(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally.

OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?

Quote:Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I know that many states keep some records (for example, we sign our names next to our info in texas) so there should be evidence to review if there is concern that nearly 3 million people voted illegally.

OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?

Quote:Also, regarding detroit, where did you hear there were legitimate claims of fraud? After a quick google search the only places I saw that were Breitbart or other right wing rags. Any other source actually dug into the claims and found that the total number of votes that were above the number of people who had voted was less than 0.3% of the total votes logged. If we can extrapolate that to the national vote (assuming those dirty, but rather incompetent Dems did the same job across the country) that would account for only 400,000 fraudulent votes.

I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?

That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, so you have voter rolls with signatures. Now what? What investigative techniques can you utilize to determine whether people voted illegally? I see a signature on a page. How do I determine whether it is legitimate or not?


I would say that when the total number of votes exceeds the number who voted by any amount, that is per se evidence of fraud.

Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?

That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.

The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....

Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.

The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

(01-25-2017 11:58 AM)JSA Wrote:  Why the assumption that any fraud would be to the detriment of Trump?

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

(01-25-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.

And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.

The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?

That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.

The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....

Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.

The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

You asked if 105 votes for 100 people was evidence of fraud. I said it was not and stated why.

We agree that it is evidence of something being off - the severity of which we could argue.

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

(01-25-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not being an expert on the field for fraud, I can't tell you exactly what methods to use, but I have to imagine there are some techniques out there where you can at least cross check if there were claims of people who tried to vote but couldn't because someone had already signed in their place.
And so I imagine you must feel the opposite about wherever number of votes is less than the number on the registration/rolls? There is human and computer error, and it should be investigated (which it was), but at some point there is a chance that human/machine error caused the discrepancy.
The over/under voting is not EVIDENCE of fraud, but it could be a sign of fraud (hence the need to look into it). Evidence would provide some insight into the reason for the alteration and there being intent of that action, no?

So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.
The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.
If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?
That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.
The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....
Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.
The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

You asked if 105 votes for 100 people was evidence of fraud. I said it was not and stated why.
We agree that it is evidence of something being off - the severity of which we could argue.

(01-25-2017 01:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.

The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.

If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?

That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.

The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....

Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.

The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

You asked if 105 votes for 100 people was evidence of fraud. I said it was not and stated why.

We agree that it is evidence of something being off - the severity of which we could argue.

The problem is that you conflate the word 'evidence' with the term 'conclusive evidence'. Relevant evidence (per the Federal Rules of Evidence) is something that "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence".

Overages are both evidence of fraud, and of horrific f-ups in voting procedures.

Since you assume that the word "evidence" automatically includes the prefix of "conclusory", you disagree that overages are evidence of fraud. Then I guess we shall disagree on whether the overages are evidence of fraud then....

(01-25-2017 01:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So if you have 100 people registered, and 105 votes, that is not evidence of voter fraud. Interesting.
The overage by itself is a clear indication of something drastically wrong at some level. Not in and of its own concrete proof, but kink of like the presence of festering boil on your leg is saying *something* is very wrong.
If the state had also implemented strong voter id laws, it would be even clearer. But let us not forget, stronger voter id laws are *racist* in nature....

That fact alone is not evidence of fraud. Fraud consistutes someone intentionally doing something else - how in the heck is there evidence of intent in your scenario?
That is evidence of there being an error, but without any other evidence, how would you justify that fraud had been committed based solely on that info? I find it much more interesting that you jump to a fraud conclusion immediately if you held no other facts - not that there was an error in the software, in the registration, in the vote counting, etc. Nope, must be fraud!

I didn't say it was conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is evidence of fraud. Please don't make a strawman argument from my words. "Evidence" does not ipso facto mean "conclusory all by its little lonesome", fyi.
The overage is clear evidence of *something* very wrong (except when dead people vote in Duval County...). It is evidence of fraud, albeit not conclusory. It is also evidence to non-intent real bad issues. Again, not conclusory. I guess the problem is your interpretation of evidence having to be fundamentally conclusory within itself of a singular point....
Again I alluded to that with the "Not in and of its own concrete proof" statement, but tagging the from part, it is a *clear* indication of something drastically wrong at some point.
The fix to this (i.e. nagging problems, perhaps even fraud) is having tighter restrictions on identity at the polling places, as in most Western voting regimes. But, as I said, that is deemed racist here.

