I disagree. Voter ID side consistently wins in the polls by about a 3 to 1 margin. People want integrity in the elections.Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way.This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How much Voter Fraud is Happening (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Orange Crush
- Start date
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Yep. I have stated this before and simply will not be convinced otherwise. If democrats didnt know it would get fewer votes for their side(legit or otherwise), they would have zero issues with voter ID laws. There are just too many things in this world that require ID. It is too common of a practice to be viewed as any kind of rational obstacle.I disagree. Voter ID side consistently wins in the polls by about a 3 to 1 margin. People want integrity in the elections.Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way.This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
That conversation would go something like this.
Ivan: So Tgunz do you think people should have to show ID to vote?
Tgunz: Of course. I mean I had to show ID when I bought my virginia slims the other day, when I bought my wine coolers, and when I got my new Iphone.
Ivan: DId you know it would likely cause some people not to vote?
Tgunz: So what. That is their fault for being disconnected from society.
Ivan: Did you know those people would likely be 90% democrat.
Tgunz: On second thought, we can't trample on voter's rights! There is no voter fraud!. No reason for IDs! My poor granny hasn't had an ID in 47 years and she is the most informed voter I have ever met. She has no way of getting an ID because of the great San Fran earthquake that destroyed her birth certificate. There are millions of people like my grandma that would be disenfranchised.
I think there are tons of people though that support voter ID that if you proved to them without a shadow of a doubt it wouldn't change the number of legitimate votes and that fraudulent votes only account for .0001% of the total vote,they would still support voter ID laws. Having an ID is just something that is too common in day to day life. So people naturally say, yeah, that makes sense.
So if any side is being disingenuous here it is the left. I have little doubt there are plenty of republicans that simply view this as a way to restrict democrat votes, but I also have little doubt that most people just view it as SOP to have an ID to prove who you are for so many other things that it just seems logical that it should be required for something like voting.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Why do KooKs hate it when brown Americans vote?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I agree with your wording. Most people don't think about public policy issues very carefully. If something "seems logical," then lots of folks will support it. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Um, why do you RepubliKooKs hate democracy?
I ran my pretty common name through the system and there were a lot of hits for double voting, which could get me purged from the voter rolls or subject to in-poll challenge if my state was run by the GOP vote suppressors, which luckily it is not.
AND IM NOT EVEN A MINORITY!!!!
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Clifford
Footballguy
You're right in a sense, but you're just mixing up causality. Me thinking its so doesn't make it so. It being so does make me think it's so.
Clifford
Footballguy
You've exposed my agenda. I am against making it harder for people to vote. You got me. I'm also against passing laws that don't solve problems and paying people tons of money to do so.
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
While I would approve of the program which eliminated Kooks like you from the voter rolls, the system database is much more than a simple matching of names. It also matches date of birth and last 4-digits of SSN amount other details. So while your misinformation is good for fear-mongering, it is not factual.
Clifford
Footballguy
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way. I disagree. Voter ID side consistently wins in the polls by about a 3 to 1 margin. People want integrity in the elections.
Yep. I have stated this before and simply will not be convinced otherwise. If democrats didnt know it would get fewer votes for their side(legit or otherwise), they would have zero issues with voter ID laws. There are just too many things in this world that require ID. It is too common of a practice to be viewed as any kind of rational obstacle.
That conversation would go something like this.
Ivan: So Tgunz do you think people should have to show ID to vote?
Tgunz: Of course. I mean I had to show ID when I bought my virginia slims the other day, when I bought my wine coolers, and when I got my new Iphone.
Ivan: DId you know it would likely cause some people not to vote?
Tgunz: So what. That is their fault for being disconnected from society.
Ivan: Did you know those people would likely be 90% democrat.
Tgunz: On second thought, we can't trample on voter's rights! There is no voter fraud!. No reason for IDs! My poor granny hasn't had an ID in 47 years and she is the most informed voter I have ever met. She has no way of getting an ID because of the great San Fran earthquake that destroyed her birth certificate. There are millions of people like my grandma that would be disenfranchised.
I think there are tons of people though that support voter ID that if you proved to them without a shadow of a doubt it wouldn't change the number of legitimate votes and that fraudulent votes only account for .0001% of the total vote,they would still support voter ID laws. Having an ID is just something that is too common in day to day life. So people naturally say, yeah, that makes sense.
