In my town, elections other than "Election Day" in November average about 10% of eligible voters. It wouldn't be difficult to add a few dozen votes to one side or the other, especially if one had access to the previous lists of who voted and who didn't. Those few dozen votes would often make the difference.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter badmojo1006
- Start date
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Describe to me how you would "add a few dozen votes to one side" without arousing any suspicion.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The number of topics about which this statement is true is miniscule, and the propriety of voter IDs certainly isn't among them. Genuine topics of No Reasonable Disagreement" are things like "Slavery was bad for the people who where enslaved" and "It's a good thing the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't escalate any further."Matthias said:
Most of the time, when you find yourself thinking that no reasonable person can possibly disagree with you, the problem is that you haven't thought things through very well, haven't listened to what people on the other side are saying, haven't engaged with the strongest possible arguments for the other side, or something similar. This is practically always a huge red flag telling you that it's time to step away from the keyboard and think a little harder about the issue at hand.
Zow
Footballguy
I think we need to clarify the issue here. If we're talking, 1) whether voters should be required to show IDs to vote; then I think I agree with you. However, if the issue is, 2) whether the federal court erred by striking down the NC law by find that the law discriminated against an immutable/protected class; then, I don't agree with you.
I was under the impression we were discussing the latter since that's what this thread was started about.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
CBusAlex
Footballguy
That, or he's just responding to the people actually discussing the topic of the thread.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
There are three reasons to support these laws if you are a republican politician.
1. The public supports voter ID
2. Fewer democrats would vote (by at least some votes).
3. It makes sense. (although I admit this is a distant third for politicians, like me racing michael johnson and usain bolt third)
njherdfan
Footballguy
Has anyone defended the other provisions of the law, like shortening early voting periods, preventing pre-registration of 16 and 17 year olds etc.? Because while I think reasonable people can disagree about the propriety of requiring a photo ID to vote as a means of combating fraud that may or may not exist, how do you defend all of the other restrictions that tend to go hand-in-hand with these types of laws which seem to serve no purpose other than making it harder for minorities to vote?
Zow
Footballguy
As much as I love any day which requires the courts to close, I work on Columbus Day anyway out of principle for the ridiculousness that that's a holiday.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Parrothead
Footballguy
RandyDB
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Fire up the lottery thread since minorities are over-represented in lottery spending and if you win you need an ID.Matthias said:
jonessed
Footballguy
I don't really see the point of pre-registration. Eighteen is a time when a lot of people move. Just register in your locale when you are 18.
Do a lot of minorities pre-register? I'm not seeing the connection there.
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
Walk in. Look down at the voter list opened up in front of the poll watcher. Read a name upside down. Say "Hi! I'm John Smith!" Vote in place of Mr. Smith. Leave.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If you did this at the very end of the day, you would never get caught and nobody would ever know.
If you went and voted for a friend that was out of state you would never get caught and nobody would ever know.
If your aunt voted for your mom that was in the hospital or a nursing home...
If you voted in place of somebody that was dead, oh wait people have been caught for this one.
bueno
In a class by himself
If that person is still on the voter list, you wouldn't get caught. All you have to do is be able to read upside down.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
One = "a few dozen?"
Not sure why this would be difficult. Walk in the polling place, vote. Go to next polling place, vote. Go to next polling place, vote. Repeat every couple hours. Add a second co-conspirator, double the output.
msommer
Footballguy
Mario Kart
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
If that person came into vote and was already checked off, that might raise some red flags.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Simply make the penalty way stronger if you do. Not the act of voting for people who dont.
Megaton
Footballguy
It happens:
https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting
Dead people voting is a type of election fraud that occurs when the name of a deceased person remains on a state's official list of registered votersand a living person fraudulently casts a ballot in that name.
The extent to which this type of vote fraud occurs is not known. If, after an election, a reporter examines the publicly available list of who voted in the election and finds from other evidence (such as the Social Security Administration's "Death Master File") that there is good reason to believe that some of the names on the list of those who voted are the names of people who are dead, it can be established that "dead people voted." Such painstaking analyses are expensive and cumbersome.
It is easier to determine how many names of deceased people still appear on official voter registration lists than it is to determine how many (if any) actual votes were fraudulently cast in the name of a deceased person.
