Supporting Voter Fraud is Raaaaacist!
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing. Follow me by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
For years combating voter fraud has been a strangely partisan issue. For instance, in the recent case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) the court noted that “all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of [a voter ID law] and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it.” In that particular case, Republicans supported the common sense measure of, you know, actually having to produce a photo ID proving you are who you say you are, and Democrats responded by claiming that this was the resurrection of Jim Crow and poll taxes—claims expressed in that case and rejected by the majority. I always thought myself that if I was a minority I would find these claims fairly insulting. For instance, take the law in the Crawford decision. Justice Stevens (who voted to uphold it) summed it up as follows:
Referred to as either the “Voter ID Law” or “SEA 483,” the statute applies to in-person voting at both primary and general elections. The requirement does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail, and the statute contains an exception for persons living and voting in a state-licensed facility such as a nursing home…. A voter who is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if she executes an appropriate affidavit before the circuit court clerk within 10 days following the election…. A voter who has photo identification but is unable to present that identification on election day may file a provisional ballot that will be counted if she brings her photo identification to the circuit county clerk’s office within 10 days…. No photo identification is required in order to register to vote, and the State offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity.
(Citations omitted.) Still, despite the state fairly bending over backwards to accommodate people, the official Democrat position was that black people and other minorities were uniquely incapable of complying with these simple requirements. There was no word on whether Democrats officially thought minorities had more trouble tying their own shoes or using common eating utensils without stabbing themselves in the eyes, but given how insultingly low their estimation was of minorities’ basic functionality as reflected by their challenge to these laws, I wouldn’t put it past them. Really, these challenges rely on assumptions that frankly sound a little racist to my ears.
And so these same Democrats oppose such measures, believing we should go on the honor system, apparently. The obvious trade off, when we don’t have such measures, is a greater opportunity for fraud. And any student of history would be skeptical of the claim that protecting fraud generally is good for minorities. For instance, the practice of using secret ballots was adopted in the South precisely so that they could cover up the fact that they were throwing out black votes—unless perhaps they voted the “right” way. After all, the person engaging in voter fraud is not subject to requirements like the equal protection clause or the Twenty Fourth Amendment, so the danger of invidious discrimination entering into the process would seem to be increased, not decreased, when voter fraud occurs. And, well, if you trust the word of former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, that is precisely what has happened:
“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.
“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”
So there you have it, liberals. If you support voter fraud, you are a raaaaaaacist!
Yes, of course I am being tongue-in-cheek about it, but here’s the brutal truth. If you are such a sad sack that you can’t comply with this generous voter ID law, then tough on you. The rest of us should not have to face even the risk of having our right to vote trampled on because of your inability to comply with such simple requirements. I believe in being very accommodating to a person’s right to vote, but when it infringes on my rights as a voter, my tolerance ends.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Not at all the “official Democrat position”. That’s just a bald-faced lie.
The position is that voter ID laws make it harder to vote — 11% of eligible voters in this country do not have government-issued ID (21 million citizens) — and it disproportionately affects low-income voters, young voters, seniors, the disabled, and people of color.
And depending on the state, getting a photo ID isn’t always as simple as one might think.
Also, the registration requirements you quoted above are a little dated. The new round of voter registrations laws being proposed today are more onerous. For example, some states are now proposing that absentee ballots include a photocopy of one’s photo ID. Well, suppose you are a student in California trying to vote in your home state of Maine and you don’t have a Maine driver’s license. How are you going to get one while in California to send in with your absentee ballot?
I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that there is a tradeoff. You can OVERprotect for fraud, which unquestionably disenfranchises some people. Or you can UNDERprotect for fraud, which dilutes legitimate votes, effectively disfranchising people. And not surprisingly, people like you and me are going to differ on where to draw the line.
But I am most persuaded by reports and studies that suggest that the type of voter fraud these laws are intended to combat (impersonation) is already exceptionally rare. The South Carolina State Election Commission told the New York Times that it “knows of no confirmed cases of voter identification fraud, defined as a person presenting himself to vote as someone he is not.” In Kansas, there were 221 reports of voter fraud in 1997 and 2010 – a contrast to the hundreds of thousands of ballots cast.
And that’s 221 too many, I’ll concede. But disenfranchising hundreds of thousands in one state so that 221 fraudulent voters get caught? The cure is worse than the disease.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:15 am‘Strangely partisan issue’? Once again, you’re missing the big picture.
Although the Democrats may very well benefit from large numbers of illegally cast ballots, that is not the primary reason they so vehemently oppose voter ID laws. They do so because it gives them another opportunity to paint their opponents (hint: conservatives) as racist.
Keep in mind there are four ways you can get someone to buy your ‘product’. Tout the benefits of your product, tout yourself as the purveyor of that product, criticize the product being offered by the other side, and criticize the purveyor of the other product.
It is the last path that the Democrats have built most of their campaigns around for the past 50 years. It is far easier for them to slander their political opponents than it is for them to sell the positive attributes of their liberal policies. Why bother trying to sell someone on the merits of an expansion of the welfare state (especially when there are none) when you can just label opponents as racist? There’s no better way of gathering support from the mushy middle than to make them leery of supporting an issue that draws support from a bunch of racists. Time after time, the mushy middle will vote in a way that seems counter to their own interests because of their aversion to voting alongside a bunch of bigots.
The Democrats do this on issue after issue. Oppose liberal nominees? Racist, sexist. Oppose high taxes. Greedy. Religious nuts trying to impose their morals on everybody else. And so on. Why should Voter ID bills be any different?
steve (369bc6) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:57 amKman
> Not at all the “official Democrat position”. That’s just a bald-faced lie.
> The position is that voter ID laws make it harder to vote — 11% of eligible voters in this country do not have government-issued ID (21 million citizens) — and it disproportionately affects low-income voters, young voters, seniors, the disabled, and people of color.
So i am lying for saying that democrats officially don’t think minorities can handle it… and then you state that democrats don’t think minorities can handle it. um, okay.
Btw, please don’t bother to site statistics on how much fraud there. As one wag put it there is no such thing as an accurate sex survey. I would add there is no such thing as an accurate estimate on fraud.
And no one is disenfranchised. they have the right to vote, they just need to get off their behinds a little to do it. tough on them. my right to vote should not be burdened with their laziness.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:03 amSteve
I think that is a very valid point.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:04 amkman,
The linked article you cite is interesting. It would appear that this is centered on southern states and a specific period of time – births before the 70’s. While those are certainly a bit more complicated, those births after that time wherein midwives began to be required to have b.c. submitted within 5 days of birth, would not fall into the same category. Given that it is 40 years later, there are innumerable voters able to get their state i.d. so that weakens your complaint.
By not requiring voter i.d., the chances of another voter’s vote not counting increases. Why should the voter who can supply voter identification be penalized by those who cannot or won’t?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:10 amAnother point, why is there such a negative assessment of the competency and capabilities of minorities to do something as simple as getting themselves identification in comparison to their white counterparts? Because if the Dems dared to be honest, that’s essentially what they’re saying. They can cloak it in all sorts of rhetorical nonsense, memes and We’re looking out for the rights of minorities racket, but when it comes down to it they are really just lowballing the minority, and it is grossly insulting.
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:19 amThen they are in violation of the laws in most states and must be apprehended correct? the vagrancy laws alone in most municipalities require that you have at least 2 forms of identification and at least money in your pockets correct?
Why should we allow law breakers to vote? Remember its a priviledge not a right – just like driving – you have to have residency proof, have citizenship proof
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:22 amAgain, that’s not what I (or Democrats) are saying. They’re saying that you are putting an obstacle in their way to being able to vote. The issue isn’t whether it can be “handled”, but whether or not it is right. I’m sure many disenfranchised voters back in the South in the 1950’s could have “handled” a poll tax; but that’s hardly the issue.
Tough to do for many people without driver’s licenses. Almost impossible to do — literally — for many seniors and the disabled.
Oh, they’re LAZY, are they? And just which group are you classifying as “lazy”? The elderly and infirm? The disabled? Blacks? Spit it out, Aaron. Let your prejudicial flag fly.
By the way, YOUR right to vote isn’t burdened at all by their supposed “laziness”.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:22 amOh and proof of age, in some cases proof of sound mind, proof of non felon status (for those who previously were felons0
There are limitations that can and do fall on this magic 11% as do the other 89%
if it falls among racial lines then its more likely a social line tha purely a racial one
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:26 amEven when I was a kid this is how it came across to me. Like a passive aggressive way of slurring minorities, almost.
And in my experience, those who loudly champion the urgent need for affirmative action really do have low opinions of blacks in particular. These are the democrats who remarked on how Obama is special because he’s clean and articulate, or lacking the negro dialect.
There’s the additional factor where some feel so guilty for their bigotry that they compensate both by condemning bigotry (such as those who wish all races were treated the same, heh) and demanding goodies for those poor souls born with the inferior races (their view, anyway).
Also, everyone can get an ID. Those who whine about this are being dishonest 100% of the time. It is simply absurd to think someone can register and vote, but can’t figure out how to get an ID. It’s a basic and fair requirement.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:28 amDana
So democrats think black people are too stupid to get voter ID’s or file an affidavit. what is insulting about that?
/sarcasm
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:28 amKman: re: a student in California trying to vote absentee in Maine could simply send a photocopy of their California student ID card.
It is no surprise that South Carolina has no confirmed cases. If you don’t check IDs, glitches that arise (for example, when someone shows up to vote and finds out they already did) are going to be attributable to clerical error rather than fraud.
And there are lots of things that are rare that we nonetheless have procedures in place to keep from happening. Very few minors buy liquor (as a percentage of total purchases) yet we have to show IDs. Very few terrorists board planes in their own names but we have to show IDs.
You need better examples to show why opposition to these laws is legitimate and not, as I claim, simply an attempt to tag your political opponents as racist.
steve (369bc6) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:28 amMany states don’t even allow the police to demand your ID unless they suspect you have committed a crime, or have seen you driving a car.
On the other hand, the extreme cases where someone can’t actually even get an ID… probably do resemble vagrancy, and these folks need help (and an ID!).
Regardless, the left is totally insincere when they talk about how terrible it is to require an ID before voting.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:30 amIn my wild and mostly mispent youth, I was a “runner” for the local Democratic Club – one of “Boss” Buckley’s machine Democratic strongholds. Most of the voter fraud occurred in the primaries as the “machine” eliminated the “Good Government” crowd. Identity fraud was the best tool after the mechanical totalizers came in. The old tricks in “voiding” a paper ballot could no longer be used. A partial explanation of multiple voting is shown in the old movie “The Great McGinty.” However, we in the Bronx used a simpler system. One of our people was the voting official at each ED table. He/she wore some unusual item of clothing. The person about to commit voter fraud would simply call out the election officials name. The election official would then reply with the name of the voter the person was to claim to be. Very simple and, even with honest and vigilant poll watchers, almost impossible to catch.
M (8ece11) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:31 amDustin
well, i have a limited amount of support for affirmative action, although i limit it to the “opportunities” rather than outcomes.
Like a law school admissions is an opportunity in my mind. Getting a job is an outcome.
And i could get into a long dissertation on the whys of it but basically it comes down to my belief in the continued effects of discrimination and my belief that in the opportunity stage in life, you can easily overcome that history. i have frankly lived that reality.
so i would like to think you can champion affirmative action without thinking less of the abilities of the groups you would help. But… otoh, i think it is true that many people advocating for it just don’t think minorities can make it on their own, even on a level playing field.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:31 amEPWJ:
No. In fact, such laws have been held unconstitutional.