So if any side is being disingenuous here it is the left. I have little doubt there are plenty of republicans that simply view this as a way to restrict democrat votes, but I also have little doubt that most people just view it as SOP to have an ID to prove who you are for so many other things that it just seems logical that it should be required for something like voting.
Horse-####. You're passing laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Laws cost time and money. So this is waste of resources that we pay for simply to help one party gain an advantage in elections. Both parties are full of self interested blowhard #######s that are only out to help themselves and are professional liars. I don't agree with helping either of them by wasting time and money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Wrong, Crosscheck doesnt even take middle names or initials or Jr or Sr on names into account, let alone the last 4 digits of SS numbers. You obviously didnt read the article.
Look, JonKooKmx, when you dont even know what the other KooKKs are doing, you arent qualified to comment even though you are also a KooK.
You just make yourself look dumb. It is ok with many that you are in favor of wrongfully purging brown Americans from the voter rolls, something which ahs been done many times in the distant and recent past by your ilk, but please at least bone up on the details. TIA.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
You forget that MaxKooK is a big government lover. He is a statist--he likes more laws that dont do anything except keep brown people, who may or may not be improperly registered, from voting.Horse-####. You're passing laws to solve a problem that doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Laws cost time and money. So this is waste of resources that we pay for simply to help one party gain an advantage in elections. Both parties are full of self interested blowhard #######s that are only out to help themselves and are professional liars. I don't agree with helping either of them by wasting time and money.Yep. I have stated this before and simply will not be convinced otherwise. If democrats didnt know it would get fewer votes for their side(legit or otherwise), they would have zero issues with voter ID laws. There are just too many things in this world that require ID. It is too common of a practice to be viewed as any kind of rational obstacle.That conversation would go something like this.I disagree. Voter ID side consistently wins in the polls by about a 3 to 1 margin. People want integrity in the elections.Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way.This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
Ivan: So Tgunz do you think people should have to show ID to vote?
Tgunz: Of course. I mean I had to show ID when I bought my virginia slims the other day, when I bought my wine coolers, and when I got my new Iphone.
Ivan: DId you know it would likely cause some people not to vote?
Tgunz: So what. That is their fault for being disconnected from society.
Ivan: Did you know those people would likely be 90% democrat.
Tgunz: On second thought, we can't trample on voter's rights! There is no voter fraud!. No reason for IDs! My poor granny hasn't had an ID in 47 years and she is the most informed voter I have ever met. She has no way of getting an ID because of the great San Fran earthquake that destroyed her birth certificate. There are millions of people like my grandma that would be disenfranchised.
I think there are tons of people though that support voter ID that if you proved to them without a shadow of a doubt it wouldn't change the number of legitimate votes and that fraudulent votes only account for .0001% of the total vote,they would still support voter ID laws. Having an ID is just something that is too common in day to day life. So people naturally say, yeah, that makes sense.
So if any side is being disingenuous here it is the left. I have little doubt there are plenty of republicans that simply view this as a way to restrict democrat votes, but I also have little doubt that most people just view it as SOP to have an ID to prove who you are for so many other things that it just seems logical that it should be required for something like voting.
Crosscheck does take those items into account. What the article alledges is that it found cases where it appeared it did not. When there are millions of pieces of data there will probably be some mistakes. This report alledges it found some, but provides no quantification of the problem. You are blowing up the information beyond the facts and are making statements which are not accurate.
Clifford
Footballguy
That was the sales pitch. But the actual lists show that not only are middle names commonly mismatched and suffix discrepancies ignored, even birthdates dont seem to have been taken into account. Moreover, Crosscheck deliberately ignores Social Security mismatches, in the few instances when the numbers are even collected. The Crosscheck instructions for county election officers state, Social Security numbers are included for verification; the numbers might or might not match.
Congratulations on your ability to cut and paste. Those are the allegations. If they are not following what is supposed to be checked, it should be investigated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Wrong. Please stop lying. Al Jazeera was given the Crosscheck double registration lists and they do not take that stuff into account. From the article, bolded and underlined for the willfully ignorant like you:
In this March 2013 document explaining the Crosscheck program to county election officers, the instructions explicitly say Social Security numbers "might or might not match." In the lists obtained by Al Jazeera America, alleged double voters were matched on first and last name only.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Look, being willfully ignorant does not excuse your desire for less brown Americans to vote. You need a little more justification than that.