Some recent examples of elections in which actual fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people include a 2005 state senate election in Tennessee that was decided by fewer than 20 votes; in this case, a post-election verification process established that two fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people. Three election workers were indicted, and the results of the election were voided. The mayoral election in Miami in 1997 was nullified by a judge because of widespread fraud, including a number of established cases of fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people. Election inspectors looking at the 1982 gubernatorial election in Illinois estimated that as many as 1 in 10 ballots cast during the election were fraudulent, including votes by the dead.[1]
When the Poughkeepsie Journal in New York did a 2006 analysis of how names of deceased people were still on New York's official list of registered voters, it conducted the assessment by matching "the names, dates of birth and ZIP codes of all listed voters in New York's database of 11.7 million voter registration records against the same information in the Social Security Administration's "Death Master File," a database of 77 million records of deaths dating to 1937." That study resulted in a final estimate of as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.[1]
https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting
Dead people voting is a type of election fraud that occurs when the name of a deceased person remains on a state's official list of registered votersand a living person fraudulently casts a ballot in that name.
The extent to which this type of vote fraud occurs is not known. If, after an election, a reporter examines the publicly available list of who voted in the election and finds from other evidence (such as the Social Security Administration's "Death Master File") that there is good reason to believe that some of the names on the list of those who voted are the names of people who are dead, it can be established that "dead people voted." Such painstaking analyses are expensive and cumbersome.
It is easier to determine how many names of deceased people still appear on official voter registration lists than it is to determine how many (if any) actual votes were fraudulently cast in the name of a deceased person.
Some recent examples of elections in which actual fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people include a 2005 state senate election in Tennessee that was decided by fewer than 20 votes; in this case, a post-election verification process established that two fraudulent votes were cast on behalf of dead people. Three election workers were indicted, and the results of the election were voided. The mayoral election in Miami in 1997 was nullified by a judge because of widespread fraud, including a number of established cases of fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people. Election inspectors looking at the 1982 gubernatorial election in Illinois estimated that as many as 1 in 10 ballots cast during the election were fraudulent, including votes by the dead.[1]
When the Poughkeepsie Journal in New York did a 2006 analysis of how names of deceased people were still on New York's official list of registered voters, it conducted the assessment by matching "the names, dates of birth and ZIP codes of all listed voters in New York's database of 11.7 million voter registration records against the same information in the Social Security Administration's "Death Master File," a database of 77 million records of deaths dating to 1937." That study resulted in a final estimate of as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.[1]
Megaton
Footballguy
So you advocate sending non-violent criminals who pose no real danger to society to jail for long periods of time? Great plan. Let's call it 'The War on Voters!'
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Much better then what is being espoused by the right-wingers. They are criminals paying a penalty.
But there are so few of the criminals, its way better then alienating millions and millions of people of their voting rights.
And furthermore, you wouldn't be sending many to jail at all; 1) it barely happens 2) it'll be far rarer with stiffer penalties for such a crime.
Megaton
Footballguy
It only 'barely happens' because there is no mechanism to catch those who commit the fraud.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
So you are just "assuming" your arse off? Blatantly.
And that's what we are going with for millions and millions of of people losing out on their votes and millions and millions of dollars? Absurd.
Because we have had lots of investigations and research into it. The cure will do way more damage then the problem you are "assuming" is there to fix.
Hell we had a republican lead congressional investigation into it that would NOT allow the finding to made public and then did nothing but close shop and go quiet.
The Big Guy
Fear the Blitz
Do yourself a favor and read the story he posted a few before this about how many dead people are registered to vote and the times where they have investigated how many of them voted. I can easily see people who are rabid fans if one pol or another taking an absentee ballot that was mailed to dead mama and mailing it in.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Lets run with that info...
2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave <<< THATS SINCE 1936 in NEW YORK.
80 years. 32.5 a year. A city with 7-8.5 million people per year every year. If 2/3rd are of voting age... that's once every 250,000 people/votes.
2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave <<< THATS SINCE 1936 in NEW YORK.
80 years. 32.5 a year. A city with 7-8.5 million people per year every year. If 2/3rd are of voting age... that's once every 250,000 people/votes.
Megaton
Footballguy
They said they search death records going back to 1937. It does not say they went back to elections since 1936. Can't find the original work, but here is more evidence of the kinds of voter fraud which occurred in New York and other places:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/exposed-scandal-double-voters-46-000-registered-vote-city-fla-article-1.569992
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216
And these are known fraud instances which were caught in a system with very limited checks. These cases illustrate more than enough fraud to tip close elections such as Bush vs. Gore.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Give me the conclusion investigative research.
Not just abstract with minimal resources applied.
