fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 07:45 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
fishin wrote:
I can't recall ever hearing anyone mention/suggest automatic registration here in the U.S.


Well, that's just the easiest way, I admit, but done by "the government", which you don't like.


??? I don't like government? Or your system?

I like government just fine. I simply don't trust ours - at any level - and don't agree with the areas or depths that government gets involved in many aspects of our lives.

I also would prefer your system of automatic voter registration however we don't have all of the back-up systems (registration of residency for example) to make your system useful here. To implement such a system would require a wide range of changes to how we interact with our government agencies in this country.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:38 pm
Well, that's actually something like I meant with my response.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:16 am
kelticwizard wrote:
okie wrote:
Politicians, I might as well say it, Democrats more specifically, have been known to actively recruit illegals to help them and to vote...


The usual baloney brought to you from Okie. For starters, that "voter registration card" in his link is merely a picture of people voting in front of a mural-it doesn't look remotely like any official document.

His source for this is WorldNetDaily, a right wing rag whose editor, Farrah, used to troll on Abuzz. He posted his editorial under a different name, linked to his website, then never partook of the conversation again.

Only a thoroughly committed nutcase would use or link to such a flaky source-oh wait, we're talking about Okie here.

Simple common sense tells us that if you are an illegal alien, there is one thing paramount in your mind-keeping your profile low. You want to interact with offical people as little as you possibly can, lest your illegal status be discovered. Risk deportation by trying to vote illegally, thereby exposing yourself to discovery by the authorities? That's crazy-these people's number one goal is just trying to stay here and keep from being deported!


More baloney from keltic. Wake up, keltic, aliens freely move about in great numbers in many states with no fear whatsoever. I saw on the news the other day that a town or towns in the U.S. are found to be openly protecting and promoting aliens. Many more promote and protect them, although not openly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:19 am
Well, as an alien, in this case I really must be glad that I only visited thoese town/towns, where no-one attacked me but I was protected.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:22 am
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
Whats wrong with the idea that people have a responsibility of citizenship? I personally have no problem with wanting to provide a good ID to vote. Most everybody I know feels the same way. By doing so, we rightfully believe our votes are more valuable and will count. If we have the feeling that our votes may be more than canceled out by fraudulant voters, then we are the losers. I simply do not understand why anyone would not be in favor of a good ID system to vote. If people are too lazy or somehow feel it is beneath their dignity to obtain a valid ID, then sorry, I think they can do better than that. I think people should have some responsibility to prove they are a citizen in order to vote.

Well, let me be clear: I favor restricting the franchise. I think far too many people vote now, and if there is some method to discourage the uninformed, the misguided, the confused, and the just-plain-dumb from voting, I'm all for it.

ID laws, however, don't accomplish that objective. Like many other Republican initiatives, such laws attack an imaginary problem as a means of serving an ulterior partisan purpose -- the swarms of fraudulent voters at America's polling places are about as common as WMDs in Iraq.

......


What if the problem was shown to not be imaginary, would you change your mind?

One thing we do agree on, I think too many uninformed voters vote now. That is why I oppose massive sign up drives, motor voter, buses to take people to the polls, etc. If somebody does not have enough initiative to go sign up on their own, then why go round them up, which is what this whole ACORN thing is about that I started this thread with. And if somebody does not have enough initiative to either vote absentee or have a friend take them to the polls if they do not have transportation or have a handicap or something, then let them not vote.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:24 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, as an alien, in this case I really must be glad that I only visited thoese town/towns, where no-one attacked me but I was protected.


Go ahead and make fun of it, Walter. Great strategy when your argument is shown to be faulty.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:30 am
You didn't show his argument to be faulty. All you did was alledge that there were large numbers of illegal aliens voting, and towns which shelter and protect them.

