Reply With Quote
It's already explained in the article. But, more importantly, how would VoterID prevent this though? They already have the valid ID to vote.
I think I know what you're trying to say, but "disenfranchise" is not the word. Disenfranchise means a right was taken away. 1, 10, 100 fraudulent votes do not "disenfranchise" any legitimate vote.
It's already explained in the article. But, more importantly, how would VoterID prevent this though? They already have the valid ID to vote.
Voter ID's are actually for people who have no sort of photo identification like a drivers license. Not everyone would be required to have one, only if you lack a photo ID from a govt source.
>2014
>125% Precinct participation
>all other Euro countries do it to prevent fraud
Why haven't you knuckleheads gotten behind protecting the integrity of the democratic process. I know disenfranchising illegal somalians in Cayuhoga county, Ohio is very unpatriotic, but c'mon
Really? A fraudulent vote for the opposite candidate doesn't "take away" my vote?
It doesn't take away your right to vote. It's implied in the fact that you cast a vote.
That's why I said, "disenfranchisement" is not the word you're looking for. Nullify perhaps.
Right, which is why VoterID wouldn't do anything about people incorrectly enrolled to vote who cannot legally do so.
You can get a valid photo government ID even if you can't vote. Green card holders or people on temporary work visas do that all the time.
By that reasoning, does voter ID take away someone's right to vote?
Under certain cir stances, it does.
Sure, if you require ID and then make it impossible to get the ID. Doesn't seem like that's the case, tho.
It isn't if you notify the public about the requirement in a timely manner, and don't impose a big burden in order to meet that requirement.
Courts have ruled that some Voter ID laws in the past have failed to do one or both of them.
That's why I'm not particularly against Voter ID, even though I doubt of it's usefulness as a tool to combat voter fraud.
Voter Purges Alter U.S. Political Map
By Greg Palast, Al Jazeera America
17 November 14
nterstate Crosscheck is a computerized system meant to identify fraudulent voters. While Crosscheck’s list of nearly 7 million names of “potential” double voters has yet to unearth, as of this writing, a single illegal vote this year, it did help Republican elections officials scrub voters from registries, enough, it appears, to have swung several important Senate and governor’s races in favor of the GOP.
There is good reason to believe that Crosscheck-related voter purges helped propel Republican candidates to slim victories in Senate races in Colorado and North Carolina, as well a tight gubernatorial race in Kansas.
Interstate Crosscheck is a computer system designed to capture the names of voters who have Illegally voted twice in the same election in two different states. The program is run by Kansas’ Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Kobach’s office compares the complete voting rolls of participating states to tag “potential” double voters, those who have illegally voted twice in the same election in two states.
These names are then sent back to the state governments to inform an investigation of duplicate names on the voter rolls. While Kobach advertises Crosscheck as matching numerous identifiers, including the Social Security numbers and dates of birth of voters, a six-month investigation by Al Jazeera America revealed that Crosscheck rosters caught nothing more than matching first and last names. And voters remain on the suspect list even when middle names, Social Security numbers and suffixes (Jr., Sr.) don’t match. Yet all these people — the list contains nearly seven million names — are subject to losing their vote.
The program’s method of identifying and purging voters especially threaten the registrations of minority voters who are vulnerable because African-American, Asian-American and Hispanics are 67 percent more likely than white voters to share America’s most common names: Jackson, Washington, Lee, Rodriguez and so on.
It is no surprise that Republicans control most of the top election positions in Crosscheck’s 27 participating states. In all, Crosscheck tagged a breathtaking 6,951,484 voters for the possible removal from the voter rolls as “potential” duplicate voters.
Duplicate or double voting is a crime punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison. Yet, despite this supposed vote-fraud crime wave, not one suspect on Crosscheck lists was charged, although prosecutors would have access to any alleged fraudsters’ names and addresses.
The Crosscheck list purges could easily account for Republican victories in at least two Senate races. In North Carolina, the GOP’s Thom Tillis won over in bent Sen. Kay Hagan by just 48,511 votes. Crosscheck tagged a breathtaking 589,393 North Carolinians as possible illegal double voters (though state elections officials cut that down to roughly 190,000).
In Colorado, Republican Cory Gardner was able to force out in bent Senator Mark Udall in a race that had poll-watchers guessing all summer. The outcome might have been more predictable if Colorado had made public that 300,842 of the state’s voters were now subject to being purged from the voter rolls.
The Rocky Mountain State’s elections officials have a history of cleansing voter rolls without public explanation. Before the 2008 election, Colorado’s GOP Sec. of State Donetta Davidson began an unprecedented scrub of the electoral rolls, disenfranchising nearly one in six voters [PDF].
Not everyone on the Crosscheck lists loses their vote. But the purges are, nevertheless, huge. Just one state, Virginia, canceled the registrations of 41,637 voters last year, 13.5 percent of those on the list — and has since announced it will remove many more [PDF].
Other states’ voting officials are less forthcoming about their purges. For example, North Carolina and Ohio refused to release their Crosscheck lists on the grounds that all these voters, more than a million in those two states, are subjects of criminal investigation, which allows them to keep the information confidential.
