Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 May 2016, 6:06 am

freeman3 wrote:The Republican Party likes voter ID laws because it helps them win elections. They don't care about voter fraud...that's a made up concern.


Let me try this same logic: "The Democratic party fights voter ID laws because it helps them win elections. They don't care about voter fraud . . . it helps them."

I guess it's admirable in a Machiavellian sort of way, but what's depressing Republican voters seem to actually believe the party line about it being about voter fraud. You guys don't really believe that stuff, do you? I guess it would be impolitic for a Republican voter to admit that voter ID laws was about reducing the votes of minorities likely to support Democrats, so I guess it would be difficult to own up to it. But to keep repeating the fraud mantra when it's clear that getting voter ID laws in 33 states was a tactic of the Republican Party to lower Democratic voting ...I don't get it. Again, no one here actually believes the line about fraud, right?


This is bunk, pure bunk.

Why does it single out Democrats? Because they're too dumb to get an ID card?

Don't give me that poverty garbage. I even found a paper (from Harvard) that pointed to the "costs" of a free ID card in terms of time, travel, etc.

Gee, how can they afford the time and travel to vote?

This is all a crock. Liberals love voter fraud. Just admit it. As the party without scruples (you're nominating Hillary after all), you don't care how you win--just win baby!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 May 2016, 9:36 am

Here's a summary of recent investigations into voting fraud which shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ly-a-myth/

Some Republican states have been spending money and doing extensive investigations to try and justify the need for voter ID laws and they could not come up with anything significant.

By the way, what evidence do you have that whatever voting fraud occurs happens more among Democrats than Republicans?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 May 2016, 12:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:Here's a summary of recent investigations into voting fraud which shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ly-a-myth/

Some Republican states have been spending money and doing extensive investigations to try and justify the need for voter ID laws and they could not come up with anything significant.

By the way, what evidence do you have that whatever voting fraud occurs happens more among Democrats than Republicans?

The intuitively obvious to the casual observer: Democrats fight to the death to preserve the right to commit it.

I don't care how little there is. Zero is the acceptable level.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 May 2016, 12:59 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Here's a summary of recent investigations into voting fraud which shows that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ly-a-myth/

Some Republican states have been spending money and doing extensive investigations to try and justify the need for voter ID laws and they could not come up with anything significant.

By the way, what evidence do you have that whatever voting fraud occurs happens more among Democrats than Republicans?

The intuitively obvious to the casual observer: Democrats fight to the death to preserve the right to commit it.

I don't care how little there is. Zero is the acceptable level.
\On the other hand, when you pointed at areas where more people were registered than eligible, I looked at one of the worst states (Illinois) and the worst Counties, and it seemed they were more likely to be Republican than Democrat.

How many eligible voters blocked by voting laws is acceptable? Also Zero?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 May 2016, 1:22 pm

Lack of ID is not an acceptable definition of "blocking". Standing outside a polling place with truncheons would qualify, however.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 May 2016, 1:25 pm

bbauska wrote:Lack of ID is not an acceptable definition of "blocking". Standing outside a polling place with truncheons would qualify, however.

How about wrongly being on a list of barred felons?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 May 2016, 1:46 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:Lack of ID is not an acceptable definition of "blocking". Standing outside a polling place with truncheons would qualify, however.

How about wrongly being on a list of barred felons?


Simple: ask for a provisional ballot and clear the matter up.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 May 2016, 2:44 pm

danivon
How about wrongly being on a list of barred felons?


Fate
Simple: ask for a provisional ballot and clear the matter up.

Seems like a reasonable answer until you find out what happens with provisional ballots..
The most common reason for rejection of provisional ballots is due to voters who have been purged off the voting rolls. 44 percent of those provisional ballots rejected in 2006 were due to this factor

So if someone has been purged but wrongly so... the provisional ballot isn't counted.