Again, no. While not specifically enumerated as a “right” in the Constitution, we have three constitutional amendments giving suffrage, as well as the aptly-titled Voting Rights Act. That’s why the Supreme Court treats voting as a “fundamental right”.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:32 amThat is why the supreme court treats voter fraud as a fundamental right.
FIFY.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:37 amDustin:
I don’t think requiring an ID is unsound. But in the past, student IDs and non-photo IDs were acceptable. Now, some states are trying to take that away.
I think we need to look hard at these laws being proposed, and ask whether they will have the effect of disenfranchising more legitimate voters than the fraud they supposedly are intending to get combat.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:39 amKman
> The issue isn’t whether it can be “handled”, but whether or not it is right.
So they can handle the problem and it does create the opportunity for fraud, but… its wrong to? Why the f— not?
> I’m sure many disenfranchised voters back in the South in the 1950′s could have “handled” a poll tax; but that’s hardly the issue.
Well the issue in Harper (the poll tax case) was as follows:
> We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax.
And the ability to pay a fee had indeed nothing to do with the right to vote. But establishing your right to vote, and vindicating the principle of one person, one vote obviously does. Tell me, do you actually read any law before you shoot your mouth off?
> Tough to do for many people without driver’s licenses.
That is why God invented buses and taxis.
> Almost impossible to do — literally — for many seniors and the disabled.
Well, forgetting that you are getting too literal on a figure of speech, the fact is that we have had the ADA for over 22 years so in fact they are not as helpless as you suggest.
> Oh, they’re LAZY, are they? And just which group are you classifying as “lazy”?
The people who can’t comply with ANY of those regulations.
> Blacks? Spit it out, Aaron. Let your prejudicial flag fly.
Its funny how suddenly you assume that black people are uniquely incapable of complying with that. I don’t. So we know who is flying their flag.
> By the way, YOUR right to vote isn’t burdened at all by their supposed “laziness”.
If their laziness leads to a relaxation of the protections against fraud, you bet your ass it is burdened by it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:43 amThere are so many law schools, though. Is it really the case that someone who is skilled enough to be a good lawyer can’t make it through without AA?
No, the truth is that many would simply not make it to the top six law schools unless the deck was stacked. So the real beneficiary isn’t the student, but the law school, which seeks to create some kind of nice mix of backgrounds for a healthy environment.
Which, in my opinion, is not really affirmative action. It’s just crafting the student body.
I don’t think this motive is truly at the heart of most AA policies (unless they are defending it in court). But if it is, I don’t see it as offensive or anything.
That’s the real motivation, of course. I think affirmative action is a poor solution, with unintended consequences.
For example, Barack Obama has a Harvard Law Degree, but many people give him less credit for it than they give Mitt Romney, who also has a Harvard Law Degree. Why? The notion that Obama got all kinds of benefits because of his skin color. Many out there feel that doctors of certain ethnicities benefited from AA.
This is so unfair. There are plenty of people who deserve credit as the very brightest in their professions even though some will assume they benefited from AA.
And if you’re really good at evaluating people, you can probably tell during a good interview.
That’s why I think law school affirmative action policies are just lazy ways of getting the school to look diverse. They should just interview every applicant who meets a few criteria. That’s not cheap, but neither is tuition these days.
I just don’t think we can change these ‘continued effects of (unfair) discrimination’ with AA policies.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:45 amThis is irrational. Every illegal vote is the same as stealing the vote from a law abiding citizen. As far as I’m concerned, all those dozens of election fraud crimes ACORN committed should lead to a loss of citizenship and deportation.
Also, I think Kman was incorrect on the legal question. I think if a jurisdiction writes the law a certain way, they most certainly CAN require an ID whenever they want. It’s not constitutional to require the ID in cases where the laws don’t permit it. Which is a truism, of course, but it’s different from state to state.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:48 amand actually Kman at 16 is right, for once.
i do believe most vagrancy laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
And the right to vote. well, what the SC has said, as recently as Bush v. Gore, is that when a state grants the right to vote in a particular issue, that right becomes fundamental. which is a difference without distinction from what Kman said.
Yes, we have a fundamental right to vote and for that vote to be treated with equal dignity, at least in S.C. precedent. it is not just a privilege. but part of vindicating that right to vote is to make sure it is not cancelled out by someone else’s fraud. I mean just how much of a right do you have to vote in a community of 5,000 legitimate voters when one machine boss then stuffs the ballot boxes with 10,000 fake votes? That’s not democracy, even, in that circumstance.
And that is where Kman goes wrong.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:48 amOK. I stand corrected.
I was really just talking about the ability of the state to require someone to produce an ID on demand, rather than vagrancy.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:54 amI oppose illegal immigration but I think your a loon for opposing what I oppose.
/Perrykrishnas
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:57 amLittle thing called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) which prevents registration and voting practices which have the effect (even if it is not the intention) to discriminate against minorities’ access to the polls. That’s why the f- not.
Absolutely. I agree 100%. But the new voter fraud statutes that are in many state legislatures right now — the ones we’re talking about here — don’t address that kind of fraud. They merely addresses the “impersonation” issue (the situation where someone shows up at the ballot box pretending to be someone they are not) — a type of fraud which is not only exceedingly rare, but never in the aggregate likely to change the outcome of any particular election.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:00 amIf voting is a “fundamental right”, then the use of fraud in voting is a Civil Rights violation against all others who have voted,
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:04 amsince it diminishes the value of that legally-cast vote;
and those who have advocated the performance of such a violation should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including RICO,
for (among other things) violation of the Civil Rights of those who comply with the law.
dustin
the police only have to have a suspicion that you are a vagrant – thats it – few vagrants have the resources to take cases to federal courts
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:09 amComment by Dana — 11/23/2011 @ 8:19 am
and
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/23/2011 @ 8:43 am
Perfectly, wonderfully said. Am getting pretty thoroughly sick of the projected racism of far-leftists.
no one you know (325a59) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:13 amI was really just talking about the ability of the state to require someone to produce an ID on demand, rather than vagrancy.
In California, at least, there is no general requirement that you have an ID on your person.
Willard M Romney (563f77) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:15 amthe mittens made me do it
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:15 amComment by EricPWJohnson — 11/23/2011 @ 9:09 am
I guess the “rocket scientist known as EPWJ” has never heard of Public Defenders,
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:20 amand their ability in Arraignment Courts to cite Supreme Court precident to have charges tossed before trial?
Oh, a practical point?
Yeah, that’s probably true.
And I don’t mind that at all. But when you identify yourself, it’s not oppression to require an ID, of course. And you do have to identify yourself to the poll guys to see if you’ve already voted. So identify yourself with your identification…
This is no problem for you or me, since we aren’t criminal scum. But for some, oddly most of them very active democrats, this is a cause for great alarm.
What do they expect us to think? They want to cheat. Also, I think requiring a driver’s license or the state ID version of that greatly simplifies matters. If anything, it will increase legal turnout.
It also might expose just how deeply dependent on fraud some districts have been.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:20 amIn that particular case, Republicans supported the common sense measure of, you know, actually having to produce a photo ID proving you are who you say you are…
Does anyone have to produce a photo ID to cast an absentee ballot? And does everyone have photo ID? Not everybody drives a car. Non-driver’s licenses are not replaced in the mail if they are lost or stolen. And does having a photo ID prove citizenship?? Or merely legal residency?
The greatest preventative of voter impersonation is simply pre-registration. Followed perhaps by mailing something and seeing if it gets delivered.
We almost never had any kind of massive in-person voter fraud.
To have that happen you basically need three conditions:
1) No non-excuse absentee voting. (or otherwise nobody will send people to the polls to cast a secret ballot – they’ll just fill in and mail absentee ballots)
2) The political faction committing the fraud not having control of the voting machinery (or otherwise they will just record or cast false votes)
3) Virtually uncontested elections (or otherwise it will be found out quickly – through recruitment attempts if nothing else not to mention election inspectors discovering curiosities over and over again – and somebody will want a quick investigation to be made)
There was a case in Brooklyn in the 1980s where all three conditions were met.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:22 am“After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458 F.Supp.2d 775 (S.D.Ind.2006). She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.” Id., at 783. She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated 1615*1615 that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card. Id., at 807.”
Kman – The above summarizes the finding of the original case. As I recall the only disadvantaged person the plaintiffs were able to produce turned out to be someone registered to vote in two states. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
“The position is that voter ID laws make it harder to vote — 11% of eligible voters in this country do not have government-issued ID (21 million citizens) — and it disproportionately affects low-income voters, young voters, seniors, the disabled, and people of color.”
Do you have any support to back up the immediately preceding standard Democrat claim? Indiana and the Supreme Court were not buying it. Why should we?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:23 amBTW, last time I checked (Aphrael would be the expert here as he seems to really stay on top of minutia such as this)
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:25 amit is against “public policy” for Voter Registrars/Poll Workers to ask for ID.
At the Polling Place, what they can do is to ask you what your name and address are so that they can look you up on the Voter Roll.
At least when I voted absentee when I was in the Army, you at least had to identify yourself with a signature (and they check) and if I recall, your social security number.
But one security hole doesn’t justify another. We should get absentee ballots as secure as possible, too.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:27 am“We almost never had any kind of massive in-person voter fraud.”
Sammy – It depends on your definition of massive.
Wasn’t a voter fraud ring operating along the lines of what M described in #14 just busted in New York last year or a few years ago? It had been operating for years and would move people from one polling place to another all day long on election day.
Just one example.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:28 amAs to ID’ing yourself to the police:
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:28 amThere was a case from NV that went to the Supremes IIRC, where a guy was asked by a NV-HP officer who he was, and what was he doing here (somewhere in the wilds of NV, standing next to his car on the side of the road, observing something), and then was asked for ID, which he refused to provide, and was taken to lock-up where they could “run his prints”.
The police won!
If asked, you must provide ID.
A lot of this was hashed out during the Reagan era – the homeless and wonderless were given national exposure and many municipalities – mostly democrat – tightened laws on vagrancy and actually deported vagrants against their will constantly – without reasonable due process – Dallas was caught by Houston dumping hobos out at the bus stations – if I recall there is a website detailing vagrancy laws they are getting stricter and were being expanded to the illegal aliens corner job fair activities as well
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:29 amthey used to require that people produce either a birth certificate or citizenship papers in order to register to vote (after that a signature was the verification, not to mention that a certain fraction of voters would be known in person by the people there and a[ear ear after year)
But a birth certificate is now not considered any form of identification at all. They are now re-issued. And the originals may even be worthless. And nobody knows what a document issued decades ago is supposed to look like.
As for citizenship papers there never used to be any reason for someone to produce them – and therefore any reason for anyone to fake – other than to get a passport – and there the papers can be checked against government records – so it be pointless to fake one – and to register to vote. Now a fraud industry will not develop merely to help people register to vote.
So what they used to use is no longer used snd what some people want is to have people produce documents that do not actually at all establish a right to vote.
This purpose of this has to be to cut down the number of voters.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:30 amdustin
well, the police can’t do it on demand, but if they have reasonable suspicion then can ask for you to identify yourself.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9995425018966578786&q=542+U.S.+177&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:30 amsammy
> This purpose of this has to be to cut down the number of illegal voters.