You asked if 105 votes for 100 people was evidence of fraud. I said it was not and stated why.
We agree that it is evidence of something being off - the severity of which we could argue.

Evidence is defined in the law as essentially something which makes a particular conclusion more or less likely to be true. Reporting 105 votes when only 100 were cast clearly makes it more likely that fraud was committed than does reporting the correct number. Therefore it is evidence. It is probably not by itself conclusive evidence of material fraud, which is what I think you are intending to say, and I will agree with that. But it does and should raise some red flags.

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

(01-25-2017 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.

The problem with cost free *and* effort free is that there is no control mechanism.

The keys of voter id are to ensure that the person presenting themselves to vote is both who they claim to be *and* legally entitled to vote.

So to prove both prongs may take effort --- so the progressive stance is to say to hell with those controls and pass em out like candy.

(01-25-2017 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:06 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:33 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 04:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:15 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Almost forgot: 6) Trump tells Republican congressional leaders 3-5 million undocumented aliens voted, so he actually won the popular vote. This is one of those that is both comical and concerning.

Concerning if true, or concerning if untrue?

Well either. If there were truly any reason to believe there were millions of fraudulent votes, that should be of concern to everyone. But since study after study has shown in-person voter fraud to be close to non-existent, that's not what I was specifically referring to.

1) It concerns me that he seems so obsessed with the popular vote and rehashing the election. Campaign's over. Work on leading the country.

2) It is simply irresponsible to make unfounded claims like that. At best it's reckless and at worst he's preparing to call whatever gains Dems might make in midterms illegitimate. Lyndsey Graham and other R's are rightfully condemning it.

I generally agree.

To JSA's point about why it would be assumed that voter fraud would generally be hurtful to the Republicans . . .

the election where late returns in Texas and Illinois from heavy partisan counties that had incredibly 'high' levels of voter turnout had a clear impact on the election was 1960, and it favored Kennedy (Chicago - a Democratic stronghold, and parts of the state that in Texas that LBJ controlled) . . . .

Also, that largest block of people who are not entitled to vote, yet who would have a potentially significant interest in this election, (or any election) would be undocumented aliens (or immigrants), or other non-citizens. It would be presumed by most that they would lean Democratic.

1. It is probably that there is some number of people who voted illegally.
2. It is unlikely or improbable that that number was significant, and certainly nowhere near 3,000,000 voters (I don't think Trump claimed that many, but it's an extrapolation of the number needed for him to have won the popular vote - - again, I think Trump is an F, not a T on the Myers-Briggs and he's reacting emotionally, not rationally).
3. I cannot believe that undocumented immigrants (or documented) made any kind of conspiratorial effort to vote.
4. In Texas, you have to present your voter registration card (I'm guessing, don't know if you need photo ID if you have your registration card with you), or a photo ID proving your identity matches someone on the voter rolls. Fraud, in this case, of any significance would have to involve poll workers casting ballots for voters who never showed up, once the polls have closed (i.e. the dead people who voted in Cook County and parts of Texas in 1960). There's no way that could amount to 3,000,000 votes, even if you assume this is much more common than it could possibly be.

Can anyone explain to me how a voter identification requirement could be construed as unconstitutional or racist, provided the state made available provisions for anyone qualified to obtain a free identification card?

People who think no one votes illegally are naïve.

People who think that the number who vote illegally is significant are paranoid.

If the state truly made it cost free and effort free (e.g. You were mailed a registration card and could return your registration for free and then receive a voter ID card), then it can't be construed as racist.

However, I don't know of a system proposed like this. Most require some form of photo ID and for you to get to a place like a DMV that is not open at all hours and may be many miles away. It is reallly a burden on the poor, but race is brought into the equation because the state's pushing these rules are often in the south, where a higher percentage of their poor citizens are black and these states have histories of trying to reduce the ability of black citizens to vote.

Your provision is crucial.