At their best, provisional ballots provide voters who would otherwise be turned away from the polls to have their votes counted, but at their worst, the offer of a provisional ballot can be "a way to brush off troublesome voters by letting them think they have voted."[4] It is possible for parties to force certain voters to cast provisional ballots so they can suppress the vote total of an opponent being counted on election night.[citation needed]
In the 2004 US Presidential Election, controversy arose out of arguments regarding the interpretation of the criteria for determining the eligibility of voters using provisional ballots. Many allege that these discrepancies of interpretations, particularly in Ohio, may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]
Studies of the use of provisional ballots in the 2006 general election in the United States show that around 21% of provisional ballots were rejected, where the majority of rejected ballots were cast by registered voters and the majority of rejections were for reasons that were preventable.[6]
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 May 2016, 4:36 pm

If people are SOOO concerned with voting, then they should make sure they are eligible. I do. If they find that they are not eligible because of being wrongly on a barred felon list, it should be found early.

Once again, I hold people responsible for doing the homework. If it is important, then it should be worth the little inconvenience.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 May 2016, 7:23 pm

rickyp wrote:danivon
How about wrongly being on a list of barred felons?


Fate
Simple: ask for a provisional ballot and clear the matter up.

Seems like a reasonable answer until you find out what happens with provisional ballots..
The most common reason for rejection of provisional ballots is due to voters who have been purged off the voting rolls. 44 percent of those provisional ballots rejected in 2006 were due to this factor

So if someone has been purged but wrongly so... the provisional ballot isn't counted.


At their best, provisional ballots provide voters who would otherwise be turned away from the polls to have their votes counted, but at their worst, the offer of a provisional ballot can be "a way to brush off troublesome voters by letting them think they have voted."[4] It is possible for parties to force certain voters to cast provisional ballots so they can suppress the vote total of an opponent being counted on election night.[citation needed]
In the 2004 US Presidential Election, controversy arose out of arguments regarding the interpretation of the criteria for determining the eligibility of voters using provisional ballots. Many allege that these discrepancies of interpretations, particularly in Ohio, may have been a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]
Studies of the use of provisional ballots in the 2006 general election in the United States show that around 21% of provisional ballots were rejected, where the majority of rejected ballots were cast by registered voters and the majority of rejections were for reasons that were preventable.[6]

Of course some provisional ballots are rejected. If none were, then there would be no reason to mark them "provisional."

On the other hand, not only did you provide no link, but you did not link your conclusion, that a WRONGLY purged persons do not have their provisional ballots counted.

Nice try.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 May 2016, 6:40 am

Fate
On the other hand, not only did you provide no link, but you did not link your conclusion, that a WRONGLY purged persons do not have their provisional ballots counted.

Its from Wikipedia...

Your justification for voter ID laws is that even one illegal vote is too much.
I don't care how little there is. Zero is the acceptable level.

Here's what we know.
In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]


What are the odds that among the 676,000 provisonal ballots not counted that 1 (your standard for voter ID laws) is wrongly denied?

Provisional ballots mollify people who show up and are barred from voting. But they are subject to even more potentially manipulative processes and arbitrary decisions by poll representatives than voter rolls and voter ID laws.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... er-the-map

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lawsuit-alle ... oter-rolls

I'm actually with you on the concept of voter ID Fate. I just don't believe for a second that in the US the laws are being fairly administrated, or that everyone has easy access to the legitimate forms of ID .
Here's some evidence on hoe voter rolls are purged... ...and there's plenty more...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... rge-2000-/

A working democracy should at least have an independent electoral commission that maintains a modern voters list, and treats voters identically when they show up to vote.
Thats not the case.
The notion that voter ID laws are improving the apparent legitimacy of elections is diminished greatly by the almost complete lack of evidence for voter fraud that suppossedly motivates the ID laws
On the other hand the evidence that disenfranchisement occurs is great. And provisional ballots do not in any way ensure that a legitimate voter cannot be disenfranchised. After all, in most cases, once they have placed the provisional ballot they have no way to actually find out if their ballot was counted.. And many weren't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 May 2016, 7:22 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
On the other hand, not only did you provide no link, but you did not link your conclusion, that a WRONGLY purged persons do not have their provisional ballots counted.

Its from Wikipedia...

Your justification for voter ID laws is that even one illegal vote is too much.
I don't care how little there is. Zero is the acceptable level.

Here's what we know.
In the 2004 election, at least 1.9 million provisional ballots were cast, and 676,000 were never counted due to various states' rules on counting provisional ballots.[5]


What are the odds that among the 676,000 provisonal ballots not counted that 1 (your standard for voter ID laws) is wrongly denied?