FTFY
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:31 am“At least when I voted absentee when I was in the Army”
Dustin – Here in Illinois, the slime in charge have tried to delay mailing out absentee ballots to the military the so ballots are not returned by the statutory deadlines in an effort to disenfranchise them the past several years. It has been the same in several other states. More Democrat election jackassery.
Does the phrase Secretary of State Project ring a bell?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:33 amMy remarks in #33 apply to CA;
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:33 amwhere, as to Absentee Ballots, the process is supposed to include a comparison of the signature on the cover envelope with the signature on file in the Voter Registration Files – only then is the sealed ballot placed in a box for opening and counting (theoretically).
kman
> Little thing called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) which prevents registration and voting practices which have the effect (even if it is not the intention) to discriminate against minorities’ access to the polls. That’s why the f- not.
well, the S.C. wasn’t convinced. and as this article points out, tolerance of fraud may have the effect of disenfranchising people disproportionately according to race, too.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:36 amkmart only respects SC decisions when they uphold his world-view.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:37 amJust another good little fascist.
“It has been the same in several other states. More Democrat election jackassery.”
Yeah.
It’s disgusting.
There are some cynical bastards out there.
Reminds me of Florida 2000, where Bob Kerrey and a few others denied servicemen their vote because they didn’t have the right stamp, and then launched into a tirade for how the slightest hint of an intention to vote for Gore should be honored because every vote must count.
There are some folks out there who would actually be proud to steal the votes from others. There’s no difference between tearing up someone else’s vote and stuffing the ballot box with fraud (such as hoping people vote many times because there is no ID requirement).
It’s sad that the hard left can’t even get this basic one correct.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:40 amThe Supreme Court wasn’t convinced that plaintiffs had gathered enough evidence to show that Indiana’s Voter ID law as applied to Indiana voters created a discriminatory effect on Indiana’s minority population. They left the door open for the possibility that plaintiff could gather enough evidence to show discrimination.
That has no bearing on other (more onerous) laws being drafted in other states right now. Nothing in the Indiana case prevents the Supreme Court (or other courts) from finding a violation of the Voting Rights Act in other states/circumstances.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:57 amKman
> The Supreme Court wasn’t convinced that plaintiffs had gathered enough evidence to show that Indiana’s Voter ID law as applied to Indiana voters created a discriminatory effect on Indiana’s minority population. They left the door open for the possibility that plaintiff could gather enough evidence to show discrimination.
Yeah, and in 3 years no one has done it. indeed, you don’t think they TRIED in that case? no, most likely they tried and failed. your claims of racial disparity sound more and more like racism.
> That has no bearing on other (more onerous) laws being drafted in other states right now. Nothing in the Indiana case prevents the Supreme Court (or other courts) from finding a violation of the Voting Rights Act in other states/circumstances.
Well, it is true that if a law is not as accommodating as Indiana’s it is in more danger of being struck down. which means that it gets struck down and they go back and say, “let’s rip off indiana.” problem solved.
i do think ideally they should just rip off indiana, to save themselves the headache.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:06 am“There’s no difference between tearing up someone else’s vote and stuffing the ballot box with fraud (such as hoping people vote many times because there is no ID requirement).”
It’s tough to stuff the ballot box with electronic voting. Which makes you wonder why people like Frad Breedman and Krett Bimberlin are working so hard to preserve outdated paper balloting systems which are more susceptible to fraud.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:06 amComment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/23/2011 @ 9:28 am
If asked, you must provide ID.
Back in 1978 a print shop in Indianapolis had a would-be customer, who wore a security guard uniform with U.S. Army insignia, request him to reproduce military drivers licenses and other government materials. He was suspicious about that and called U.S. Army investigators, who in turn contacted the FBI.
So, on Wednesday, September 20, 1978 Army detectives were standing by the shop. They saw a short man drive up in a white 1970 Chevrolet Impala. And about that time, FBI agent Chester Jackson joined them. He went inside.
Inside, he asked the security guard for indetification. He refused. So he ordered him to sit in a chair.
Now his actual intention was merely to get the man;s name, but then he saw him trying to eat some of the military driver’s licenses.
Not knowing what to do, he called the U.S. Attorney for instructions. he was told if the man wouldn’t give his name, he should be jailed, but otherwise no.
The next day, FBI agent Chester Jackson was talking to first assistant Bernard L (Buddy) Pylitt and another assistant U.S. Attorney, Kennard P. Foster and they got to talking about this and they asked him, did he ever give his name? He told him yes – his name was Kimber-line or something.
Now let’s see this. Breet Kimberlin probably did not produce any identification, and yet he gave his right name, mostly. Now why> Because first of all, he thought he was going to be arrested, and when his fingerprints were checked his name was going to be come known, and also because his right name was probably on the driver’s license that was in the car, which besides was registered to him. And he probably kept it in the car. I saw he didn’t show his driver’s license because he probably gave his name orally, and mispronounced. Had he shown his name, Chester Jackson would have pronounced his name with a soft i. Kimberlin. Not Kimberline.
This asking for the name was actually so pointless too him that he didn’t bother to write it down (or ask him how to spell his name)
Anyway they did find out his name or at least his last name (the Indianapolis Star article is not clear) and they got s search warrant for the Impala. (At the same time they also got a search warrant for a property in the Hoosier national Forest but that’s a different line of investigation.
Once in the car, they (specifically FBI Agent Jack Yara) found a suitcase with the initials BCK (which may have a big clue that they had the right Kimberlin) and they got a second search warrant for the suitcase.
And by the way they also noticed timers. Brett Kimberlin had only bought that car in Dayton, on September 13, 1978.
A number of interesting transactions happened in Dayton on September 13, 1978. His old car was put into a Dayton body shop that day. And a relative of a man suspected of working with Brett Kimberlin on drug schemes (that would be a straw purchaser) bought an AR-15 rifle and a box of .223 caliber bullets at theOutdoor sports headquarters. Two years later, on October 20, 1978, Brett’s brother, Scott Kimberlin, was murdered with that rifle.
By the way, Brett Kimberlin had a box of .223 caliber ammunition bought from the Outdoor Sports Headquarters, possibly the very same box of bullets (Brett was already a felon and couldn’t buy guns or ammunition I think) in his Chevrolet when he was arrested on September 20, 1978. (He was released about two weeks later and the charges dropped The Indianapolis Star gives as the reason that federal and state officials were arguing over who should prosecute him and they also wanted him free while they tried to find out more about him, and until they found out more about him they couldn’t decide who should prosecute him.)
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:08 amHey, I just found a bag of uncounted electronic votes in the trunk of my car!!!!!!
How many votes did Franken need again?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:09 am“The Supreme Court wasn’t convinced that plaintiffs had gathered enough evidence to show that Indiana’s Voter ID law as applied to Indiana voters created a discriminatory effect on Indiana’s minority population. They left the door open for the possibility that plaintiff could gather enough evidence to show discrimination.”
Kman – So the plaintiffs have not been able to prove your theory at the state, appellate or Supreme Court level over the course of six years, but your are still sticking to your guns? You actually don’t have any facts to support your theory, do you, just emotional partisanship?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:18 amYou’re the one obsessed with making this about race. I’ve repeatedly said that voter ID laws disproportionately affect elderly, students, disabled, and racial minorities.
Except different states have different demographics; therefore, the same law might have a different impact in other states.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:18 amSammy, I don’t give a flying …. about Kimberlin, and what happened to him in 1978.
The incident in NV happened IIRC in the 1990’s.
BTW, I just received a memo from the USCG detailing that the reproduction of military ID’s, is a violation of U.S. law – Title 18, USC Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701!
Note: This does not apply to medical establishments (i.e. doctor’s office, hospitals, etc…) who
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:22 amare allowed take a copy for the purpose of filing insurance claims; and other government agencies
in the performance of official government business.
(Exception statement from original)
Great little synopsis, Sammy.
I love how people are happily sharing the truth about Brett’s past.
Daleyrocks raises a point that Kimbo and his Bimbo Brad do not seem to like electronic voting. I just think they use it as a boogeyman to drive donors (suckers).
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:25 amoopsy! Just found these uncounted votes in my lil ol computer! How many did Prosser need?
//www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119410124.html
Electoral fraud in 2012 will be in the forms of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement.
Jon. Huntsman. (5c79ab) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:26 amI don’t think Sammy was trying to relate to your point about the police being able to demand identification.
I think he just saw a segue to an interesting story about a guy who really wishes people would stop telling the truth about him.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:27 amgreat jon, you reflected my thoughts exactly!
tifosa (5c79ab) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:28 amBut she didn’t find votes. They were votes that were counted by someone else, and she failed to report the full number. There’s no doubt that she did not somehow add votes in.
Sorry. Liberals are losing these days.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:28 amComment by Dustin — 11/23/2011 @ 10:25 am
Daleyrocks raises a point that Kimbo and his Bimbo Brad do not seem to like electronic voting. I just think they use it as a boogeyman to drive donors (suckers).
There’s probably a long-term secondary motive too.
It’s easier to stuff a ballot box if there are paper ballots.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:29 ama type of fraud which is not only exceedingly rare, but never in the aggregate likely to change the outcome of any particular election.
I am certain that this happened at least once when I was working as a poll worker.
Why am I certain of this? Because a dude showed up to vote only to find that someone had already signed his name in the roster. It wasn’t him trying to vote twice – I would have recognized him, there weren’t that many voters that day – but, there it was, in black and white, in front of me.
(He had valid ID. We let him vote provisionally. I’m pretty sure his vote wasn’t counted and the other guy’s was).
Data is not the plural of anecdote; I don’t know how widespread this is and have no evidence that it *is* widespread. But, on the other hand, it would be a difficult thing to prove.
And yet, articles like the one kman pointed to earlier disturb me: for a large percentage of poor people over a certain age, proving their identity is just next to impossible, due to lack of reliability of data when they were children. (And, note, this isn’t per se a race thing: the cited article shows that, in the state surveyed, the majority of people in this situation were poor white folk).
Absent evidence of widespread impersonation fraud, I value the voting rights of the people who can’t get proper documentation of their birth *more* than I’m worried about the risk of voter impersonation.
And yet I can’t say it doesn’t happen. It’s all a question of degree, and which side I would prefer to err on.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:29 amI think we can work this out, though. Just not on election day. People should be able to get a government ID, and if there’s some documentation SNAFU, there should be (probably is) a way to overcome that and get an ID.
These IDs should be free, and should require people to provide a fingerprint or something to make sure people aren’t getting more than one.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:32 amKman
> You’re the one obsessed with making this about race.
Lol, projection.
> Except different states have different demographics; therefore, the same law might have a different impact in other states.
So black people might be capable of complying with indiana’s rules in indiana, but when they get to south carolina they get dumber? is that your argument?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:32 amBut in the past, student IDs and non-photo IDs were acceptable. Now, some states are trying to take that away.
even worse.
In Wisconsin – see http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/republicans-are-right-about-tech-school-ids-a3356bk-134361758.html – some student IDs are acceptable and some aren’t, depending on which college you happen to be attending.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:33 amYou and Daley probably have a point.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:33 amThis is where I start to get frustrated. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
Why not require a driver’s license or that alternative State ID, and nothing else? Keep it simple.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:34 amDustin: let’s work it out and set up that procedure *before* adopting the ID requirement to vote, then. I think that’s a compromise position which would work for both sides of the aisle *if* everyone honestly believes their rhetorical positions. 🙂
[As an aside, to get a new drivers’ license when I moved, I had to provide my passport *and* my social security card. I thought this was bizarre.]
