(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:15 PM)Crebman Wrote:  See post #65 right above yours. Imagine that - a government entity with responsibility for conducting elections in a totally perceived fair manner failing at it's job. Yep. They do such a good job, we should turn over all our healthcare to them as well.

I ask because after reading the article, it's not as if something new is occurring here. People have always questioned the validity of voting, and there have always been mistakes in the system.

However, it never got to a point where legislative action started to take place until recently. I'm wondering why now?

Because elections are so close, and flaws in the system and cheating has become so obvious.

Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

(04-23-2014 01:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The point was that if you're going to perpetrate voter fraud, doing it in small town Alabama would just about the biggest act of stupidity imaginable.

You know what Theodore Roosevelt said, "Do what you can with what you have where you are."

(04-23-2014 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I ask because after reading the article, it's not as if something new is occurring here. People have always questioned the validity of voting, and there have always been mistakes in the system.

However, it never got to a point where legislative action started to take place until recently. I'm wondering why now?

Because elections are so close, and flaws in the system and cheating has become so obvious.

Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

The only response needed....


Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

(04-23-2014 01:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Because elections are so close, and flaws in the system and cheating has become so obvious.

Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

The only response needed....

Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

Of course old man. You're incapable of anything other than a comic and a complete lack of understanding of communism.

Now answer the question. Was there any cheating on behalf of Bush...heck...has a Republican ever cheated in an election?

(04-23-2014 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:20 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I ask because after reading the article, it's not as if something new is occurring here. People have always questioned the validity of voting, and there have always been mistakes in the system.

However, it never got to a point where legislative action started to take place until recently. I'm wondering why now?

Because elections are so close, and flaws in the system and cheating has become so obvious.

Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

(04-23-2014 01:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

The only response needed....

Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

Of course old man. You're incapable of anything other than a comic and a complete lack of understanding of communism.

Now answer the question. Was there any cheating on behalf of Bush...heck...has a Republican ever cheated in an election?

It is common for you to justify bad behaviour by pointing to other bad behavior. I won't fall for that. The SCOTUS decided Bush v Gore. I gotta go with that. That election exposed voter irregularities, the same which you refuse to acknowledge today. Saying NEXT" is your best response. I get it. No fixes while your regime is in power. So you remain the clown. Here's your sign.


Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

(04-23-2014 01:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Was there any cheating when Bush beat Gore?

Yes, and yet Gore STILL lost.

Well...I wasn't asking you...mainly because you're incapable of an intelligent response. But I probably need to spoon feed it to the old man too.

SOAF, was there any cheating on behalf of Bush when he defeated Gore?

The only response needed....

Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

Of course old man. You're incapable of anything other than a comic and a complete lack of understanding of communism.

Now answer the question. Was there any cheating on behalf of Bush...heck...has a Republican ever cheated in an election?

Gore was so sure he won that he demanded a recount, LMFAO! Nobody demands a recount if they weren't 100% sure that they'd won an election.

Tom, let's be serious for a moment.

You keep asking for proof of something that can't possibly be proven.

The reason voter fraud is so hard to prove is that we have virtually no mechanism to catch it. If you Register as Redwing Tom in one county and Red W Tom in another, How would you get caught? If you needed a utility bill, what would stop you from registering your lake house and your home, or having your cell phone bill sent to your office or a PO box. If you worked at a nursing home and signed half a dozen patients with Alzheimer's or in comas up and then went to a variety of polling stations and voted as if you were them, how would you be caught?

We know this happens... often unintentionally (that's usually how it gets caught), but not always. If you wanted to fix a race, surely you agree that this is possible... and hard to catch or prosecute.

Surely you admit that many people don't register to vote, so while there is certainly a lot of fluctuation in voting rolls and census as you point out, in order for the census to be less than the number of registered voters means that primarily registered voters are moving out... but they aren't transferring to vote in their new location... and the new people moving in predominantly register to vote. The fact that there are counties where theses situations exist don't prove it, but they DO tend to imply that the rolls are suspect... which increases the risk of fraud.

Why are you against decreasing the risk of voter fraud?

Do you agree that registering to vote is important? If so, why would adding a photo to this be a problem?

Do you agree that verifying that people only vote once is important? If not, then why did we force the Iraqi's to LITERALLY risk their lives by dipping their thumbs in ink after voting? Are you arguing that Iraqi's would cheat if they could, but Americans would not? Risking their lives was worth making sure they didn't cheat, but spending an extra 50 cents to add a photo to a voter registration in the US is not?