1. That would not be voter fraud, which is what I was addressing.
2. You have no evidence that anyone was WRONGLY disqualified after casting a provisional ballot. In particular given the topic, you've shown no evidence that someone who had ID and didn't bring it or someone who was eligible and just needed to complete something to get an ID has been denied the right to vote.

Provisional ballots mollify people who show up and are barred from voting. But they are subject to even more potentially manipulative processes and arbitrary decisions by poll representatives than voter rolls and voter ID laws.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... er-the-map

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lawsuit-alle ... oter-rolls


That's all swell, but it's not evidence that someone who is eligible is denied the right to vote. Furthermore, people need to take some kind of initiative in life. There is no Constitutional guarantee that you can lay in bed and have someone deliver ID, a ballot, and three hot meals a day.

Good night! Take some responsibility. Participate in the process or shut up and take it.

I'm tired of the whiner party.

I'm actually with you on the concept of voter ID Fate. I just don't believe for a second that in the US the laws are being fairly administrated, or that everyone has easy access to the legitimate forms of ID .
Here's some evidence on hoe voter rolls are purged... ...and there's plenty more...


Well then, why don't you have a nice cup of shut up. After all, you can't do anything but whine and moan about it since you're Canadian.

A working democracy should at least have an independent electoral commission that maintains a modern voters list, and treats voters identically when they show up to vote.
Thats not the case.


"Independent" is a farce. Every commission has a bent.

Furthermore, States have their own systems. Don't like it? Stay in Canada.

The notion that voter ID laws are improving the apparent legitimacy of elections is diminished greatly by the almost complete lack of evidence for voter fraud that suppossedly motivates the ID laws


What motivates Canada's voter ID laws? Love of ID?

On the other hand the evidence that disenfranchisement occurs is great. And provisional ballots do not in any way ensure that a legitimate voter cannot be disenfranchised. After all, in most cases, once they have placed the provisional ballot they have no way to actually find out if their ballot was counted.. And many weren't.


Actually, you've made innuendos, but provided no actual evidence.

Oh Canada!

You must prove your identity and address to register and vote in a federal election. Here are your ID options when you are voting in person – at an Elections Canada office, at advance polls or on election day:


That's just disenfranchisement right there.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 May 2016, 8:08 am

fate
. You have no evidence that anyone was WRONGLY disqualified after casting a provisional ballot


The evidence you've produced to demonstrate voter fraud, the reason for strict voter ID laws in your mind, is nonexistent. Yet you've claimed even one person voting improperly is enough to justify strict voter laws...

Of the more than
2.7 million provisional ballots that were cast in 2012,3
more than 30 percent were
not fully counted or rejected all together.4
Moreover, according to this first-of-itskind
analysis, in 16 states, the use of provisional ballots is more frequent in counties
with higher percentages of minority voters.

So if only one of the 810,000 provisional ballots that were not counted, was rejected without proper justification .... we've reached the level of evidence you required to prove voter fraud was an issue and strict voter ID laws were required.

Here's a study on the extent of the problem.
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-con ... report.pdf

Fate
Furthermore, States have their own systems

yes they do. And people end up being treated unequally from State to State.
Especially minorities.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 May 2016, 1:01 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
. You have no evidence that anyone was WRONGLY disqualified after casting a provisional ballot


The evidence you've produced to demonstrate voter fraud, the reason for strict voter ID laws in your mind, is nonexistent.


Two points:

1. That's a LIE. I've demonstrated it exists. I've also said there is a reason we don't find more of it: there is no system to look for it. For $100, I'll reproduce what I've already shown.

2. You didn't answer my accusation. That's because I'm right--and you can't.

Of the more than
2.7 million provisional ballots that were cast in 2012,3
more than 30 percent were
not fully counted or rejected all together.4
Moreover, according to this first-of-itskind
analysis, in 16 states, the use of provisional ballots is more frequent in counties
with higher percentages of minority voters.

So if only one of the 810,000 provisional ballots that were not counted, was rejected without proper justification .... we've reached the level of evidence you required to prove voter fraud was an issue and strict voter ID laws were required.

Here's a study on the extent of the problem.
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-con ... report.pdf

Fate
Furthermore, States have their own systems

yes they do. And people end up being treated unequally from State to State.
Especially minorities.


You're a moron. "Provisional" means "arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later." In other words some "provisional ballots" will not be counted.

Nothing else you said matters.