RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote

RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 6:41:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether If someone walked up and stated they wish to challenge me, that's their choice. The burden of proof is on them, NOT ME, to prove that 1) I am not who I say I am, 2) I do not live where I say I do, or 3) I am neither who I say I am nor live where I stated I lived. Last I checked, in the United States of America, one accused of a crime does NOT have to prove their innocence beyond a shadow of doubt but quite the opposite. Follow this made up story and let me know who if Mr. E gets to vote or not. Mr. E. goes to the polling place and states a name and address. The poll workers, who don't actually know Mr. E. verify the name and address. Now, I walk up and challenge Mr. E. I would have to prove that Mr. E. is not the person he named, does not live at the address stated, or both, right? Let's say I am the next-door neighbor to the address given by Mr. E. and, thus, the neighbor of the name given. I know for a fact that Mr. E. is not my neighbor. How am I to prove that Mr. E. isn't my neighbor? How about this one that is true. Ms W from a rural area has lived in the same house for 50+ years. She is so elderly that she has no birth certificate nor has she ever driven. She gets by on her ex husband's pension. She never worked off the farm so she has no SS. Her son drives her to the polling place and literally every person there knows her. Does she get to vote? True story, Western TN, She was denied. It was the first election of any kind she had missed since Roosevelt was president. As for your question, you write the election commission in your county. They will investigate and if Mr E was shown to have voted fraudulently, he would be arrested by the county Sherriff. See my responses to tazzy here and here. In your recommended course of action, Mr. E. would have been found to have voted fraudulently. That means voter fraud. Had my neighbor gone to vote after Mr. E., he'd have been denied since "he had already voted." Your solution allows for a person to be denied their right to vote. Mine does not.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:03:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri In your recommended course of action, Mr. E. would have been found to have voted fraudulently. That means voter fraud. Had my neighbor gone to vote after Mr. E., he'd have been denied since "he had already voted." Your solution allows for a person to be denied their right to vote. Mine does not. No, your neighbor would not have been denied if he could have proven who he was. The poll workers would give him a provisional ballot and flag the first Mr E's vote. Seriously, if I wrote to your election office 6 weeks before the election and requested and filled out an absentee ballot in your name and sent it in, you'd have the same problem wouldn't you? How do Voter ID laws prevent that? They don't.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri In your recommended course of action, Mr. E. would have been found to have voted fraudulently. That means voter fraud. Had my neighbor gone to vote after Mr. E., he'd have been denied since "he had already voted." Your solution allows for a person to be denied their right to vote. Mine does not. No, your neighbor would not have been denied if he could have proven who he was. The poll workers would give him a provisional ballot and flag the first Mr E's vote. Seriously, if I wrote to your election office 6 weeks before the election and requested and filled out an absentee ballot in your name and sent it in, you'd have the same problem wouldn't you? How do Voter ID laws prevent that? They don't. So, the "solution" is to allow there to be easy fraud in both the in-person voting and in the provisional voting. Brilliant! The evening polling workers won't know that my neighbor hadn't come in the morning and already voted or not. Unless the poll workers are the same for the whole day, without any breaks, there is no guarantee that whoever votes in the morning would be remembered at night.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:16:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri In your recommended course of action, Mr. E. would have been found to have voted fraudulently. That means voter fraud. Had my neighbor gone to vote after Mr. E., he'd have been denied since "he had already voted." Your solution allows for a person to be denied their right to vote. Mine does not. No, your neighbor would not have been denied if he could have proven who he was. The poll workers would give him a provisional ballot and flag the first Mr E's vote. Seriously, if I wrote to your election office 6 weeks before the election and requested and filled out an absentee ballot in your name and sent it in, you'd have the same problem wouldn't you? How do Voter ID laws prevent that? They don't. So, the "solution" is to allow there to be easy fraud in both the in-person voting and in the provisional voting. Brilliant! The evening polling workers won't know that my neighbor hadn't come in the morning and already voted or not. Unless the poll workers are the same for the whole day, without any breaks, there is no guarantee that whoever votes in the morning would be remembered at night. They could look and see the signature on the registration book was different. Have you ever voted? You sign a log book. That's how they know you've already voted. The solution of the ID people is to make voting in person more difficult and keep fraud easy for those who use early voting. Is that less brilliant? It's more expensive to the taxpayer.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:46:12 AM)
quote: What other forms are accepted in place of an "official ID?" A VISA? Yup. But, to get a VISA, wouldn't a Citizen need to prove Citizenship? I'm thinking that's the case. A SSN card isn't required for your W-2, either. A valid birth cert. will suffice, too. I think you need 2 forms if you use your DL as one, but only one if you use your VISA. To answer your question... based upon employment... one has to fill out an I-9 form.... http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf The last page has the listed requirements for ID for employment.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:12:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: What other forms are accepted in place of an "official ID?" A VISA? Yup. But, to get a VISA, wouldn't a Citizen need to prove Citizenship? I'm thinking that's the case. A SSN card isn't required for your W-2, either. A valid birth cert. will suffice, too. I think you need 2 forms if you use your DL as one, but only one if you use your VISA. To answer your question... based upon employment... one has to fill out an I-9 form.... http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf The last page has the listed requirements for ID for employment. Thanks for the link. Wasn't necessary (have been on both the collecting side and giving side of that form), though. It was more of a "thought-provoking" question; rhetorical, in a sense.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:14:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri In your recommended course of action, Mr. E. would have been found to have voted fraudulently. That means voter fraud. Had my neighbor gone to vote after Mr. E., he'd have been denied since "he had already voted." Your solution allows for a person to be denied their right to vote. Mine does not. No, your neighbor would not have been denied if he could have proven who he was. The poll workers would give him a provisional ballot and flag the first Mr E's vote. Seriously, if I wrote to your election office 6 weeks before the election and requested and filled out an absentee ballot in your name and sent it in, you'd have the same problem wouldn't you? How do Voter ID laws prevent that? They don't. So, the "solution" is to allow there to be easy fraud in both the in-person voting and in the provisional voting. Brilliant! The evening polling workers won't know that my neighbor hadn't come in the morning and already voted or not. Unless the poll workers are the same for the whole day, without any breaks, there is no guarantee that whoever votes in the morning would be remembered at night. They could look and see the signature on the registration book was different. Have you ever voted? You sign a log book. That's how they know you've already voted. The solution of the ID people is to make voting in person more difficult and keep fraud easy for those who use early voting. Is that less brilliant? It's more expensive to the taxpayer. That's reassuring. Thank God no one can fake a signature. [8\|]