You didn't provide a lick of evidence that either is true; ergo, you didn't show that anything was faulty.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:37 am
Okay, not proven. Lets just say their is a high degree of suspicion, shared by a very significant percentage of the American people, including a significant number of informed politicians. I am not a lone wolf out here saying this, as keltic tries to make me out as spewing baloney. It is not baloney. Given the time to research more, I will be digging up proof, or at least strong evidence. This is a difficult thing to verify after the fact, because the simple fact is there is no way to know for sure, which is evidence in and of itself that there is an insufficient verification process.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 09:41 am
BBB
Republicans don't complain about Democrat election fraud? Really? What short memories you have.

John Kennedy in Chicago
Lyndon Johnson in Texas

etc. etc.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 10:08 am
I remember those, BBB, but just chose not to bring it up. Who could forget Mayor Daly's political machine in Chicago? And the dead voters in Texas for old Lyndon? It may be worth noting as well, the concession so graciously provided by Richard Nixon when he lost to Kennedy because of Illinois, instead of what we got from Gore in Florida in 2000.

In regard to illegals voting, information here for Walter, Keltic, Joefrom chicago, etc. in the following link. At least 300 votes were shown to be by illegals, which is enough to sway an election, even a presidential election these days , given the 50/50 split in opinion lately. Many people believe that there were enough more than proven that Dornan probably lost the election because of it.

And most important to note that it stands to reason that the problem is growing progressively worse since Dornan lost his election.

http://tancredo.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1219

So cyclops, theres your proof.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 10:40 am
joefromchicago wrote:

And that's probably enough to prevent the vast majority of vote fraud at polling places in Massachusetts. After all, not many fraudulent voters are willing to take the risk that they'll be the second John Q. Smith of 123 Oak St. to show up at the polls (anyone who really wants to commit vote fraud will likely do it by absentee ballot). If, however, this simple precaution is not sufficient, then there are other, less restrictive ways to verify voter identity without requiring them to produce state-issued ID cards.


The problem isn't two John Does showing up at the same poll. The "check" that fishin' described is the same here in WI. You show up, state your name and address, and then cast your vote. The problem is, the same person may be registered in multiple precincts. So the same person could go to multiple precints and cast multiuple votes without ever worring about 2 of the same people showing up.

I just moved and registered at a new precinct. I know that if I wanted too, I could go to both my new precinct and my old precinct, and vote at both. There would be a paper trail, but since there is no national database and the precincts don't compare notes, the only way I would ever get busted was if someone physically checked to see if I voted at both places.

That is precisely what happened with Donavan Riley, a prominent doctor and former CEO of the University of Illinois Hospital, just got busted voting once in IL and once in WI on the same election. The only reason he got busted was because someone played a hunch and checked. Now I certainly am not as high profile as this man, and nobody would ever have a reason to check my voting record across all my former addresses. I think a national ID card and database would help eliminate this.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:04 am
There were stories of many people from New York voting in both New York and Florida in 2000, as they had winter residences in Florida. I don't know whatever happened with this, as since it was Democratic votes, the press had no curiosity and therefore it was pretty much totally forgotten.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:06 am
Exactly my point: since you can't live on two places at the same time, it's impossible to so ... here. (Same is, dead people can't vote ... and can't be voted for either.)

Well, and no-one can say here, which votes would be double (thinking this impossibility would happen) either: we have secret elections.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:45 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Exactly my point: since you can't live on two places at the same time, it's impossible to so ... here. (Same is, dead people can't vote ... and can't be voted for either.)


They don't have to live in two different places. They just need to say they live in two different places. There are no checks to see if people are voting in more than one location.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:45 am
okie wrote:
There were stories of many people from New York voting in both New York and Florida in 2000, as they had winter residences in Florida. I don't know whatever happened with this, as since it was Democratic votes, the press had no curiosity and therefore it was pretty much totally forgotten.


How do you know they were Democratic votes? Are you assuming that they were? Your partisanaship is really showing, man.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:52 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
The problem isn't two John Does showing up at the same poll. The "check" that fishin' described is the same here in WI. You show up, state your name and address, and then cast your vote. The problem is, the same person may be registered in multiple precincts. So the same person could go to multiple precints and cast multiuple votes without ever worring about 2 of the same people showing up.

