(08-14-2020 08:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 07:57 AM)green Wrote:  what’s wrong with in-person voting ...
we’ve only had it since the birth of our nation ....

ISSUE AT HAND

Nothing.

What's wrong with mail-in voting? We've had it for just about as long.

FWIW - donny and mel just requested absentee ballots.

Stop it Tom. You know damn well there is a vast difference between an absentee ballot and mass mail in balloting. We already have evidence of how badly that works in the states it has been tried. 24million ballots missing since 2016 is evidence enough that doing this nationwide would be an unmitigated disaster. Its also discriminatory against poor people that tend to move addresses more frequently. We have no way to track these people and get them a ballot. Bottom line...Put a damn mask on...stay 6 feet from each other and go vote. Stop making a problem where there isn't one.

If you can go to Walmart you can go vote. End of discussion.

(08-14-2020 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How do you verify that the person who sends in a mail-in ballot is in fact the person who is entitled to vote on that ballot?

You can't...Any suggestion that you can is absurd. Absentee ballots however are verified because YOU request it to be sent to your address and you have to do it in person with a picture ID.

Another question...How do you find people that have recently moved and get them a ballot? and what happens to the ballot you send them at the last address? The entire idea of mail in balloting is absurd.

(08-14-2020 09:00 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  If you can go to Walmart you can go vote. End of discussion.

Yes...Same with the social services office. I see there is no problem going there to get handouts.

So with mail-in voting, or for online voting, and without ID for in-person voting, how do you know that the person casting the vote is actually the person who is entitled to cast that vote?

Here's my idea. We now have technology to embed electronically a photo and thumb prints on ID cards and have them in a database online. So do it for the voter registration card. When you vote in person, you show your ID and they take a thumb print. Match you vote, no match no vote. Voting online, you scan you thumb print (most commuters have that technology) or use facial recognition, or both. Match you vote, no match no vote. Mail, you find some way to take a thumbprint on the ballot. Scan them before counting, and again match you vote, no match no vote. This also has the capability to ensure one vote per person. If the thumbprint shows in the database as already scanned, no vote.

the entire discussion is beyond stupid....hence, the real issue...

donks have NOTHING in the tank...it's Custer's last stand in irony...

what the fk else can they do?!

(08-14-2020 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So with mail-in voting, or for online voting, and without ID for in-person voting, how do you know that the person casting the vote is actually the person who is entitled to cast that vote?

Here's my idea. We now have technology to embed electronically a photo and thumb prints on ID cards and have them in a database online. So do it for the voter registration card. When you vote in person, you show your ID and they take a thumb print. Match you vote, no match no vote. Voting online, you scan you thumb print (most commuters have that technology) or use facial recognition, or both. Match you vote, no match no vote. Mail, you find some way to take a thumbprint on the ballot. Scan them before counting, and again match you vote, no match no vote. This also has the capability to ensure one vote per person. If the thumbprint shows in the database as already scanned, no vote.

voter ID is so simple.....however, the donks will NEVER allow such....

this is the crux why always ®....

it's a two party system whether ya like it or not....

It really is hilarious to watch liberals fall all over themselves to try and find things to be mad at Trump about.

I couldn't imagine a scenario other than Trump being in office where liberals would fight tooth and nail to defend the USPS and mail-in voting. It's really nuts the hills they choose to die on over this President.

(08-14-2020 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How do you verify that the person who sends in a mail-in ballot is in fact the person who is entitled to vote on that ballot?

If the dems get their wish, you don't.

(08-14-2020 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How do you verify that the person who sends in a mail-in ballot is in fact the person who is entitled to vote on that ballot?

Quote:Identity verification: The principal method used to detect and prevent fraud is the mail ballot envelope itself, where each voter must include personal identifying information (such as address, birthday, and driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number). In most states, that information includes a signature that can be used to match against the voter rolls. The voter’s remaining personal information is also matched against the information stored on the voter rolls. As Kim Wyman, Washington’s Republican secretary of state, explained, “we actually compare every single signature of every single ballot that comes in and we compare it and make sure that it matches the one on their voter registration record.” This is a long-standing and well-established practice to ensure that the ballot received was indeed cast by the correct voter. It’s important to note though that there are best and worst practices with signature matching. When done incorrectly, it can disenfranchise eligible voters. Done correctly — with signature matching software, bipartisan review by officials trained in signature verification, and outreach to flagged voters — it is an effective deterrent for fraud.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/a...mail-fraud

But the biggest thing is the deterrent. Who in hell is going to commit a felony for one freaking vote?

And the notion that fraud would only be committed by democrats, or substantially more by them, is looney bin territory.

(08-14-2020 09:24 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  It really is hilarious to watch liberals fall all over themselves to try and find things to be mad at Trump about.

I couldn't imagine a scenario other than Trump being in office where liberals would fight tooth and nail to defend the USPS and mail-in voting. It's really nuts the hills they choose to die on over this President.

This

They have a gosh damn disease

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(08-14-2020 09:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How do you verify that the person who sends in a mail-in ballot is in fact the person who is entitled to vote on that ballot?