Seriously.

This is a stupid argument your side is making. In this day and age, getting an ID is easy, and not having one is a problem... and registering to vote is 'the law'.

If prosecutors don’t prosecute, there’s no ‘crime'.

(04-23-2014 02:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tom, let's be serious for a moment.

You keep asking for proof of something that can't possibly be proven.

The reason voter fraud is so hard to prove is that we have virtually no mechanism to catch it. If you Register as Redwing Tom in one county and Red W Tom in another, How would you get caught? If you needed a utility bill, what would stop you from registering your lake house and your home, or having your cell phone bill sent to your office or a PO box. If you worked at a nursing home and signed half a dozen patients with Alzheimer's or in comas up and then went to a variety of polling stations and voted as if you were them, how would you be caught?

We know this happens... often unintentionally (that's usually how it gets caught), but not always. If you wanted to fix a race, surely you agree that this is possible... and hard to catch or prosecute.

Surely you admit that many people don't register to vote, so while there is certainly a lot of fluctuation in voting rolls and census as you point out, in order for the census to be less than the number of registered voters means that primarily registered voters are moving out... but they aren't transferring to vote in their new location... and the new people moving in predominantly register to vote. The fact that there are counties where theses situations exist don't prove it, but they DO tend to imply that the rolls are suspect... which increases the risk of fraud.

Why are you against decreasing the risk of voter fraud?

Do you agree that registering to vote is important? If so, why would adding a photo to this be a problem?

Do you agree that verifying that people only vote once is important? If not, then why did we force the Iraqi's to LITERALLY risk their lives by dipping their thumbs in ink after voting? Are you arguing that Iraqi's would cheat if they could, but Americans would not? Risking their lives was worth making sure they didn't cheat, but spending an extra 50 cents to add a photo to a voter registration in the US is not?

Seriously.

This is a stupid argument your side is making. In this day and age, getting an ID is easy, and not having one is a problem... and registering to vote is 'the law'.

Would you PLEASE stop saying my side. I'm not a Democrat.

And I realize that you can't prove that. My point, in ONLY ASKING SOAF that question is because he is incapable of EVER admitting that a Republican did anything wrong. Case in point...look at his comical response and that idiotic .gif.

And the scenario you describe if just utterly ridiculous and really just proves how ignorant this constant drumbeat to eradicate in person voter fraud is. To go to that much trouble for a few votes is moronic at best. You can't effect change on such a small scale...and a large scale effort like that would be next to impossible to orchestrate.

And I have NEVER said I don't want to get rid of fraud. I'm all for voter ID and for picture ones at that. I just want the best system possible to make it free and easy to the end voter to obtain. Nearly every current effort, mostly by Republicans, always manages to disenfranchise lower income voters. And I wish that Democrats would propose some solutions here...they certainly could do better...and likely better than Republicans.

(04-23-2014 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Would you PLEASE stop saying my side. I'm not a Democrat.

Did I call you one? I'm not a Republican (at least not what passes for them today)

your side of this issue is those who support and defend the ACA... which is certainly lots of Democrats and especially the Administration. I don't care if you're a Democrat... you support their position on the issue.

Quote:And I realize that you can't prove that. My point, in ONLY ASKING SOAF that question is because he is incapable of EVER admitting that a Republican did anything wrong. Case in point...look at his comical response and that idiotic .gif.

But you said the same thing to me and I didn't post the gif.

Quote:And the scenario you describe if just utterly ridiculous and really just proves how ignorant this constant drumbeat to eradicate in person voter fraud is.

How is it ridiculous?

Quote:To go to that much trouble for a few votes is moronic at best. You can't effect change on such a small scale...and a large scale effort like that would be next to impossible to orchestrate.

If this is your answer to the 'how'.... 95% of what gets voted on isn't Presidential Elections and a few dozen, much less a few hundred votes decides a large number of votes in this country. Even in Presidential elections, a few hundred votes in key districts can swing a lot of votes in 'all or nothing' electoral college states (which is almost all of them).