I favor a system which allows legally eligible voters to have the opportunity to vote once per election. If you are going to intentionally falsely characterize my positions and assume false motives, then #### you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Because you constantly defend it and those who are doing it, anyone with an ounce of logic knows you favor a system which purges brown Americans from the voter rolls. That isnt a false characterization, that is reality. Look yourself in the mirror and enjoy it and dont get all blustery. We all know who you are and what you want, why are you ashamed of it?
JonKooKmx, you should embrace who you are, and the fact that you want less brown Americans to vote.
timschochet
Footballguy
Todd, I disagree with Jon on this issue, but if you're going to charge him with deliberately wanting to suppress minority voting, you need to offer some proof, because it's a mean and unfair accusation.
Personally I believe that there are those in the leadership of the GOP who are manipulating this issue in order to suppress minority voting, but Jon and most of the other conservatives here have much more honest motives: they see this as maintaining the integrity of our voting system. I don't agree with them, but I see no reason to think they're lying.
Personally I believe that there are those in the leadership of the GOP who are manipulating this issue in order to suppress minority voting, but Jon and most of the other conservatives here have much more honest motives: they see this as maintaining the integrity of our voting system. I don't agree with them, but I see no reason to think they're lying.
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
It doesnt matter how they "see this", Mr. soft bigotry anti-homosexual, pro-child rape if they have blossomed and have the body of a 20 year old. If what the KooKs are supporting wrongfully purges thousands and thousands of brown Americans from the voter rolls (which has been happening for over 100 years and is a proven fact), they need to live with it and its implications.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is by far the biggest source of voter fraud. I don't believe people voting in multiple states is more than an handful, but illegals voting is the biggest area of voter fraud. That is probably why in states that do have voter id rules, the only group which sees a measurable decrease in voter turnout is hispanics. Not African-Americans, or Asians, or Caucasians. The second area of fraud is with dead people voting, but even that is miniscule.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This surprises me if true, I thought it was a felony everywhere. I see Maryland has an "Identity Fraud" felony but that might arguably not capture voter fraud, I'm not sure.
I am not defending it. I really don't think it is that effective. But Todd was over-exagerating the issue claiming he would be removed based on the fact his name is somewhat common. The checks are more extensive than that. But it appears the checks are not doing what they advertize, so it should be investigated and shut down if they are intentionally ignoring details.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm going to ignore your slurs and simply state that how and why people see things is of utmost importance to me and should be to everyone. And IMO people like you who ascribe attitudes to others without evidence make honest discussion and debate on issues like this almost impossible. You consistently demonizes everyone who disagrees with you.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Really? I think that's probably way more common than most forms of fraud. People move between states all the time. Or have residences in two states. Just have to vote absentee in one state.
Clifford
Footballguy
Also it's true that this is a partisan issue, but not in the sense that there are two legitimate sides to the issue and that the parties see differently on. It's a partisan issue in the since that the issue was created and built up by a single party with the sole purpose of benefitting a single party, the Republicans. Those who argue that the Democrats benefit from not having voter ID laws are technically correct, but they are essentially saying the Democrats benefit from the rights guaranteed under the constitution. If the Republicans actually grew some balls and proposed laws openly disenfranchising all minorities, you would be able to make the same argument that Democrats benefit from the laws not being passed. However that doesn't mean both sides have equal merit. It just means that one party seeks benefit from changing the system from one that is actually democratic to one that only allows their most likely supporters to vote.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, these penalties seem pretty light. I would support increased penalties for voter fraud, especially for situations where it is shown not to be just an innocent mistake.
Clifford
Footballguy
This is the dog and pony show that needs to go away. The Crosscheck system is doing exactly what it was intended and designed to do. Scrub legitimate voters from the polls who are more likely to vote Democrat.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Wrong, timscrochetus, you are so squishy and waffling that you take every side of every position, give weight and validity to every statement, position and opinion, no matter how inane or ridiculous, and waste everyone's time working through your own wishywashy no backbone or core principles thinking in thousands of posts until you finally take a stand, 28 pages into the thread, only to take the opposite stand later on. Of course, you value every position--you hold them all at one point or another. Of course you value the pretenses and obfuscation thrown up by others--you vote for those who are anti-gay and think that somehow that doesnt make you anti-gay.