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:34 amFair enough for me!
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:35 amSammy, Dustin: I don’t like electronic voting, because I have no confidence that the machines are recording votes accurately, and because there is *no way* for independent after-the-fact verification of the vote count. Anything you would use to verify and cross-check would also be generated by the machine, and so you couldn’t confirm or deny that the machine was error-free.
I’m speaking as a software engineer here: anonymity and security are opposed to one another. You can have an anonymous system, or you can have a secure system. Asking for both is asking for too much; the tools which allow security depend on non-anonymity.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:36 amAaron wrote: Still, despite the state fairly bending over backwards to accommodate people, the official Democrat position was that black people and other minorities were uniquely incapable of complying with these simple requirements.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:37 amAaron’s stalker, K. Man-Crazy, responded: Not at all the “official Democrat position”. That’s just a bald-faced lie.
— Knowing that the truth lies elsewhere, as Kman routinely lies here, I looked it up. Here it is:
Republicans must decide whether they will enact an unnecessary regulation that will disproportionately burden the elderly, Americans with disabilities, citizens with limited means, and communities of color or whether they will fund public schools and police departments.
[Source: The Real Cost of Photo ID; posted at Democrats.org and paid for by the Democratic National Committee]
And yet, articles like the one kman pointed to earlier disturb me: for a large percentage of poor people over a certain age, proving their identity is just next to impossible, due to lack of reliability of data when they were children. (And, note, this isn’t per se a race thing: the cited article shows that, in the state surveyed, the majority of people in this situation were poor white folk).
And yet the article referred to people born before the 70’s. Those people are now in their 40’s at least – so do they have no proper identification at this point time? Have they never checked out a library book, gotten a driver’s license, been to a hospital, applied for SS or welfare or aid of any kind, or partook in anything that required identification?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:39 amAll of this could have been prevented if we had just started tatooing SS#’s on the forearms of babies.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:39 amDana – you don’t need a birth certificate or a drivers’ license in many jurisdictions to get a library card. I didn’t need one to get my NYPL card, for example, or the peninsula libraries card I had before that, or the santa cruz library card before that.
Besides which, if you don’t drive and don’t have credit cards, and have a job where you are paid in cash, you can probably avoid needing proper official ID for most of your life.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:43 amThe position is that voter ID laws make it harder to vote — 11% of eligible voters in this country do not have government-issued ID (21 million citizens) — and it disproportionately affects low-income voters, young voters, seniors, the disabled, and people of color
— So after denying it, and calling Aaron a liar for saying it, Kman then turns right around and not only admits it, he even copies-and-pastes from a version of it! Pathological.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:43 amIcy:
And where does it say in there that blacks and other minorities are “uniquely incapable” of complying with voter ID laws?
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:44 amAbsent evidence of widespread impersonation fraud, I value the voting rights of the people who can’t get proper documentation of their birth *more* than I’m worried about the risk of voter impersonation.
Voter registration fraud in 1997
In 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to request that the Justice Department prosecute La Hermandad Mexicana Nacional after investigators for the House Administration Committee complained that the group had registered hundreds of illegal voters prior to a very close congressional election in Orange County, California.
It happens. And will continue to happen until voters are required to prove their identity. It may seem unfair, but that’s the way it is.
Why isn’t protection of the verified voter’s vote worth as much protection as the person who is supposedly unable to verify their identification? Isn’t this a form of discrimination?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:45 amAll this fuss/whining about ID requirements in various parts of the Excited States seems odd to this transplant from the USA ; here in Ontario, we have to produce ID to vote and there seems to be no fuss made about it….zzzzz…..;
Paul (2a168c) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:45 amTell a lie long enough, and loud enough, and even you begin to believe it.
kmart is the personification of our Dear Leader, one whose story and history changes to fit the moment.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:46 amHonestly, I’ve always felt the same way. I just like the simplicity of paper and pen ballots, and would not mind if it took a week to count them, with a heavy emphasis on ensuring no one is dishonest in the process. But I can’t dismiss Daley’s point. I think he’s in illinois, so I don’t blame him for not trusting those who do the counting to ever be reliable about it.
I would like to see some kind of agency that tries to enforce honest counting of elections with all sorts of measures, along with paper ballots. But right now, I’m thinking electronic does have merits in places with rampant problems.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:47 amOh, dear; isn’t that the definition of a Pathological Liar?
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:48 amElectronic voting is just the next step in voting theft that was institutionalized with the mechanical voting machines used in many East-Coast “machine politics” cities of yore.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:50 am“…enforce honest counting of elections with all sorts of measures…”
I think Samuel Johnson would advocate gallows.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:51 amDustin: in places with rampant problems, they would just make it easier for the election to be stolen: upload deliberately broken software.
The studies the CA SecState’s office ran on the subjec tin 2003-2004 were terrifying: it was ridiculously easy for someone to, say, attach a USB thumb drive to an exposed port on one of the voting machines and then invent a count for the precinct or, worse, infect the machine with a virus which, when the machines were networked together to create a district count, would take over the entire district.
This isn’t something the average person could do, but it’s certainly something the political machines could pay for, and it would only ever be detectable by statistical analysis which would not actually be compelling enough to resolve doubt in everyone’s minds.
I would like to see some kind of agency that tries to enforce honest counting of elections with all sorts of measures, along with paper ballots
That’s an interesting idea, and I wonder if Congress could properly mandate it for federal elections.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:52 amElectronic voting is just the next step in voting theft that was institutionalized with the mechanical voting machines used in many East-Coast “machine politics” cities of yore
Agreed.
I can get behind optical scan systems because (a) they’re well tested technology (see, eg, scantron testing) and (b) the paper can always be hand counted to do a verification.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:53 amDustin,
You’ve always had to have ID on you – the military are required to carry, many police, govt officials are required to carry it – not just in the execution of their duties, teenagers out past a certain time are required to have ID to prove curfew laws compliance.
as far as voting requirements there have been for decades:
Required registration
Required proof of residency
Required proof of ID
Now we balk at actually having to show ID?
I’m not understanding – if you dont have to prove who actually you are then where this starts filtering down Ron Paul style is then ipso facto candidates mayot have to prove residency, and other considerable ballot requirements since the voting acts and the ballot acts are sympathetic in their execution.
EricPWJohnson (2a58f7) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:53 amWell, suppose you are a student in California trying to vote in your home state of Maine and you don’t have a Maine driver’s license. How are you going to get one while in California to send in with your absentee ballot?
Oh, that’s part of the idea. The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that a state could not mandate a residency period of longer than 30 days so many college students register but this will make it difficult. College Students are more liable to vote Democrat and anyway come from a different background than the people living in the places they go to school.
Not to mention in some cases increasing the cost of auto insurance by thousand of Dollars.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:54 amAW:
No, it’s not, and you know it.
For the third time now, this isn’t about what black people (or any people) are “capable” of. Nobody — not me, not the Democratic party — is making a blanket statement about any minorities’ “capabilities”, because that isn’t the relevant issue. The issue is about discriminatory practices in the area of voting.
For you to make this about “capabilities” is to dodge the issue. I suppose if this were the 1950’s, you would be writing a post saying “What’s the matter with supporters of civil rights? They’re saying that blacks are incapable of riding on the back of the bus! They’re saying they are too stupid to tell the difference between a whites-only drinking fountain and a blacks-only one. They’re too lazy to climb the stair and sit in the balcony at movie theaters! Boy, those civil rights people sure are racist!”
Again, the point isn’t whether or not minorities can overcome the discriminatory practices; the point is that there ARE discriminatory practices.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:54 am“Again, the point isn’t whether or not minorities can overcome the discriminatory practices; the point is that there ARE discriminatory practices.”
Kman – That is what you claim, but you have offered no proof of your claim other than the fantasies in your head.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:57 amI think you hit the nail on the head
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:58 am— Methinks you hit a nail with yours.
not surprisingly, people like you and me are going to differ on where to draw the line
— Just below the frontal lobe, with “cut here” and an arrow pointing at it.
I am most persuaded by reports and studies that suggest that the type of voter fraud these laws are intended to combat (impersonation) is already exceptionally rare.
— Did you know that most people that leave the keys in their car’s ignition come outside the next day to find their car sitting right where they left it? It’s true! Most do.
Most, but not all. And it really sucks for those that come out to find their cars gone.
Kman
> Again, the point isn’t whether or not minorities can overcome the discriminatory practices; the point is that there ARE discriminatory practices.
Except they aren’t discriminatory. They are neutral rules that you think that black people are uniquely incapable of handling.
i mean just who are these people who have no photo ID’s. You need one to get a job, purchase a house, buy a car, or open a bank account. sheesh.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:58 amI agree. Whatever minor problem there is with requiring a dang ID is nothing compared to the problems of not requiring one.
Good point. But I’d like to see something like this. For example, some fraction of counters would not be counting real votes, but simulated ones. They wouldn’t know if the true totals were known in advance, so they would be under pressure to get it right. And officers would show up at polls trying to break the rules (vote twice, use the wrong ID, etc).
I don’t want to be so aggressive that volunteers feel like criminals, but I want to make sure they know that their work is damn serious and there is no room for games.
Unfortunately, you are ultimately right. You can’t treat the corruption disease so easily as sending them a better machine. There are just too many ways to game the system. Hell, the could just break the machines in a way that allowed the right precincts to be open later, or somehow snuffed out the other precincts.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:00 amOther wrinkles…
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:03 amIf you are registered to vote, you are assumed to be a “resident”, and will be called for jury-duty.
A non-resident student (one who has to pay “out-of-state” tuition if at a State school), should be ineligible to vote, as he/she is not considered a “resident”,
and therefore would be ineligible to vote locally.
Also, as a non-resident, you would not be required to have an “in-state” DL,
and would continue to operate your vehicle (if you brought one) with your “native state” DL and registration
(registration starts to get tricky, it would be interesting to see how the DMV – particularly in CA – would try to finess that to get the registration bucks while the UC/CSU systems could maintain their income stream from “out-of-state” tuition).
In Syracuse NY ( Onondaga County in the central part of the state ) a few years ago, there was a known problem with ” double – dipping ” of welfare recipients with connections to NY City ; IIRC the proposed solution was to fingerprint welfare recipients in NY State ; this proposal caused a big fuss and accusations of ” criminalizing ” welfare recipients but then lots of vets and elderly Rosie Riveter types from WWII and others objected to the connection between fingerprinting and ” criminal ” ; IIRC the regulation for fingerprinting came into effect and miraculously a number of folks disappeared from the Onondaga County welfare rolls….;
remember the old voting day advice from Chicago, Vote Early & Vote Often 😉
Paul (2a168c) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:06 amObviously Kman thinks people who don’t do this are black, for some reason.
But that’s beside the point.
I wonder just how many people are on the books multiple times, with fake kids, fake ailments, fake social security registrations.
It would only take a handful of fake identities to start raking in some serious entitlement cash.
Just another reason to change the way society is ordered.
Why would so many people apparently be able to survive in this country without any ID? Why would they even want to? Where are these people living? How did they get a house or an apartment? How are they getting from place to place? How do they get food? Sure, maybe they all live in the woods and grow beets.
Oh, because the ID would tie a photo or a fingerprint to multiple IDs? I think that’s the case sometimes. But it’s probably just BS statistics too.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:07 am“I just think they use it as a boogeyman to drive donors (suckers).”