There are I believe ten instances since 1980 where a state house or senate race was decided by one single vote. Take that number to a few dozen, much less a few hundred... and then add all of the ballot issues that are even less interesting than those and certainly you're talking about hundreds and perhaps thousands of races where (depending on what you think an organized group could accomplish) would have mattered. The last few Presidential elections have turned on relatively small numbers of votes in individual districts of a few states.... but there are far more elections than that. Almost by definition, Republicans are more interested in these smaller, local elections.

Quote:And I have NEVER said I don't want to get rid of fraud. I'm all for voter ID and for picture ones at that. I just want the best system possible to make it free and easy to the end voter to obtain. Nearly every current effort, mostly by Republicans, always manages to disenfranchise lower income voters. And I wish that Democrats would propose some solutions here...they certainly could do better...and likely better than Republicans.

So after claiming not to be a democrat, you end with this clearly partisan take.

You just said that you favored voter picture ID... which is generically what has come from the right.. and you admit that no such proposal has come from the left... and then you paint those proposals as somehow inherently disenfranchising... and somehow are randomly convinced that democrats would likely come up with a better plan, despite the fact that the only plan they've ever come up with for picture ID to vote (by your own admission) is NO plan.

I'm pretty certain that the 'pay for an ID and make it effective today' argument from the right is in direct response to the 'no ID to vote' from the left. A clear compromise to this discussion would be FREE id and a year or so to implement it. Democrats can't even propose a financial incentive to GET an id (a hand-out to the poor, or pay them for the time they have to take off work or fund their bus trip) and ten years to work out all the bugs... They instead want the right to negotiate with themselves from a position that you (again by your own admission) generally support (picture ID to vote).

When the left accepts picture ID to vote (by making ANY such proposal), I suspect you'll see the vast majority of the right accept making them 'free'. All that will be left to negotiate is what is needed to get that ID (probably generally follow federal guidelines and labor laws with regard to establishing identity) and how soon it takes effect.

The problem is, MOST of the left (the ones who are in a position to vote on such a thing) obviously don't want it... because if they did, they would propose it.

(04-23-2014 10:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

They are not third world. Demopolis, Eutaw, Greensboro as third world. Geez, get a grip man.

(04-23-2014 03:47 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

They are not third world. Demopolis, Eutaw, Greensboro as third world. Geez, get a grip man.

Reading is fundamental.

(04-23-2014 03:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:47 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

They are not third world. Demopolis, Eutaw, Greensboro as third world. Geez, get a grip man.

Reading is fundamental.

So is communicating thoughts. Your writing conveys misleading references and images. Read what you write in neutral and you might learn something about yourself.

Demopolis and Eutaw are pretty much third world man. Those are about as ****** as it gets in the whole country.

(04-23-2014 03:58 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:47 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

They are not third world. Demopolis, Eutaw, Greensboro as third world. Geez, get a grip man.

Reading is fundamental.

So is communicating thoughts. Your writing conveys misleading references and images. Read what you write in neutral and you might learn something about yourself.

What you infer is on you.

(04-23-2014 09:22 AM)Smaug Wrote:  No shenanigans here, right?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/131680-t...residents/

Probably not. But plenty of race based comments in the section following that story.

Here's what's going on.

1) The census has a habit of underreporting population, especially of poor minority voters.
2) The population of those areas is falling - in some cases rapidly, so many of those voters have probably moved and the state database hasn't kept up.
3) Poor persons, and these counties are among the bottom 0.05% of counties in the country as far as economic position goes, generally tend to have voters that move more frequently, even within an election district.

Is there any evidence, even after 12 years of Republican oversight of elections in Alabama, that there has been any cases of persons voting multiple times anywhere in Alabama? You might be able to drag one or two up, but still.

Its a red herring. And probably speaks more to incompetence in the GOP Secy of State's office in Alabama than to anything else.

How about this. Every adult citizen gets a photo id on their Social Security Card, which can be updated online with their home address. That address would be linked to their income tax payments and any public assistance. That card would automatically be linked with a database registering them to vote. Cost of the card? Free.

I very familiar with the area. Nobody is stealing elections there. Nor do the votes of those residents matter in any statewide election. Nor is it likely that they will for a long time. Here's why:

Any fraud that might (but likely isn't) take place is likely to take place in the one place where votes from that region matter..... in Democratic primaries between two or more Democratic candidates. I guarantee the loser of one of those primaries is would raise their voice loud and clear if something like that was going on.

Where would there conceivably be any election where the voters of the "Black Belt" (named for the soil) actually had any way of impacting any race outside those counties?