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:16:56 AM)
Thank god no one can fake an ID. I don't see anything solved.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:55:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's reassuring. Thank God no one can fake a signature. [8\|] If I was going to take the hours and days to learn to fake someone's signature in front of witnesses, I'd be more interested in their checkbook or credit card applications than casting one vote. You're taking it to the absurd here.[8\|] My point is that Voter ID laws are expensive to the taxpayer. They are a pain in the ass to law abiding citizens who happen to be poor. They do absolutely nothing to combat voter fraud. It's expensive, feel good legislation designed to keep the ignorant masses smiling and nodding as they drink their Kool-Aid.

JeffBC -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:55:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Thank god no one can fake an ID. I don't see anything solved. You know what's really amusing is that we're tracking down this nickel and dime stuff and at the same time implementing electronic voting. It's stuff like gerrymandering and electronic voting that make me believe that neither party gives a rat's ass about clean elections. Ergo, there must be other motives driving this.

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 9:05:03 AM)
Well, it helps the gerrymander and the electronic voting, as well as the statewide fraud at the party machinery level. It is like a get out the vote on a massive scale. With 130 million people voting some old hairy cunt voting six times ain't gonna have any appreciable impact. Never gonna solve it. The rank and file voter crap is de minimis. We have other things that are really of more importance, changing our constitution such that corporations as well as the lobby's are less effectual, and non-effectual respectively on our vote, and laws. Killing the military-industrial complex. Outlawing the electoral college and going to strict popular vote for all offices. Look, the electoral college is a shadow of the legislature, made up of favorite and militant party hacks, there is no way for a broad spectrum of ideas or parties or interests to be made endemic to our legislatures without that fucker gone. We are always gonna be an either or more of the same, until we toilet that bitch.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 9:10:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, it helps the gerrymander and the electronic voting, as well as the statewide fraud at the party machinery level. It is like a get out the vote on a massive scale. With 130 million people voting some old hairy cunt voting six times ain't gonna have any appreciable impact. Never gonna solve it. The rank and file voter crap is de minimis. We have other things that are really of more importance, changing our constitution such that corporations as well as the lobby's are less effectual, and non-effectual respectively on our vote, and laws. Killing the military-industrial complex. Outlawing the electoral college and going to strict popular vote for all offices. Look, the electoral college is a shadow of the legislature, made up of favorite and militant party hacks, there is no way for a broad spectrum of ideas or parties or interests to be made endemic to our legislatures without that fucker gone. We are always gonna be an either or more of the same, until we toilet that bitch. And, straight democratic vote will suit you until the majority that votes disagrees with you. Fuck the minority party. No tyranny there. Maybe we should go back to each person having to run solo, and the person with the 2nd most votes is the VP. That might make things a bit more interesting, at the very least. Might also increase the value of Presidential security, sadly.