Dustin – DIEBOLD!!!!!! You are absolutely correct that it’s a great issue over which to corral donors. The stolen Ohio votes! Unprovable conspiracies about code and security that can just go on and on forever are cash cows, but I do think there are ulterior motives about retaining paper ballots while maximizing cash donations. The posts about Brad being unable to figure out how to use an electronic voting machine are milky nostril squirt worthy (Hootie where are you?).
The Secretary of State Project was a Dem effort to elect lower level state officials to put them in a position to control elections around the country. It was documented several years ago.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:07 amAD-Rtr/OS: usually nonresident students who register to vote and get local drivers licenses are considered residents of the state for all purposes other than university tuition.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:07 amSeriously?
Is it that you lack imagination? Or you just cannot see beyond the four walls of your own middle class existence?
No, you don’t always need a photo ID to get a job or open a bank account (I never did).
And there are millions of elderly and infirm/disabled people who don’t drive, and who don’t own homes. There are millions of poor people, too. Many students, too, have never bought a car or house.
You need to get out more, son.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:09 amAbsolutely.
I realize this is completely impossible, but I would love the vote not being seen as a fundamental right, but rather something citizens earn by paying taxes, graduating from high school (or earning an equivalency), and not requiring public assistance of any variety before the age of 60.
I would happily disenfranchise those who can’t manage to really be good citizens, but these days, this probably sounds abhorrent or mean. And yeah, it may even sound a little unfair (Though it is more fair than what we’re doing now).
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:10 amOf course. Howard Dean really was great at his job. Too bad he didn’t apply himself to something more than power for its own sake for his party, but I at least respect his ability to plan this out.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:11 amdisenfranchising hundreds of thousands in one state so that 221 fraudulent voters get caught? The cure is worse than the disease.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:14 am— Perhaps “the cure” should involve those hundreds of thousands (a suspect number, BTW) getting with the program, huh?
Again, that’s not what I (or Democrats) are saying. They’re saying that you are putting an obstacle in their way to being able to vote. The issue isn’t whether it can be “handled”, but whether or not it is right.
— But why is this an obstacle to minorities? The article that YOU linked to states that most of the supposedly disenfranchised voters are white, so why are you (or the Democrats) specifying minority status at all?
Unprovable conspiracies about code and security that can just go on and on forever are cash cows
Of course they’re unprovable. They’re unprovable and they’re undisprovable, which is precisely the problem.
I know at a theoretical level, though, that it’s very easy to fake data if the data is bound tightly to an identity. I also know that if it’s bound to an identity, it’s not anonymous, and therefore violates the secret ballot requirement.
Given that I know this, why should I assume that elections won’t be stolen with electronic voting machines? It seems like the incentive to do so is high and the cost is very, very low.
posts about Brad being unable to figure out how to use an electronic voting machine are milky nostril squirt worthy
Yeah, yo’re right about that. The ease of learning how to use touch screen systems is their best feature.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:16 am“This isn’t something the average person could do, but it’s certainly something the political machines could pay for, and it would only ever be detectable by statistical analysis which would not actually be compelling enough to resolve doubt in everyone’s minds.”
aphrael – Exactly the thinking behind the 2004 Stolen Ohio Vote Conspiracy. The exit polling models predict something other than the results that were coming in so of course fraud must be occurring. THE MODELS COULD NOT BE WRONG! There was no evidence of fraud. The best people, I mean the best people, created the models, so something fishy had to be going on. Rove may have killed somebody in a plane crash to cover it up.
It was hilarious! The exit polling was screwed. Conservatives did not want to talk to a bunch of smelly hippie exit pollsters so the models got hosed inputs.
But it was fraud!!!!!11ty!!!!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:17 amIcy:
But you don’t get it. They WERE with the program, but now with some states requiring more particular forms of voter ID, they’re off the program. My link was one example.
By the way, “getting with the program”? That doesn’t apply to getting health insurance, right?
There are other minorities, besides the racial one, affected by this. Do I need to list them AGAIN, or can you scroll up?
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:17 amYeah, it’s not exactly a bad thing if all these mythical people do get IDs.
I mean, seriously, how are these people managing to survive?
Maybe we should just require that all citizens get a damn ID. Make it relatively sane to do, and with no relation to voting at all.
Then, it’s no problem requiring they identify themselves properly at the ballot box.
AD has a point. We should just tattoo the babies. 🙂
Yeah, at least with old school ballot stuffing there are logistical limitations.
I think they should randomize the reporting order of the various precincts. So, one precinct cannot report until the one before it is required to. This wouldn’t actually delay the ultimate result… the slowest precinct is not going to take any longer. It would prevent folks from knowing how many votes they need to generate.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:20 amYes. And this sort of underscores the point: we can’t know if these are properly counted. It seems certain that over a long enough period of time, someone is going to use an unverifiable system to steal an election, and we’ll never know.
How do we avoid this? ONLY use verifiable voting systems.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:20 amKman
psst, yes you do have to prove who you are to work. ever hear of an i-9?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:21 amNaw, those other IDs are things like school IDs and even bills. I can get you a bill for any address and name you want in 30 seconds, no problem.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:21 amthis debate focusing on some hypothetical disenfranchisement of the ” disadvantaged ” seems a bit like counting the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin and misses the larger issue of steadily declining voting participation that has been evidenced for decades and the linkage to the cynicism evidenced in the 9 % favorable rating for Congress…;
there is a plethora of ways to game or rig the voting system, plug one hole and the scammers just find another way…;
electronic voting without scanned paper ballots as backup would be a license for Industrial style vote fraud…;
Paul (2a168c) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:21 amAaron, I am always amused by stalkerboi, well, stalking you.
Fact is, you cannot cash a check with photo ID. Or travel by air. Or rent a car. Or rent an apartment, at least in my experience.
So if in fact demand of ID is discriminatory, partisan twits like K-whatever his name is with a underattended blog should be fighting the Power of whitey there.
The real fact is that voter ID lessens the chance of fraud. The Left needs fraud, is the only interpretation I can come up for this weird fixation (given how often ID is needed in everyday life).
But then, that isn’t why Kman posts here. It’s because of his weird crush on Aaron.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:22 amKman should go look up “Lyndon Lightning” sometime. But he won’t. He is too busy waiting for Aaron to post something else. “Lookit me! Notice me!”
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:24 amOr rent an apartment, at least in my experience.
My experience differs; I’ve never been asked to provide ID to rent an apartment.
you cannot cash a check with photo ID
I have done this. In theory you’re not allowed to, but not everyone actually adheres to the rule.
Similarly, I *regularly* use credit cards without being IDd even though, in theory, the fact that I haven’t signed the back means they’re supposed to ID me all the time.
given how often ID is needed in everyday life
I think the thing is that you live a life where ID is needed often, but that doesn’t mean everyone does.
I currently live a life where the only IDs I need on a regular basis are my Columbia affiliate ID (which gets me into my apartment building) and my badge at work (which is not name or picture specific, and which gets me in to work). Otherwise? I’ll have to produce ID when I fly at Christmas. And I had to provide ID to buy beer at the concert last week. But … those were voluntary activities I could easily not have engaged in. Beyond that, I’ve had no need for ID since moving.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:26 am“Given that I know this, why should I assume that elections won’t be stolen with electronic voting machines? It seems like the incentive to do so is high and the cost is very, very low.”
aphrael – I know you have worked in the software area so I take your comments on this seriously. I know any system given enough time and effort probably can be hacked, but I think it’s defeatist to suggest enough safeguards, checks and balances cannot be implemented to ensure safe elections. With so much of our society operating safely electronically on a daily basis, but then I don’t have your perspective.
I do have a perspective of constantly stuffed ballot boxes in the fine Chicago tradition.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:28 am“AD has a point. We should just tattoo the babies.”
We could implant RFID chips or some other kind.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:31 amdaley
i have long said that the employees at our corporate office should have tracking collars attached so we could figure out where they were at any given moment.
(yes, that is a joke.)
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:34 am“i have long said that the employees at our corporate office should have tracking collars attached so we could figure out where they were at any given moment.”
A.W. – Even during nooners?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:36 amOh, they’re LAZY, are they? And just which group are you classifying as “lazy”? The elderly and infirm? The disabled? Blacks? Spit it out, Aaron. Let your prejudicial flag fly.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:38 am— Decaf, Kman. And NO energy drinks for you!
It is a huge presumption on your part that all of these people want to vote; there are always large discrepancies between the number of registered voters and actual voter turnout. IOW, the ones that want to vote will do what it takes to actually get the job done.
By the way, YOUR right to vote isn’t burdened at all by their supposed “laziness”.
— Reading IS comprehension, buddy. Track now:
Voter ID law not passed due to complaints of placing unfair burdens on some voters;
One (not even 221, just 1) person casts an illegal ballot negating all of Aaron’s choices;
Aaron’s right to vote and have his voice be heard has just been neutralized, NOT by the inability but the unwillingness of others to do what he has done . . . namely, by meeting the entirely reasonable standards of this process.
A.W. – Even during nooners?
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/23/2011 @ 11:36 am
— How else are you going to get a good seat in front of the spy cam?
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:40 amAphrael, with all due respect, turn your argumentation around. Why should voters *not* want to have photo ID to vote?
You wouldn’t like that kind of argument, but you just engaged in pretzel logic.
You don’t have to vote. You don’t have to rent a car. Heck, you don’t have to drive a car.
Ah, but taking away a person’s right to vote…
But you see where this is going? How long does it take to get a photo ID? Especially if voting is, well, important to you?
Which takes us back to a presumption that some people can’t look after themselves. And some cannot…that is what family or friends and such are for.
The ugly fact you don’t like to confront is that fighting voter ID is mostly an attempt to make fraud more likely.
And by the way, I agree with you on electronic voting. I prefer paper ballots for that reason.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:48 amFurthermore:
Whoops. In theory you aren’t allowed to vote unless you prove identity in some fashion, but it is certainly true that not everyone “actually adheres to the rule.”
Especially in Illinois.
Incidentally, I have had to show photo ID many, many times in everyday life. And so have you.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:51 amWhile not specifically enumerated as a “right” in the Constitution, we have three constitutional amendments giving suffrage, as well as the aptly-titled Voting Rights Act. That’s why the Supreme Court treats voting as a “fundamental right”.
— Neal Boortz could school you on this better than I, but suffice it to say that this “right” comes with a responsibility, and proving that you are who you say you are is a reasonable requirement to attach to this “fundamental right”.
Hawkeye: Can you identify yourself?
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:53 amKim Luck: This is me!
Hawkeye: Well, I guess you wouldn’t kid me about a thing like that.
I think we need to look hard at these laws being proposed, and ask whether they will have the effect of disenfranchising more legitimate voters than the fraud they supposedly are intending to get combat.
Comment by Kman — 11/23/2011 @ 8:39 am
— No, you don’t think that. Rachel Maddow and Kos thinks that; you are just their localized parrot.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:57 amLittle thing called the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended) which prevents registration and voting practices which have the effect (even if it is not the intention) to discriminate against minorities’ access to the polls. That’s why the f- not
— Have you not been listening to the Finkelman? If there is no intent, you have no right to vent!
Anytime you would care to explain how the practice of voter ID has the effect of discriminating against a minority accessing the polls, you just go-ahead and explain away.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:03 pmI guess all those disenfranchised people do not drive, don’t go to Social Security offices, don’t fly, don’t cash checks, etc.
This is silly. And it empowers fraud, not racism. If this was the issue, why, the DNC (and partisan parakeets like Kman and his blog that no one visits) would be volunteering to help such people get ID.