In that first link you are talking about seniors. You do know that? <<<
LIKE THIS>>> http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2015/2015-03-12-b.aspx and http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/03/13/3633472/husted-noncitizen-voters/
A two year state run investigation. That when you dig deep turns up nothing.
You give links to small, almost not defined, assumptions and not into the particualrs.
Not just abstract with minimal resources applied.
In that first link you are talking about seniors. You do know that? <<<
LIKE THIS>>> http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2015/2015-03-12-b.aspx and http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/03/13/3633472/husted-noncitizen-voters/
A two year state run investigation. That when you dig deep turns up nothing.
You give links to small, almost not defined, assumptions and not into the particualrs.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Okay, I got it.
Have the congress INVESTIGATE and give findings as to the exacting details. Then we can proceed. With facts and not just assumptions that also help one side regardless of validity.
Have the congress INVESTIGATE and give findings as to the exacting details. Then we can proceed. With facts and not just assumptions that also help one side regardless of validity.
massraider
Footballguy
Hey this law is still not about ID.
The Commish
Footballguy
Are we still pretending "every vote matters" in our political system?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Not sure how it works near you, but in every polling location I've ever visited they had a list of registered voters in the precinct, and they crossed off your name when you voted. So you can't just walk around- you need to have a name of someone registered in the precinct, AND you need to know they haven't yet voted. And even if you pull that off you have to cross your fingers that the person whose identity you are stealing doesn't walk into the polling location while you're there, because if they do you're going to jail. And you're doing this for one vote each time you roll the dice.
I can't believe we're even having this conversation. This is the dumbest non-issue since the swift boating.
If I had nested the quotes, all your questions were already answered.
To reiterate... In my town, elections that aren't held on "Election Day" in November (e.g. budget votes, primaries, assorted referendums) average about 10% participation. Additionally, a surprisingly high number of elections are decided by very small percentages (we literally had a tie in a Board of Ed election a couple years ago). As I noted, should one wish to add a few dozen votes to one side or the other, it wouldn't be difficult. If one had access to the list of people who voted in previous elections, there would be no chance of getting caught; just pick out 20 people that haven't participated in the past six elections, and vote as them.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Is information about past voting patterns of individuals available to the public? I thought voting records were confidential.
Look, if you guys want to argue that the specific law in NC was a bad law, no one is disagreeing. To my knowledge, not one poster in this thread has supported that specific law.
If you guys want to argue that the costs of a specific proposal aren't worth the benefits, then we can have that debate.
But it's beyond stupid to suggest that voter impersonation is impossible and never happens.
If you guys want to argue that the costs of a specific proposal aren't worth the benefits, then we can have that debate.
But it's beyond stupid to suggest that voter impersonation is impossible and never happens.
No idea. However, I do know which of my friends bother to vote and which don't. Further, it's not like politicians are generally known for their adherence to ethical boundaries, and I imagine people in certain positions could access this data if they so chose.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
"Impossible and never happens"? Yeah, you're right, that's a tough argument to make. It's a big country and a big election, filled with all kinds of weirdness if you dig deep enough.
I will, however, argue that voter impersonation is incredibly rare, has likely never swayed an election beyond the local level (if even that), and what minimal benefit might come from fighting it with voter ID laws is not even close to the cost associated with disenfranchising large numbers of minorities, poor people and/or people who simply get screwed over by bureaucracy like our friend Eddie Lee Holloway Jr. That argument is a winner.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I want integrity in the voting system. If the system does not have the confidence of the people the legitimacy of government comes into question. Here's the thing though, to many, a small overall percentage yet still many, nothing the government can say or do will provide them assurances that the system is not corrupt. There have been far too many examples of the system and the players having been corrupt to trust it. In other words, if these measures touted, whether cynically or not, to fix the system and to insure integrity where passed and accepted I do not believe they would address the underlying concern of integrity of the system. That would still be questioned. I believe then this to be a fools errand, well intentioned by some, cynical by others, but ultimately a fools errand.
Now do I find a real impediment to voting by requiring I.D., not by the concept, no I do not. But in practice, coupled with the fact that government controls the apparatus to get I.D., do I see that it can be subject to abuse in the hands of the unscrupulous, sure, yes I do. Do I believe there are unscrupulous folks within government, yeah, not many, but some, enough, perhaps.
Now do I find a real impediment to voting by requiring I.D., not by the concept, no I do not. But in practice, coupled with the fact that government controls the apparatus to get I.D., do I see that it can be subject to abuse in the hands of the unscrupulous, sure, yes I do. Do I believe there are unscrupulous folks within government, yeah, not many, but some, enough, perhaps.