JeffBC -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 9:57:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, it helps the gerrymander and the electronic voting, as well as the statewide fraud at the party machinery level. In my mind that's a lot like saying "dumping a teaspoon of water in the ocean fills the ocean". Sure it does... in some mathematically obscure sense. Electronic voting, in particular, is pretty much the end of actual elections in the US. You got a single point of failure. You got a security setup made by clowns... and untrustworthy ones at that. It's the world's biggest honeypot. Once hacked (or just misused by the CEO in question) then you have done voter fraud at the national level including ALL votes tabulated by that corporation. You and I will need to agree to disagree on this. Don't get me wrong, I see the other things you listed as important also but giving away the entire vote to some CEO seems pretty bad too.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 10:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: imogenempire Not an American so I don't vote there, but I lived in the States for the time and still visit. My American friends in the East Coast tell me they are required to present a driver's license and/or a voter registration card. I consider myself to have quite liberal politics but I don't see the problem in being required to prove you're a citizen and resident in a right that is only granted to citizens of the nation and residents of the state. We have a very effective system for establishing that a person registering to vote is a citizen. Having to show an ID from a very short list when arriving at the polling place, after having successfully registered, is simply an attempt to prevent citizens that have a hard time acquiring an ID on that short list from voting. Like illegals and people who have voted in three other districts No. Note the successfully registered part. In reality these laws disenfranchise poor citizens, elderly citizens and disabled citizens, in Texas in the hundreds of thousands, while claiming to prevent a statistically insignificant number of fraudulent votes.

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 10:04:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, it helps the gerrymander and the electronic voting, as well as the statewide fraud at the party machinery level. In my mind that's a lot like saying "dumping a teaspoon of water in the ocean fills the ocean". Sure it does... in some mathematically obscure sense. Electronic voting, in particular, is pretty much the end of actual elections in the US. You got a single point of failure. You got a security setup made by clowns... and untrustworthy ones at that. It's the world's biggest honeypot. Once hacked (or just misused by the CEO in question) then you have done voter fraud at the national level including ALL votes tabulated by that corporation. You and I will need to agree to disagree on this. Don't get me wrong, I see the other things you listed as important also but giving away the entire vote to some CEO seems pretty bad too. I don't think we are disagreeing, I see the voter id as a thimble of water out of the ocean, there is more violence to the will of the people contained in many of these other things. Voter ID will help insure a gerrymander, and machinery frauds and so on, just another front on the war, a minor one at present. Particularly onerous, since it is a violation of the constitution that was specifically amended against the practice of poll tax, which once was legal according to our constitution.

BitYakin -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin yes yes we certianly can't have NC doing what MOST states ALREADY DO! ] Most states have not gone to this extreme yet. That's why North Carolina is 'first' in the nation to do this.... quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin More than three-fifths of states currently have some kind of Voter ID law, and even more have no same-day registration. Not all states allow in-person early voting. Please give the source. quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin While there is significant resistance to Voter ID laws on the left, polls generally show the American people support them by large margins. Recent North Carolina polls and a Washington Post poll last year showed nearly three-quarters support requiring voters to show photo ID. And the source this is one is where? By not giving sources to back up where you got your information, allows anyone to discredit the information as 'B.S.'. ummmm did you READ THE OP, the SOURCE is the ORIGINAL LINK that started this thread.... and WHAT EXTREME is it that NC is going to that other states are not doing? this ALSO from the OP LINK The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration. which part of that is SOOOO EXTREME??? the ONLY thing I see in it that could be considered EXTREME, is the not allowing 16 -17 tr old to pre register, which would mean some TINY PERCENTAGE of people who turn 18 THE SAME DAY as the election would bot be allowed to vote I think thats going a lil TO FAR, but otherwise I DO NOT see this EXTREME you speak of!

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 7:32:21 PM)
FR, Alrighty then, let's stay on topic, which is not other posters or MLB.

cloudboy -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:21:30 PM)
I thought this was a good picture regarding NC. [image]local://upfiles/210115/D416074887B143E5BBA5BED7C2F39874.gif[/image]

cloudboy -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 8:23:26 PM)
He doesn't give a shit, if the tactic scrubs Democrats off the voter rolls, he's walking in tall cotton.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/14/2013 9:29:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi FR, Alrighty then, let's stay on topic, which is not other posters or MLB. I was talking about minor leaguers.[&:]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625