Notice that they don’t.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:07 pmgreat jon, you reflected my thoughts exactly!
Comment by tifosa — 11/23/2011 @ 10:28 am
— Like a shattered funhouse mirror.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:10 pmsimon
> And it empowers fraud, not racism.
knowing you as i do, i think you misspoke there, but its funny that your mispeaking raised an interesting point. all of this reinforces the notion that minorities just can’t do the basics in life. so when liberals make this argument they are empowering racism.
which makes it all the more important to reject this silliness.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:11 pmNot to mention, Simon, all of those elderly and disabled people getting their prescriptions without ID.
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:13 pmIn my years of practical experience as a poll watcher, most voter fraud was aimed at either party primaries or the bottom of a ticket. “Early & often” is not Chicago but Tammany Hall.
Tammany’s “shoulder-strikers” used the cry as they went from polling place to polling place in groups of 20 to 30 to cast votes for Tammany candidates.
The Honest Ballot Association of New York (1856 to 1956) fought to eliminate the massive voter fraud that was Tammany’s forte.
Michael M. Keohane (1d7c16) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:15 pmI guess what I meant, Aaron, is that opposing voter ID isn’t racist. It is pro-fraud. Not as eloquent as I would like to be, these days.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:16 pmicy
seriously, i can’t even buy advil cold and sinus without photo ID. but then i can vote? So we are more concerned about people getting uncontrolled access to pseudophedrine (sp?) than the franchise?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:23 pmNo, you don’t always need a photo ID to get a job
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:25 pm— Mafia “jobs” and other forms of getting paid under-the-table excepted.
or open a bank account (I never did).
— Try to do that right now. Go ahead; we’ll wait.
Again, to those against the voter I.D. law, why isn’t the self-identified voter’s vote worth protecting as much as possible? This provides a vehicle to do just that.
Because a small number of people who may not want to vote if it means getting an i.d., or for sake of argument, a small number of people will have to overcome certain obstacles to get said i.d.m, why are they the selected group to protect?
How is this not discriminatory on some level in that a particular group is given the protection over another?
Dana (4eca6e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:25 pmIt really, really ticks me off to think of just how sensitive to the point of ridiculous Kman and so many like him are to the idea of some people being hassled in the most slight way to vote.
They say it’s because of some sacred need to get everyone voting. These mythical people with no ID must not be scared away! And don’t you dare run a outstanding warrant search! And let’s keep the lines short!
That’s all fine and dandy, but then when there’s some issue with military ballots, they all turn into legalistic hardasses searching for any excuse to throw the votes away. No degree of hassle is too great for soldiers. They might even send the ballots too late, and then reject them if there’s a marking missing, at no fault of the voter’s.
It is totally insincere. Kman exposed his bigotry about these jobless moronic people he assumes must have black skin. he assumes these people are on the dole and will vote democrat, so they must get some special rules, and at the same time, he assumes other groups will vote republican, so they get some special rules too.
Disgusting.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:28 pmA.W.:
Except you have yet to quote any actual liberal who actually makes that argument (that “minorities just can’t do the basics in life”).
To put fake words in liberals’ mouths is (as always) nothing more than employing a very weak strawman argument on your part, which is why you probably have to continually prop it up. In fact, you’re so enamored with that strawman, that I think you two should get gay married.
I would love to stick around and have people weigh in on how easy it is to get a photo ID and how they should just “get with the program”, etc., and more to the point, I’d like to ask why people here don’t hold those views when it comes to health insurance, but…. I’m starting my holiday weekend early and hypocrisy-free.
Kman (5576bf) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:31 pmBut you don’t get it. They WERE with the program, but now with some states requiring more particular forms of voter ID, they’re off the program. My link was one example.
— Oh no! And some people that thought they could get social security at age 65 might have to wait until they’re 67. I was legal to drink at 19; now you have to be 21. Buildings insulated with asbestos have had to be retrofitted.
Adapt, adopt, and improve!
By the way, “getting with the program”? That doesn’t apply to getting health insurance, right?
— Some changes are correct, reasonable and legal . . . and some are not.
There are other minorities, besides the racial one, affected by this. Do I need to list them AGAIN, or can you scroll up?
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:43 pm— And this means what? that neither the DNC nor you were referring to racial minorities? No. First, you used the word “besides”; second, the report stated “communities of color”.
Now, once and for all: Explain HOW & WHY voter ID laws adversely affect racial minorities!
Um… you went to “black” as soon as he talked about people unable to do the basics in life.
This is also exactly what you mean when you call a requirement for a truly basic ID ‘discriminatory’, and you know it.
This democrat thinks Nikki Haley’s voter ID law discriminates against Blacks and is a return to slavery.
The Congressional Black Caucus walked out, claiming voter ID disenfranchises blacks.
I realize you are Kman, and therefore did not think about what you’re saying. Aaron said the sky was blue, so no, the sky is never blue according to Kman.
You are repeating racist democrat talking points that I’ve been hearing for years, pretending it’s remotely plausible that one fourth of blacks have no basic ID. This is absurd and that you believe such propaganda is hilarious.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:46 pmHey, don’t pick ip your marbles and run away with your skirt hiked up! Answer the question:
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:47 pmIN WHAT WAY DO VOTER ID LAWS DISENFRANCHISE MINORITY VOTERS?
Forcing someone to get an ID is so different from forcing them to pay into the pool of health insurance for democrat special interests that it boggles the mind that the comparison was attempted.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:47 pmHello? Earth to Kman’s tin foil hat . . . Can you hear me, Major Dumb?
Icy (f2e91e) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:49 pmBut it’s a false analogy. You know: the argument fallacy that you hit Aaron over the head with on another thread.
Proving who you are before you cast a vote is not the same things as carrying insurance against a medically-related financial debt. In no known world are these two even remotely related.
Chuck Bartowski (84d5d3) — 11/23/2011 @ 12:53 pmKman
> I would love to stick around and have people weigh in on how easy it is to get a photo ID and how they should just “get with the program”, etc.
lol the complaint about health insurance isn’t that its hard to get, especially for minorities. the complaint is that i am being coerced into a financial relationship with private parties.
As it happens, morally, i think you are an idiot if you don’t get insurance and yes you do hurt the rest of us if you don’t. But not every immoral act can be made illegal consistent with our constitution.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:03 pmChuck, when that kind of partisan knows he can’t win the argument, he resorts to searching for some hypocrisy angle and then flees the debate.
That way, we’re all dishonest like he is, or at least that’s the smokescreen.
So if you require people to use a freaking ID to identify themselves, we are hypocrites if there is any requirement we do not agree with. Pretty silly, but totally predictable. Every time a lefty partisan gets really over the edge, I just wait for the ‘but here’s something analogous (which isn’t)’.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:04 pmbtw, those who want to generalize lefties should note just how reasonable Aphrael is. They are not all like Kman. It is not necessary to be that crazy to hold a more liberal world view.
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:04 pm“As it happens, morally, i think you are an idiot if you don’t get insurance and yes you do hurt the rest of us if you don’t.”
A.W. – If you are in a position to pay for your own medical care I disagree. You are hurting nobody by not purchasing insurance or merely purchasing catastrophic coverage. Purchasing insurance is merely trading dollars with an insurance company, much like overpaying your income taxes and waiting for a refund.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:27 pmI just want insurance for really, really extreme stuff like brain cancer or a horrible accident.
I don’t need insurance for when I get colds or for checkups.
High deductible, low premium, hopefully never used insurance. That’s what I want.
But frankly, if I don’t want anything at all, so what? If I decide I want to eat candy corn and nothing else, for the rest of my life, so what?
Dustin (cb3719) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:57 pmKman is a fascist.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 1:59 pmWow so the government will now prosecute shaving amish beards as a hate crime?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 2:41 pmMy apologies; I wandered off to make cranberry sauce, because it’s that time.
Daleyrocks, at 113:
Sure, it’s defeatist. On the other hand, it’s the result of a serious theoretical problem. All of the other things we do electronically, we manage safety by way of identity authentication and permissions. This isn’t possible for elections. So: how do we ensure that what’s recorded was what was cast, without having any way to identify the caster and ask them?
Simon Jester, at 119:
you’re not responding to an argument per se. One of the things that comes up all the time is claims that nobody could possibly get by without an ID, so it’s not a big deal to require it here. It’s not as if, the argument goes, this were an extra hurdle people were going through just for voting.
My point is that, for a lot of people, it *is*. It’s not that hard to arrange your life so that in day-to-day life you don’t need a state issued ID, as long as you aren’t driving … and whether or not you life that life is correlated with class.
Dana, at 132:
like most things, what we’re actually looking at is a trade-off between imposing a voting obstacle to those who don’t already have ID, on the one hand, and reducing the risk of voter impersonation on the other.
Where the left and the right really disagree on this is that (a) the left thinks the obstacle is greater than the right is, and (b) the left thinks the risk is smaller than the right does.
This gets obscured in a lot of the rhetoric both sides throw up, unfortunately. And, I think, neither side can really convince the other on either point.
Dustin, at 133:
I would happily agree that military ballots should be counted and should be treated just as flexibly as any other ballots.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 2:56 pm“All of the other things we do electronically, we manage safety by way of identity authentication and permissions. This isn’t possible for elections.”
aphrael – This is where the electronic voting alarmists lose me. The people manning the polling station control the identity authentication and permissions, as they do now for the physical paper ballots. Where are you seeing the added risks which can’t be controlled or mitigated?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:16 pmExactly or servicemen and their comrades[ not the marxist-leninist kind] need to have their votes counted.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:20 pm“It’s not that hard to arrange your life so that in day-to-day life you don’t need a state issued ID, as long as you aren’t driving”
aphrael – During the 1980s colleagues from NYC would fly out here to the great beyond*, holding their noses at the cultural deprivation the whole time, to call on companies in various locations. The thing they wanted to do most was to drive the rental car since they did not have much of any opportunities to drive in NYC.
That was some scary sh*t!
*Beyond the Hudson River.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:23 pmdaleyrocks: once the ballot is cast.
so you go to the electronic voting machine and you use this code which was given to you by the poll workers, and it then records your vote.
how can it be verified that that recorded value was (a) actually what you cast, and (b) not changed later?
this is, i suppose, an equivalent question to how can you be sure that the paper ballots aren’t changed. in the paper ballot case, the answer is you put them in a locked box that is verified as having been empty, and you maintain a chain of control over the paper. you can’t gurantee not changing, but you *can* make sure that only authorized people have access, and changes would likely be detectable via inspection, at least if they were done on a mass scale.
but for the computer, you can’t actually verify that the *vote recorded* was what was cast. you *could* if you could associate the data with a particular voter and then ask them, but you can’t.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:24 pmDaleyrocks: you’d have to be insane to drive here regularly.
(And, really, I got tired of commuting. :))
holding their noses at the cultural deprivation the whole time
so here’s a question:
how can i comport myself when not in an urban area so as not to convey the impression that i’m doing this?