You can't...Any suggestion that you can is absurd. Absentee ballots however are verified because YOU request it to be sent to your address and you have to do it in person with a picture ID.

Another question...How do you find people that have recently moved and get them a ballot? and what happens to the ballot you send them at the last address? The entire idea of mail in balloting is absurd.

So, you get a new house and a ballot arrives at your new home addressed to another individual. How do you vote with that? Do you know their new address if they filed a change? Do you know their SSN? Do you know their signature? Would you risk committing a felony to cast one vote?

Talk about absurd.

(08-14-2020 08:56 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 07:57 AM)green Wrote:  what’s wrong with in-person voting ...
we’ve only had it since the birth of our nation ....

ISSUE AT HAND

Nothing.

What's wrong with mail-in voting? We've had it for just about as long.

FWIW - donny and mel just requested absentee ballots.

Stop it Tom. You know damn well there is a vast difference between an absentee ballot and mass mail in balloting. We already have evidence of how badly that works in the states it has been tried. 24million ballots missing since 2016 is evidence enough that doing this nationwide would be an unmitigated disaster. Its also discriminatory against poor people that tend to move addresses more frequently. We have no way to track these people and get them a ballot. Bottom line...Put a damn mask on...stay 6 feet from each other and go vote. Stop making a problem where there isn't one.

Vast my ass. The difference is one was specifically requested while the other was sent due to state approved laws. The verification process is still virtually identical.

But I suppose you could point to all the cases of fraud with either method? Maybe trump could appoint a commission to find it...oh...wait...

(08-14-2020 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So with mail-in voting, or for online voting, and without ID for in-person voting, how do you know that the person casting the vote is actually the person who is entitled to cast that vote?

Here's my idea. We now have technology to embed electronically a photo and thumb prints on ID cards and have them in a database online. So do it for the voter registration card. When you vote in person, you show your ID and they take a thumb print. Match you vote, no match no vote. Voting online, you scan you thumb print (most commuters have that technology) or use facial recognition, or both. Match you vote, no match no vote. Mail, you find some way to take a thumbprint on the ballot. Scan them before counting, and again match you vote, no match no vote. This also has the capability to ensure one vote per person. If the thumbprint shows in the database as already scanned, no vote.

One shouldn't have to provide a thumbprint to exercise a constitutional right, voting or owning a handgun. They already got me for one, let's not let the feds get the other.

Online voting would actually be the least insecure of the three. Think about whenever you do anything that involves using your credit online. It asks you unique questions about your past. Now, nothing would stop me from committing fraudulent votes for people close to me that I know that information about, but you wouldn't have the potential for the mass fraud that could happen with universal mail in voting.

We already have states that do 100% mail in ballots. This is just another conspiracy theory that distracts from the fact that all the politicians in DC have been ******* you without lube for about 50 years.

However a state votes is determined BY THAT STATE. ANY move by the federal government to dictate the actual fulfillment of voting at the state level is not legal. That power is not given to the federal government explicitly and therefore lies with the states.

The real danger of all of this is the attempt by the left to establish federal election control.

Someone asked why would you risk a felony for one vote? That's a money question. You wouldn't. You would risk a felony for many votes, and that is exactly what would happen.

(08-14-2020 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  We already have states that do 100% mail in ballots. This is just another conspiracy theory that distracts from the fact that all the politicians in DC have been ******* you without lube for about 50 years.

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1291423700445564933

get your ass to the polls ...

FLIES IN THE VASELINE WE ARE

(08-14-2020 10:38 AM)Claw Wrote:  However a state votes is determined BY THAT STATE. ANY move by the federal government to dictate the actual fulfillment of voting at the state level is not legal. That power is not given to the federal government explicitly and therefore lies with the states.

The real danger of all of this is the attempt by the left to establish federal election control.

Someone asked why would you risk a felony for one vote? That's a money question. You wouldn't. You would risk a felony for many votes, and that is exactly what would happen.

Fine, then explain how you could possibly pull off a fraud for many votes by this method? It's implausible as hell. Hence why it's never been shown to have occurred.

(08-14-2020 10:38 AM)Claw Wrote:  However a state votes is determined BY THAT STATE. ANY move by the federal government to dictate the actual fulfillment of voting at the state level is not legal. That power is not given to the federal government explicitly and therefore lies with the states.

The real danger of all of this is the attempt by the left to establish federal election control.

Someone asked why would you risk a felony for one vote? That's a money question. You wouldn't. You would risk a felony for many votes, and that is exactly what would happen.

AFTER THE FACT

(08-14-2020 10:38 AM)Claw Wrote:  However a state votes is determined BY THAT STATE. ANY move by the federal government to dictate the actual fulfillment of voting at the state level is not legal. That power is not given to the federal government explicitly and therefore lies with the states.
The real danger of all of this is the attempt by the left to establish federal election control.
Someone asked why would you risk a felony for one vote? That's a money question. You wouldn't. You would risk a felony for many votes, and that is exactly what would happen.

How would you risk a felony when there is no detection mechanism?