter than others to enjoy.


To confuse that right with a privilege is to change the understanding of American citizenship, and not for the better.​

 

[Tilly]

Voting is not a right.


The missing right
...
When the Constitution was enacted, it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn't think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But in the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th Amendment) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.

But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or to dye it blue, or to say "pretty please let me vote," all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.

The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution's protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this "leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials."...

Americans don't have a constitutional right to vote — it's time for that to change

 

[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.

You do realize, don't you, that your source does not say voting is NOT a right. You read it right?

Which source, retarde? I cited a few...including a scotus ruling, which specifically said voting is not a.constitutionally protected right.

You know that, or you would have quoted or linked the source you are.referencing. In other words, you're a liar. Useful idiot.

its not a right, its a privilege determined by the state.

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."

That doesn't establish voting as a constitutional right, per Scotus. It simply says they can't be denied the right to vote because of those things alone.

 

[Ame®icano]

Citizens alone cannot commit the voter fraud on the large scale. That could be done only by the election officials and by those who are in power over ballot boxes/voting machines/vote counts. That's why voter ID laws are necessary to make sure that only registered voters with proper ID can cast only one vote. Stuffing boxes would be impossible.

Voter ID would have no effect on ballot stuffing.

Clarify.

With voter ID, if there is one vote more counted than person voted, it could be proven that there is a fraud. One.

And in that case, I would void vote for whole precinct and do re-vote with additional oversight. Until it all match.

Ballot stuffing is when one person submits multiple ballots during a vote. ID wouldn't make a difference in that.

Voter ID would prevent exactly that.

By the way, ballot stuffing term is primarily used to describe election official stuffing the ballot box with the additional premarked ballots that favors one side.

And voter ID would prevent that how?

I said it earlier and its pretty simple, only people that show their voter ID can vote. Verification by swiping or pin, just like with a credit card. If number of ballot doesn't match the number of voter ID swipes, there is a fraud that needs to be investigated. Fool me once...

 

[Tilly]

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.

You do realize, don't you, that your source does not say voting is NOT a right. You read it right?

Which source, retarde? I cited a few...including a scotus ruling, which specifically said voting is not a.constitutionally protected right.

You know that, or you would have quoted or linked the source you are.referencing. In other words, you're a liar. Useful idiot.

its not a right, its a privilege determined by the state.

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."

That doesn't establish voting as a constitutional right, per Scotus. It simply says they can't be denied the right to vote because of those things alone.

Exactly. The amendments state that when people are allowed to vote, they should not be discriminated against on the basis of age, gender, race etc. I.e. You could not say only white males aged 32 are allowed to vote. The constition does not specifically state voting is a right. Fact.
I don't understand why this is so difficult, lol. I think there are some people here who simply cannot tolerate being wrong on any issue, particularly those that seem to think they know everything and those who just have to have the last word. Sad, but funny as hell too.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Really, my registration cards are mailed, I've never registered in person, in fact most people do it by mail. They just take the persons word that they are an eligible citizen. If an ID doesn't verify eligibility they're useless, so the best defense against fraud in verification of eligibility at the time of registration and having an ID that proves your the person registered when you vote.

Here in PA, first time voters must show ID.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Your eligibility to vote is determined at the time of registration. To make the analogy work you'd have to show ID each time you discharged your weapon.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Really, my registration cards are mailed, I've never registered in person, in fact most people do it by mail. They just take the persons word that they are an eligible citizen. If an ID doesn't verify eligibility they're useless, so the best defense against fraud in verification of eligibility at the time of registration and having an ID that proves your the person registered when you vote.

The NVRA already has provisions for that. If the ID doesn't clear, then the voter does have to show ID at the polls.

The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993 (NVRA) | CRT | Department of Justice

 

[RealDave]

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.

You might have a point IF there were more minority poor, which there is NOT when raw totals are considered.

Which number would be larger, 18% of 70% of the population, or 26% of 20% of the population?

My God you are freaking stupid.

There are is a higher percentage of minorities in a group of poor people than there are in the general population.

1) The reason Republicans want to exclude poor people his because poor people are higher percent democrat voter than the general population.

2) Poor people are a higher percentage Democrat voter because there is a higher percentage of minorities & minorities tend to vote Democrat.

You act as though all white people vote Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"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

Why are conservatives so happy to make that claim?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

You might have a point IF there were more minority poor, which there is NOT when raw totals are considered.

Which number would be larger, 18% of 70% of the population, or 26% of 20% of the population?

My God you are freaking stupid.

There are is a higher percentage of minorities in a group of poor people than there are in the general population.

1) The reason Republicans want to exclude poor people his because poor people are higher percent democrat voter than the general population.

2) Poor people are a higher percentage Democrat voter because there is a higher percentage of minorities & minorities tend to vote Democrat.

You act as though all white people vote Republican.

i am flabbergasted and amazed that the author of that post has the temerity to lament the stupidity of anyone.