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:25 pm“how can i comport myself when not in an urban area so as not to convey the impression that i’m doing this?”
aphrael – It really depends exactly where, but scratching, farting, belching and picking your nose will generally see you through most situations you encounter. Those are the basics and you usually can’t go wrong sticking with the basics.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:34 pmDude the EPA needs to be restricted to doing what it’s supposed to do not seeing everything as a violation when it isn’t.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:37 pm“this is, i suppose, an equivalent question to how can you be sure that the paper ballots aren’t changed. in the paper ballot case, the answer is you put them in a locked box that is verified as having been empty, and you maintain a chain of control over the paper. you can’t gurantee not changing, but you *can* make sure that only authorized people have access, and changes would likely be detectable via inspection, at least if they were done on a mass scale.”
aphrael – To me the answer is the same for electronic voting. You have tested the software and machines ahead of time to make sure they are recording votes as indicated. Restrict access, etc. It is the same issue every corporation faces securely keeping its books and records and every financial institution faces keeping electronic customer records. At least to me, alarmists are over complicating the issue.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:42 pm“Those are the basics and you usually can’t go wrong sticking with the basics.”
IOW, we’re not big on formality.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:43 pmformality is a seasoning. it’s appropriate at certain times and not at others. 🙂
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:49 pmaphrael – Just be yourself.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:52 pmdaleyrocks – fair enough.
one of the things i find odd about this is that i hear a lot which indicates that urbanites have a tendency to take this snooty attitude, and i’m puzzled, because i can’t imagine it … which means i can’t tell if i’m doing it.
anyhow, i’m threadjacking. back to the real issue:
has anyone got any evidence of a race correlation with not having ID? *class*, i can buy, and maybe the race/class correlation is strong enough. but are there numbers?
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 3:55 pmWith this thread, kmart is eligible for induction into the Pelosi Hall of Moronic Fame.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 4:24 pmIt’s like they don’t get the point, at all;
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/11/03/december-cover-revealed-rainbow-6-patriots.aspx
narciso (ef1619) — 11/23/2011 @ 4:32 pmWhen I have been hired for a job i’ve been asked to give certain forms of ID. I’ve been asked at times to show ID at a bank, or in a store when using a credit card or a check. I’m guessing that some kind of ID is required to apply for govt. benefits be it SS, “welfare”, medical assistance, unemployment compensation.
I guess if one didn’t work or didn’t work “officially”, didn’t use checks or credit cards, went only to a bank they were known by face, didn’t have any interactions with the government, then one would not need to have ID. I’m not sure how often this can happen, unless one is essentially letting someone else interact with the world at large for them. If I’m wrong, I’d like someone to explain it.
I heard an AA pastor on some radio show recently. He said back in the days of true voter discrimination they would ask minorities to answer something like “recite the Bill of Rights”, and then to a white, “who’s the president”. He said that was voter discrimination, not asking for an ID.
As an aside, Leon Varjian, a New Jersey native, was elected to leadership in the Univ. of wisconsin student govt. with the promise of correcting the cultural deprivation of Madison by moving the Statue of Liberty there, to a prominent location on lake mendota where it would be readily visible to the campus. that was the backdrop to a replica of part of the head and torch appearing one january on the frozen lake. it was being brought in by helicopter, and just before it reached its destination the cables broke and it plunged through the ice.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:12 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283998/borders-safer-its-ever-been-mark-krikorian
narciso (ef1619) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:18 pmAhhhhhhhhhhh yes liberals are so smart then they wouldn’t repeat the lies about Thomas Jefferson having slaves or the fact Cain sexually harassed women.
They are easily led around by the nose.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:39 pmI first started working writing software in 1981. And I wouldn’t trust electronic voting systems.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:49 pmComment by Kman: No, you don’t always need a photo ID to get a job or open a bank account (I never did).
You’ve got to be kidding me. The first thing I am asked at the bank is for my ID. I would love to know the name of your bank, that you don’t have to show ID.
And by the way, I was born during the war and I have a birth certificate, driver’s license, SS card, etc. How hard can it be to obtain ID. I refuse to believe it is that difficult.
PatAZ (c65c00) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:51 pmKman is doing his usual crap.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/23/2011 @ 5:56 pmOr the lies pro-lifers support chold rape.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:01 pmDohBiden, you need to dial up the coherency.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:01 pmMe either, and I’ve been in the biz for about as long.
Nevada used to have ballots that were like glorified Scantron forms. Votes were cast using an ink marker, and were scanned for errors (stray marks, doubly marked races, unmarked races) when the voter handed his in. If a ballot was in error, the voter had the option of destroying his ballot and completing a new one or letting his ballot stand.
This system was almost foolproof. There were no chads that could be knocked out accidentally during handling, the ballots were instantly verified, and recounts were a breeze. But in the wake of the 2000 election, Democrats in Nevada (and some Republicans, but mostly Democrats) clamored for electronic voting. Now they’re complaining about the electronic voting equipment.
Go figure :/
It won’t matter much to me anymore, though. I have recently relocated to Austin, Texas, and am pursuing the opportunity of a lifetime there.
Chuck Bartowski (84d5d3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:02 pmAnd that is exactly why those of us on the right believe that there is lots and lots of voter fraud going on: it’s easy to do and the cost is very low. What we’re concerned with especially is the non-conspiracy kind of fraud; the kind where individuals just decide to cheat because they can. There has to be a lot of that going on, simply because it’s easy to do and difficult to detect. And when Democrats insist that it isn’t happening because it’s rarely detected, we cry foul.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:21 pmIn my job, I continually need to verify IDs. Most people do have state issued DLs. But a large number do not, or at least don’t carry it with them all the time: this is especially true of people who don’t have cars, and depend on others or the public transit system to get around–in other words, the young, the old and the poor. The percent of blacks among the people who don’t seem to have state issued ID seems to be proportional to the percent of blacks among our customers, which is a fairly high number.
None of these people would be suspected of being illegal immigrants. These are people who are bona fide US citizens, but don’t have government ID.
What many of them do have are picture IDs issued by the local transit system, by their employers (especially the local hospitals), or in the case of students, by the college they are attending. Normally these are good enough for our limited purpose in verifying that the person at the counter is the person whose name is on the card, etc. (but not for paying with a check or returns without receipt!)but they don’t meet the requirements of the Real ID system and presumably would not be acceptable at the polling place on Election Day. I have no idea of what proof of identity these people presented to get these IDs, although I assume at least some of them would require some sort of government ID.
I do think y’all are underestimating the bureaucratic nonsense now required to get a DL or state issued DL. Just a birth certificate, or even a currently valid passport, is not good enough. A college student living at home, for instance, would need to present, among other things, a bill from FPL or similar for the address they are using to get the DL, together with a statement (notarized, I think but I’m not a hundred percent sure) verifying that they live at that address signed by the person whose name is on the bill. Once they assemble the necessary documents, they have to spend a considerable amount of time –possibly several hours, mostly standing around in line–at the DL office to get the actual ID. I’m in a large metropolitan area, and for me getting to the DL office is not that big a deal, but they aren’t terribly thick on the ground even here, and in more rural areas they can be fairly sparse. I think some of the rural counties have only one office each, which means that the task of getting there and back may not be very easy for someone who has to depend on others for transportation. (And of course there’s the risk that you end up with a bureaucrat who deems your documentation insufficient and forces you to come back a second time to repeat the whole process.)
jbs (1b86f1) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:28 pmI wish America were still the kind of place where a person can get a job, open a bank account, cash a cheque, get on a plane, rent a movie, without showing ID, or even giving his real name. In such a place a person might legitimately go all his life without obtaining the means with which to prove his identity. And if it were still that kind of place I’d have a lot more sympathy for those who can’t prove their identity but still want to vote. Mind you, the arguments against them would still be strong, but they’d have a strong argument for them too. But as much as I wish it, America isn’t that place any more. I’d like to restore it, but right now it’s history. And it’s bizarre to me that anybody could claim that it’s OK to trust someone to vote when that same person is not trusted to do anything else.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:30 pmDo you seriously mean to tell me that the people we’re talking about, who have no ID and should be allowed to vote anyway, don’t buy alcohol or tobacco? I mean, come on.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:36 pmThe finger-in-ink trick that works so well in third-world countries should work just as well here.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:37 pmComment by Milhouse — 11/23/2011 @ 6:21 pm
But if it was going on with any type of consistency, it would be detected at a higher rate than it is.
But I suggest you all go back and read the original post and note the quote from Rep. Davis–that the real voter fraud is done with absentee ballots, not by individual showing up at the precinct stations on Election Day. Election experience here in Florida agrees with this–there have been a number of cases in which fraudulent absentee ballots were found to have been used to try to steal the election, including one in which the judge found the absentee ballots so systematically corrupted that he threw them all out, even the ones that were legitimate. (That was a race for Mayor of Miami, and the legal carnival included the initial winner (Joe Carollo)taking office, being declared the loser and forced to vacate City Hall in favor of his rival (Xavier Suarez), who was then in his turn forced to turn everything back to Carollo the next day after the absentee ballots were thrown out. The fraudulent ballots, btw, were cast on Suarez’s behalf, although there was, AFAIK, no evidence that he was personally involved in the fraud.)
And, once you understand how absentee ballots are the key to voter fraud, notice how little all these Voter ID efforts seem to matter in deterring that. Here in Florida, to the best of my knowledge, the basic protection against fraud remains simply comparing the signature on the ballot with the signature on the voter roll.
jbs (1b86f1) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:42 pmI think you are overstating the “bureaucratic nonsense”. I just went through this process with my son, less than a year ago. He got a state-issued ID card before he got his driver;s license. All he needed for the ID card was his birth certificate, and he filled out a form for his address. Didn’t need any other form of documentation. When he got his license, he had the option of presenting his birth certificate or his state ID card. Getting the ID card took about 45 minutes of waiting at the DMV. It’s not the horrendous burden you are claiming.
Chuck Bartowski (84d5d3) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:43 pmIn our state, absentee ballots are a two-step process. Although campaigns often mail out applications for ballots, or I can call and ask for one to be sent to me, the process starts with an application. You fill out the application with your signature and other identifying information, and send it in. Then they send you the absentee ballot. The absentee ballot also has to have your signature and other information on it. The election workers are supposed to match all the signatures, from the register to the application to the ballot. I’m sure there are ways around the process if someone wanted to do it badly enough, but at least it feels like there is an effort to make sure the ballot is mine and I requested it.
Sue (40062f) — 11/23/2011 @ 6:47 pmMilhouse, not at all. When I bought cointreau yesterday – needed for the cranberry sauce – nobody checked my ID.
The way alcohol sales work at large concert venues, though, ID is always going to be checked. On the other hand, I used a CA DL at a venue in NJ; I doubt they would have been able to spot a fake.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:01 pmChuck – I suspect the amount of bureaucratic BS varies from place to place.
When I went in for a NY drivers license, I needed (a) passport (b) SS card, (c) my old CA DL, (d) proof of address (in the form of a copy of my lease).
I can easily imagine not being able to provide (d) (if, for example, I was in an under the table sublet, which is extremely common). Many people don’t have (a), although i’m sure there’s a list of things which could substitute for it.
aphrael (807c84) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:03 pmYes, and that election, was the impetus behind the ‘Scrub lists’ that Katharine Harris relied on in the 2000 election, which along with the ‘butterfly
narciso (ef1619) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:14 pmballot’ which had been properly approved, but that didn’t matter, for reasons we all know, they demanded the electronic machines, then Bev Harris,
and Robert Kennedy got into the game, odd though
how the complaints only applied in 2002 and 2004.
the left are liars.
You need to be coherent you wingnut fraud-Kman and others.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:22 pmAnd yes supporting voter fraud is raaaaaaacist.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:22 pmComment by aphrael — 11/23/2011 @ 7:01 pm
When I worked in restaurant management back in the Neolithic Age (well, the mid-70’s), we had in each one of our units that served alcohol, a comprehensive, illustrated, ID guide that covered all 57 states, both DL’s and ID’s.