If other states followed Virginia and scrubbed just 13.5 percent of their Crosscheck lists, that would more than cover the spread in the North Carolina Senate race and significantly contributed to the margins of victory in several other states. Moreover, this could account for the comeback victory of in bent governor Sam Brownback in Kansas. Kansas originated Crosscheck and its Secretaries of State have been using it to promote the cleansing of voter rolls since 2005
Statistician Nate Silver wrote that there was a nearly universal error in polls leading up to this election. Silver found that, on average, pre-election polls showed Democrats winning four percentage points more of the vote than recorded in the official final tallies in Senate races, and 3.4 percent in the gubernatorial ones.
But journalist Brad Friedman, who tracks vote suppression techniques state by state, has another explanation. Friedman told Al Jazeera that what Silver calls an error in polling may in fact be a reflection of the votes lost to partisan manipulation of the voting system.
Friedman accounts for many of the so-called pre-election polling “errors” by examining the Democratic votes lost to Crosscheck and several other vote suppression tactics such as Photo ID restrictions, missing voter registrations and a shortage of paper ballots.
The purge of those snared in the Crosscheck dragnet has only begun. The process of actually removing names from the voter rolls is slow and could take months, even years. It will likely have a bigger impact on the 2016 race than seen last week.
The ultimate swing state in the Presidential race remains Ohio, whose Republican secretary of state, John Husted, has embraced Crosscheck. Columbus State University professor Robert Fitrakis, an expert in voting law, tells Al Jazeera that he has spoken to county voting officials who are concerned that that Husted is pushing counties to scrub voter rolls of “duplicates” within 30 days of receiving the names from the Secretary of State. This gives counties little time and no resources to verify if the accused voter has, in fact, voted in a second state.
Husted’s office has refused to reveal the 469,201 names on Ohio’s Crosscheck list. How many will officials in Ohio ultimately scrub from the voter rolls? The answer may determine who will choose our next president: the voters or Crosscheck.
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/11/14/voter-purges-alteruspoliticalmap.html
Repugs, and their VRWC/1%/BigCorp paymasters, are ing anti-American CHEATERS and TRAITORS.
Impossible, no. Needlessly difficult for people who are poor and/or don't drive? Often.
And it doesn't help that the poll workers don't always know what they're talking about.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/vo...s-photo-id-law
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...it-5865476.php
In Texas, you can vote absentee without ID.
In Texas, you can obtain an Election Identification Card, free of charge.
In Texas, there are numerous non-profits that will help you either get to the poll or obtain an absentee ballot.
Political posturing aside, answer a couple of sincere questions:
1) Should election officials have the duty to ensure only eligible voters cast a ballot?
2) If so, how do you propose they do that?
"impossible!"straw man
difficulty, transport, and expense are sufficient
Difficulty, transport, and expense are the strawmen.
...unless you are a first time voter without a Texas driver's license.
...after getting the supporting do entation and making the day trip to the DPS to apply for the EIC. If you don't drive, that can be needlessly difficult. Transportation costs, a day off work? , we should at least give a transportation allowance like we do for jury duty.In Texas, you can obtain an Election Identification Card, free of charge.
And thank God for them, but the existence of volunteers willing to help navigate unnecessarily complex processes isn't a good argument in favor of that process.In Texas, there are numerous non-profits that will help you either get to the poll or obtain an absentee ballot.
How ever they were doing it prior to October 18, 2014 seemed to work just fine.Political posturing aside, answer a couple of sincere questions:
1) Should election officials have the duty to ensure only eligible voters cast a ballot?
2) If so, how do you propose they do that?
How do you know?
So, you don't have any evidence of voter ID fraud?
Let's see what my third request gets. My guess: more of the same.
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.
"In person voter fraud is a problem that requires laws to prevent".
A reasonable standard of evidence would be to show that the problem exists to begin with, since spending money preventing non-existent laws is, by definition, a waste of money.
Assume:
The problem does not exist.
Data:
Yonivore wants a solution to the problem.
Yonivore is a reasonable person.
Conclusions:
Yonivore does not know the problem does not exist. He is ignorant.
Yonivore knows the problem does not exist. He is lying about what the problem the solution he proposes is.
Ignorance or ulterior motive.
Further data:
Dissembling usually indicates an intent to mislead.
Most likely explanation:
Yonivore is lying about what the problem the solution he proposes is.
Seems like a reasonable conclusion, based on current evidence at hand.
Ballots cast in Houston using dead voters' names
"Ingram put it this way in his testimony: 'We believe 239 folks voted in the recent election after passing away' including, he said, 213 who voted in person."
...
"Mortara asked Ingram: 'Does the investigation you performed on the May voting data tell you anything about the prevalence of in person voter fraud of this type?'
"Ingram replied: 'It tells us that it's more common than we thought...'"
so who was prosecuted, and why could dubya US Attorney's, looking for year, find any to prosecute.
voter fraud is a authentic as James O'Queef
voter suppression and counting fraud, as when Repugs stole OH for dubya in 2004, throws election rather than a few, if any, "dead" voters.
Are you suggesting 213 dead people didn't vote in Houston?
The article you copied those quotes from without linking suggests that claim is unsubstantiated.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...-voters-Texas/
So how many arrests were made?
Because proponents of ID laws have failed to prove more-than-negligible fraud exists.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