And a voter ID law would have no effect on that whatsoever -- none! That's because what you're describing is a problem with voter registration laws, not with voter ID laws (this is now, I think, the third time I've had to point out this distinction). What would be needed in that case is some sort of state database that tracks voter identities across precincts. Having a voter who is registered in multiple precincts present a photo ID, on the other hand, would be of no deterrent effect at all.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:54 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:

They don't have to live in two different places. They just need to say they live in two different places. There are no checks to see if people are voting in more than one location.


Well, what I said, something not really working then with your voting system.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 12:00 pm
okie wrote:
There were stories of many people from New York voting in both New York and Florida in 2000, as they had winter residences in Florida. I don't know whatever happened with this, as since it was Democratic votes, the press had no curiosity and therefore it was pretty much totally forgotten.

Yeah, they're all Democratic votes:
    In state after state, lawmakers on the Right have been introducing regressive voter ID provisions. The reason, they claim, is to combat voter fraud. But there just isn't much voter fraud out there. If you weigh the number of eligible voters who will be discouraged from voting or downright disenfranchised (elderly, nondrivers, innercity, poor) against the number of voter fraud cases that have been discovered, the ratio is ridiculous: as someone at the joint Brookings/AEI conference said last week, "You're more likely to be hit by lightning on the way to the polling place than to commit voter fraud." However, a case of voter fraud has recently come to light in Florida. Unbelievably, Ann Coulter (yes that Ann Coulter) knowingly voted in the wrong precinct, a third-degree felony in Florida. [list]From the Palm Beach Post: "She wrote down an Indian Road address instead of Seabreeze on her voter's registration application. And she signed to certify the information as true. "'She never lived here,' said Suzanne Frisbie, owner of the Indian Road home. 'I'm Ann's realtor, and she used this address to forward mail when she moved from New York.' "Florida statutes make it a third-degree felony to vote knowingly in the wrong precinct. Lying on a voter's registration can cost up to $5,000 and five years behind bars."
[/list]
Linky clicky
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 12:23 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

But there just isn't much voter fraud out there. If you weigh the number of eligible voters who will be discouraged from voting or downright disenfranchised (elderly, nondrivers, innercity, poor) against the number of voter fraud cases that have been discovered, the ratio is ridiculous: as someone at the joint Brookings/AEI conference said last week, "You're more likely to be hit by lightning on the way to the polling place than to commit voter fraud."


Do you have a link to the information that backs up this claim?

I don't think we even know how much voter fraud is going on. As I stated before, there are no checks in place to make for easy accurate information sharing. It would be so easy to double vote that the only way to find out would be to check my name in every precinct had participated in the vote. Of course, first you would have to suspect me of double voting and then go through the trouble to check precinct versus precinct. The fact that there are other people with the same name as me out there, makes this task even more difficult since all they require is an address for verification.

Besides that, how do we know how many people would be disenfranchised? We need ids for everything. As far as I know, the elderly, the poor, the innercity people still drive or use the library or have a blockbuster account... it certainly hasn't stopped people from doing any of those things.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 12:27 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
The problem isn't two John Does showing up at the same poll. The "check" that fishin' described is the same here in WI. You show up, state your name and address, and then cast your vote. The problem is, the same person may be registered in multiple precincts. So the same person could go to multiple precints and cast multiuple votes without ever worring about 2 of the same people showing up.

And a voter ID law would have no effect on that whatsoever -- none! That's because what you're describing is a problem with voter registration laws, not with voter ID laws (this is now, I think, the third time I've had to point out this distinction). What would be needed in that case is some sort of state database that tracks voter identities across precincts. Having a voter who is registered in multiple precincts present a photo ID, on the other hand, would be of no deterrent effect at all.


I'm all for a database as well. IDs would still be helpful in assuring that the person is who the person says they are. It could aslo include a voter id that could then be double checked against the database.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Real Voter Fraud
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/11/2021 at 03:04:18