AD-RtR/OS! (8d39bd) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:56 pmWe actually caught a couple bogus cards.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 11/23/2011 @ 6:43 pm
Sounds like Texas (that’s where you live, correct?)is not as strict as Florida. Or possibly the fact that your son is a minor (I’m assuming that from how described your experience) had something to do with it.
At any rate:
From here: http://www.gathergoget.com/default.aspx
Where you can directly compare the requirements (and office locations)if you wish. Also note that the requirements or a state issued ID card are the same as for a DL.
And here from the state DMV website:
JBS (46fd97) — 11/23/2011 @ 7:57 pmApplicants for a first time original Florida driver license must provide two forms of identification, proof of date of birth, proof of residential address, and proof of social security number. Non US Citizens must present proof of legal presence.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/firstlicense.html
It’s where I live as of about 3 weeks ago. But this took place in Nevada. My son was 18 at the time, not a minor.
But nice guessing.
Sounds like you just live in a screwed-up state and are assuming all the other states are as screwed up as yours.
Chuck Bartowski (84d5d3) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:11 pmIf you support voter fraud your oppressing the votes of black conservatives.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:12 pmNo, no, Florida has its own special brand of screw-up that no other state could possibly match.
But I was under the impression that Florida’s requirements tracked the federal/Real ID requirements rather closely, and that the same sort of requirements would apply nationwide. Apparently they do not. I’m wondering what you’ll find when you get your Texas DL. Logically, Texas ought to be tougher simply as an appropriate response to the high number of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Florida also has a high immigrant population.
It might be pertinent to note that all this bureaucratic tangle was put into place by a legislature dominated by the GOP working with a GOP governor: the party of small government at work again.
JBS (46fd97) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:24 pm“12 former officials indicted for voter fraud”
Name that party.
http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-indicted-for-voter-fraud
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:33 pmThe dems again?
Oh right I’m not surprised.
And if we compromise with the Democraps we are screwed.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:41 pmAbsentee ballot fraud is easier to detect than precinct fraud because the absentee ballot is tangible and tied to the actual voter by the physical envelope / wrapper. Something that does not exist in precinct ballots.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/23/2011 @ 8:57 pmComment by SPQR — 11/23/2011 @ 8:57 pm
I would disagree about the precinct ballots. Here in Florida, the voter is required to present ID and sign a space next to his/her name; that line on the precinct roll also contains a photo image of the voter’s signature as it was signed when the voter registered to vote. The precinct workers are supposed to verify the matching signatures.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/23/2011 @ 8:33 pm
Notice that 1)absentee ballots were involved and not people actually showing up to vote at a precinct station and 2)some of the conspirators worked inside the elections office.
Which means that strict ID requirements would not have stopped this attempted fraud.
JBS (46fd97) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:07 pmYeah jailing the ultraleft democraps would have.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:15 pm“Notice that 1)absentee ballots were involved and not people actually showing up to vote at a precinct station and 2)some of the conspirators worked inside the elections office.”
JBS – I agree that absentee voting is becoming the new front for election fraud. Just observe the large increases in absentee voting over the past several elections and the potential is obvious.
“Which means that strict ID requirements would not have stopped this attempted fraud.”
Have no idea what you mean by strict ID requirements, but it is no reason to stop pushing for voter ID laws to ensure fair elections.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 9:50 pmBecause nobody know or can know which vote purports to belong to whom. There aren’t even any individual votes to authenticate. When you deposit money in an ATM, you know whether it shows up in your account the next day; if it doesn’t, the bank will soon know too. If a withdrawal shows up in your account that you didn’t make, you know it, and pretty soon the bank does too. And of course if a heap of money shows up in or disappears from the bank’s books without deposits or withdrawals to match, it gets found out PDQ. None of that is possible with electronic voting. None of it is possible with paper ballots either, but at least in principle it’s possible to have tight enough security on those to prevent them from being improperly either added to or withdrawn from the supply. That’s not possible with electronic voting.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:09 pmNo amount of testing will tell you whether the it’s programmed to change votes only on the day, or only after the first n, or only after it receives a signal; nor can you be sure the code running on the day is the same code that was run during testing.
One huge way to improve matters is to make the code open source, and have each party supply its poll workers with an authenticated copy of the binary and the means to compare what’s running on the machine with their copy. That wouldn’t make it 100% secure, but it would be a whole lot better than anything that’s being done now.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:23 pmI’ll bet it’s the latter. They have them, but don’t carry them around all the time because they don’t need to. If they want to get on a plane, or apply for a job, or open a bank account, they need to bring it and they do.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:30 pmAmen.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:37 pmHow? It’s almost impossible to detect.
Some fraud is done that way; neither you nor Davis can possibly know, even roughly, what proportion of it is done that way and what proportion is done in person.
It’s true that that needs to be cracked down on too. And for that matter, voter registration needs to be cracked down on hard; right now there’s not even any attempt, as far as I know, to check whether an applicant is eligible to vote. Indeed the NYT reported some time ago that there are a significant number of aliens registered to vote who didn’t even realise they weren’t supposed to be, and that they’d committed a felony by doing so.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 10:39 pm“No amount of testing will tell you whether the it’s programmed to change votes only on the day, or only after the first n, or only after it receives a signal; nor can you be sure the code running on the day is the same code that was run during testing.”
Milhouse – WTF? The same way no amount of testing will tell you that the software recording entries to a corporation’s books will make them accurately or entries to a customer’s accounts for a bankl will make them properly? Complete unmitigated BS.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:02 pmBank software has to work all the time; there isn’t one specific day that it has to work. And if it does contain a time bomb it will be discovered as soon as it goes off. Election software is all about the big day, so a time bomb would have a much greater chance both of being planted and of working, and no amount of testing will find it in advance. And since votes are anonymous nobody can verify that they’re recorded correctly on the day.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:20 pm“Bank software has to work all the time”
Milhouse – Exactly. Your one specific day clause is just a red herring. It implies collusion among programmers to put a flaw in the code which will be overlooked in testing. Guess what, that’s how fraud in business works, collusion.
If you assume dishonesty among programmers as a starting point, then no amount of testing will work for any system for any purpose and we should give up on all software.
Election software seems a lot more limited purpose and simple than a lot of other thoroughly tested, secure electronic software in everyday use in America. I think conspiracy theorist have poisoned the well on moving forward in this area.
I blame global warming.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/23/2011 @ 11:55 pmThe idea of computer’s stealing the vote, as far as I can ascertain, goes back to McCarry’s ‘Better Angels’ about thirty some years ago, where a Carterish administration, does it to avoid the implications of a technocrat center right candidate,
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 5:52 amcoming to power,
I noticed that the very thin reed that Raw Story pinned their conspiracy on, is related to this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Lincoln_Bronzeville_Neighborhood_Association_v._Blackwell
Another prefectly Alinsky move of picking your target, polarize and isolate, in this case one of
narciso (ef1619) — 11/24/2011 @ 6:05 amthe best candidates hands down, Ken Blackwell
If they want to get on a plane, or apply for a job, or open a bank account, they need to bring it and they do.
You are forgetting that for many of these people, two out of those three are simply theoretical possibilities: people who use money orders because bank fees make checking accounts too expensive for them, and who don’t have the money to buy a used car, much less both about travelling out of town.
And since many of them are over 65, even the third one, getting a job, doesn’t apply.
neither you nor Davis can possibly know, even roughly, what proportion of it is done that way and what proportion is done in person.
In which case, neither can you.
jbs (4fe729) — 11/24/2011 @ 7:56 amI know someone who had trouble opening a bank account for his 90 plus year old mother (he had power of attorney) because the bank wanted ID.
I know of someone who had trouble getting his Social security paid to him and moving out of nursing home because he couldn’t get a bank account.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/24/2011 @ 8:23 amElectronic machines with nothing to double check them might theoretically change genuine votes. Paper ballots alone, or with backup false records, can add votes.
Instant reporting of results makes planning any vote changing votes cast difficult – there might not be enough changed. But also a lot of people would have to know. It could create very improbable results too. The secret software may malfunction.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/24/2011 @ 8:31 amComment by Milhouse — 11/23/2011 @ 10:09 pm
When you deposit money in an ATM, you know whether it shows up in your account the next day; if it doesn’t, the bank will soon know too. If a withdrawal shows up in your account that you didn’t make, you know it, and pretty soon the bank does too.
But with voting, there’s no individual verification. If people sign in, and then the real voter comes there to vote, and it happens a lot of times, people are going to know. That’s why in the past, it was mostly only dead people who were voted by machines. But altering a vote, or spoiling a ballot, doesn’t have this voter verification.
And of course if a heap of money shows up in or disappears from the bank’s books without deposits or withdrawals to match, it gets found out PDQ. None of that is possible with electronic voting.
A heap of extra votes is indeed detectable, if people at least want to react to that. It’s not so detectable when extra votes are cast by registered voters, which is of course much easier with absentee ballots.
Of course sometimes it can be detected and not much happens as in Seattle in 2004.
What’s not so detectable, is altering any votes, because unlike with ATMs nobody’s monitoring the individual accounts, but only the total – that’s what a secret ballot means.
None of it is possible with paper ballots either, but at least in principle it’s possible to have tight enough security on those to prevent them from being improperly either added to or withdrawn from the supply. That’s not possible with electronic voting.
Look. If 58 people signed in but there are 77 votes cast there’s something wrong here, no?
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/24/2011 @ 8:39 amWhy are repubs accused of voter fraud and suppressing the military vote by the same people who engage just in that.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/24/2011 @ 8:49 am“What’s not so detectable, is altering any votes, because unlike with ATMs nobody’s monitoring the individual accounts, but only the total – that’s what a secret ballot means.”
Sammy – With paper ballots, to change votes all somebody needs to do is substitute ballots with the “correct votes” for those with the “incorrect votes” and leave the total ballot count the same.
Again, everybody is focused on ways to defraud either a paper or electronic system. The answer in either case is establishing and following an appropriate set of controls over the process, just as any other important or critical function. You can even call it rocket science if you want, but people have been doing it for years and Milhouse helps make that argument that it’s possible by expanding on the bank analogy I introduced.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/24/2011 @ 9:00 amSF: “What’s not so detectable, is altering any votes, because unlike with ATMs nobody’s monitoring the individual accounts, but only the total – that’s what a secret ballot means.”
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/24/2011 @ 9:00 am
Sammy – With paper ballots, to change votes all somebody needs to do is substitute ballots with the “correct votes” for those with the “incorrect votes” and leave the total ballot count the same.
That’s not so easy. More than one person has custody of the ballots.. Adding votes and ballots as with absentee voting, spoiling ballots, erasing and marking ballots, that’s easier. Somneone could get caught smuggling ballots in and out.
Again, everybody is focused on ways to defraud either a paper or electronic system. The answer in either case is establishing and following an appropriate set of controls over the process, just as any other important or critical function. You can even call it rocket science if you want, but people have been doing it for years and Milhouse helps make that argument that it’s possible by expanding on the bank analogy I introduced
You are right, but an exact copy of the bank system couldn’t be used because this has some difficultly the bank system does not have..the system is not supposed to be able to report back who cast what votes.
But you could do a lot of subtotals and partial results which would make changing anything withoyut detection very very difficult.
I think PGP with checking a random sample could
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 11/25/2011 @ 12:06 pmbe an idea if anytone wants.