And yes, I am a significant landowner in the Demopolis area, so I'm quite familiar with it (my family has been there for at least 175 years). Its an interesting place. It sits in the middle of the poorest region in the USA (not the fault of the people who are poor) and generally acts like it is in another century. But has produced visionaries that have changed the world of finance and technology. Its far from a ****hole. Its actually quite pretty. Would I move there? No. But its not the worst place in America (I nominate Tupelo)

I grew up in Mobile. It took multiple attempts to get the Board of Registrars to remove me from the voter rolls there, even well after I moved to Kentucky. I even got summoned for jury duty, which would have been nearly 1200 miles round trip.

Alabama has always required voter ID long before I turned 18, but there are some changes that take effect June 3:

http://alabamavotes.gov/VoterID.aspx?m=voters

Alabama also has a free ID program.

(04-23-2014 07:28 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I grew up in Mobile. It took multiple attempts to get the Board of Registrars to remove me from the voter rolls there, even well after I moved to Kentucky. I even got summoned for jury duty, which would have been nearly 1200 miles round trip.

Alabama has always required voter ID long before I turned 18, but there are some changes that take effect June 3:

http://alabamavotes.gov/VoterID.aspx?m=voters

Alabama also has a free ID program.

I grew up in Mobile as well. I haven't been on the voter rolls there in almost two decades (or at least I shouldn't be - I have no Mobile address), but I still get robocalls telling me to vote from local candidates there. You would think that the 713 area code would give away the fact that I don't live there. I haven't received a jury duty summons since I left so I guess there's really no reason for me to deal with Mobile County's wonderful (sarcasm) government. Its possible I got the robocall as a result of some charitable donation record someone bought. I have no idea.

But if you've ever had to deal with the Mobile County Clerk's office, you'd know how competent they are.

Again, I think this really isn't a story about voter fraud, but of government recordkeeping incompetence.

The real problem with the voter ID program even if free is that the requirements and hassle fall disproportionately on poor people, who tend to move more often, have less access to transportation and child care, etc.

It would simply be easier for everyone if we had a national database and tied that to a citizenship card with a photo on it, that would like up with all government records, such as social security, CCLs, AFDC, WIC etc. Make someone opt out or they are automatically registered. If Mexico can do it, we can too.

(04-23-2014 07:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Is there any evidence, even after 12 years of Republican oversight of elections in Alabama, that there has been any cases of persons voting multiple times anywhere in Alabama? You might be able to drag one or two up, but still.

Its a red herring. And probably speaks more to incompetence in the GOP Secy of State's office in Alabama than to anything else.

You're right that it is a red herring, but not in the manner you suggest.

I'd ask you how under the current rules of most states, you'd catch someone voting multiple times?


That said, I agree 100% with your proposal. My suggestion was to attach a photo to your voter registration. Either way works I suppose, but the key is to have a means to swipe that ID when someone votes and not let it be used again to vote anywhere else. In the case of duplicates or questions, both ballots could be 'set aside' electronically and verified IF they matter to the outcome of any vote. By that I mean, if there are two votes (say the person claims to have messed up on one or it slips by a 'down' computer) Both votes can be counted in any race where they don't impact the outcome... and in those that do, only those where the two ballots differ would there be any need to investigate. If they both voted FOR prop 1, then prop 1 gets one yes vote.

As to statewide elections, I'm not sure about that. Numerous elections for state representatives have been decided by literally a hand full of votes over the years. I suspect numbers as small as 20 would have had fairly significant impact. Anything larger than that, you may well be right, but again, in this day and age of computers... there are potentially key districts where a few votes could influence turnout in other districts and have a real impact far beyond just those votes. There is a reason why news stations are initially slow to announce 'winners' in numerous states beyond them being too close to tell.

This is, as you note really about the much smaller elections and not the presidential ones... but when Presidential elections are as close as some of the recent ones (in terms of actual, not electoral votes) it focuses attention on the issue. It wouldn't have likely changed any statewide elections... but I suspect it would have changed many local ones. This whole movement started over college kids being registered in their home state and voting in local (to their school) elections. It just reached the national attention with close Presidential races.

It is certainly possible/likely that some supporters of voter ID do so for racist reasons, but that is no reason not to ensure the validity of our votes. We must merely watch out for the disenfranchisement of people, just as you suggest.