I am not "ascribing attitudes" to others, I am merely logically pointing out what they are in favor of and support. Unlike you, it matters to me when people take the wrong positions and I am not afraid to call it out. To you, there are no wrong positions, everything is relative and could make sense if viewed the right way, and taking a principled position based on what is right and criticizing those who are in favor of the wrong position is "demonizing". I am sorry if I "demonized" you for being pro-child rape if the 14 yr old girl had the body of a 20 year old, but you wrote it, not me.
Ridiculous.
That is not true if illegals are voting or people are voting in multiple locations. Those are not rights guaranteed under the constitution.
timschochet
Footballguy
That Crosscheck list has 7 million people on it. Does anyone seriously believe that many people are committing voter fraud?
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Good point. Lets get all of the brown people off the voter rolls just in case something like that might be happening. Brilliant!
I am not sure what that number represents. It might be the number of people it thinks are on voter rolls in multiple states. It is probably high. I doubt they are not saying there are 7 million people committing voter fraud.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Maybe if you read the article before you commented on it.....
At the heart of this voter-roll scrub is the Interstate Crosscheck program, which has generated a master list of nearly 7 million names. Officials say that these names represent legions of fraudsters who are not only registered but have actually voted in two or more states in the same election — a felony punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison.....
If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count....
Based on the Crosscheck lists, officials have begun the process of removing names from the rolls — beginning with 41,637 in Virginia alone. Yet the criteria used for matching these double voters are disturbingly inadequate. There are 6,951,484 names on the target list of the 28 states in the Crosscheck group; each of them represents a suspected double voter whose registration has now become subject to challenge and removal.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I wish the Maryland suit had the attachments to the complaint online. Hard to tell how much validity the allegations have.
Clifford
Footballguy
If the debate around Voter ID continues to be around combatting voter fraud then an honest discussion is not possible, because we are not discussing the actual intent and execution of the laws.
Crosscheck could not be a more perfect example of this. Your question of can 7m people honestly be committing fraud is legit and of course the answer is no. The only reason it is that high is that it only matches first and last names. If they actually included all of the authentication factors they claim to use, it would be a list in the hundreds. Only using two factors, the two that are most likely to be repeated, is not an "oversight" or a "mistake." Deliberately instructing auditors to ignore more specific and reliable authentication factors is not a mistake. It is 100% intentionally not using more reliable authentication factors. Since we can't read minds we have to just ask very simple questions:
If one's purpose is to conduct an audit with the intention of ONLY removing illegitimate voters, why would one instruct auditors to ignore more reliable authentication factors and use fewer instead of more factors?
One wouldn't. There is no logical explanation that can justify it. So we have a responsibility to put on our thinking caps and ask if the intention is legit when it is so far distanced from execution that would carry out the intent.
We can also use simple "who benefits" detective work and look at the source. It's so blatant and obvious they even have members of their own party calling BS on it.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
No, no, you misunderstood what Timscrochet was saying, she had the BODY of a 20 year old girl.....understand?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Your opinion is incorrect. As Clifford articulated, lower income folks are already marginalized in our system and have little voice in our democracy. I am in favor of policies that increase their participation and thus their leverage in the system. Has zero to do with political parties, and 100% due to my worldview.Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way.This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?
I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
This statement in the article seems odd, but its hard to tell if this is the sole basis for the claims:
Of course there are non-residents who vote, right? Isn't that the point of absentee voting?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I think that's just imprecise language. The complaint is here: http://watchdog.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/10/2014-10-24-1-Complaint1.pdf
It talks about citizens, not just residents. They sent a FOIA request to find names of people excused from jury service after they claimed to be non-citizens. Allegedly some unspecified number of the people on that list have voted in some elections.
Hard to tell from the complaint how widespread an issue this is or if it's really an issue at all. The complaint provides one example of a person that appeared on the non-citizen jury pool list and also voted in several elections.
freakinback
Footballguy
I realize what the article claims. Whereas some of the points are valid and need investigated, I am skeptical of some of the claims. I am fairly confident the article is wrong on that point. Those 7 million represent voters it believes need to be removed from voter rolls, not people who actually committed fraud. Don't trust every word you read in the media.
Similar threads
