It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More proof of voter fraud

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785


Those particular instances very well could be software errors. Those are given as additional examples of how messed up the voter rolls are. Those people would be well over 200 years old. Obviously those aren't the same cases as the 72 voters who were 116 or older.


Actually, I just looked at the GAI list of the dates of birth that was linked. You should give it a look. There are only 4 different DOBs in the list of 170:

1800-01-01 (124 rows)
1900-01-01 (24 rows)
1901-01-01 (21 rows)
1900-10-08 (1 row)

These don't appear at first blush to be registrations for dead people.


That said, the ones with the 1800 birth dates are still invalid registrations and should be verified and fixed. We can't do that though because it's "racist". It just further illustrates the point that our voter registration system needs an overhaul.


What do you mean by "verified and fixed?" Because in my experience, the "solution" often put forth by conservative groups is to simply purge.

Honest question: how do you weigh the concern for fraudulent votes vs legitimate voters not being able to vote?

In other words, how many people showing up to the polling place and being told they're not registered to vote because they were purged is justified by stopping 1 fraudulent vote? If 10 people don't get to vote to stop 1 fraudulent vote, is that okay? How about in states with provisional balloting for people who encounter registration issues — would it be okay to have 1,000 people casting provisional ballots that they can't follow up on, which are out of normal process and subject to mishandling, to stop a single fraudulent vote? Are you going to demand auditing of provisional ballots to make sure everyone who cast one had their vote recorded?

I get the concern for fraudulent voting, I really do. I don't want fraudulent votes cast. I'm also concerned that citizens will be denied the right to cast their legitimate votes.

Would you say that you have an equal concern?


Do we know how many people are turned away who should be able to vote?

One of the things that is frustrating is that we can seem to track people for everything else, but some how registering to vote becomes a fustercluck. Property taxes? income taxes? govie benefits? School eligibility? Oh, government can find and verify you.... but to vote? Oh Noes, it is so hard...

Not buying it.




posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785


Those particular instances very well could be software errors. Those are given as additional examples of how messed up the voter rolls are. Those people would be well over 200 years old. Obviously those aren't the same cases as the 72 voters who were 116 or older.


Actually, I just looked at the GAI list of the dates of birth that was linked. You should give it a look. There are only 4 different DOBs in the list of 170:

1800-01-01 (124 rows)
1900-01-01 (24 rows)
1901-01-01 (21 rows)
1900-10-08 (1 row)

These don't appear at first blush to be registrations for dead people.


That said, the ones with the 1800 birth dates are still invalid registrations and should be verified and fixed. We can't do that though because it's "racist". It just further illustrates the point that our voter registration system needs an overhaul.


What do you mean by "verified and fixed?" Because in my experience, the "solution" often put forth by conservative groups is to simply purge.

Honest question: how do you weigh the concern for fraudulent votes vs legitimate voters not being able to vote?

In other words, how many people showing up to the polling place and being told they're not registered to vote because they were purged is justified by stopping 1 fraudulent vote? If 10 people don't get to vote to stop 1 fraudulent vote, is that okay? How about in states with provisional balloting for people who encounter registration issues — would it be okay to have 1,000 people casting provisional ballots that they can't follow up on, which are out of normal process and subject to mishandling, to stop a single fraudulent vote? Are you going to demand auditing of provisional ballots to make sure everyone who cast one had their vote recorded?

I get the concern for fraudulent voting, I really do. I don't want fraudulent votes cast. I'm also concerned that citizens will be denied the right to cast their legitimate votes.

Would you say that you have an equal concern?


Do we know how many people are turned away who should be able to vote?

One of the things that is frustrating is that we can seem to track people for everything else, but some how registering to vote becomes a fustercluck. Property taxes? income taxes? govie benefits? School eligibility? Oh, government can find and verify you.... but to vote? Oh Noes, it is so hard...

Not buying it.


So then can we take it to assume that there is no limit to the number of lawful voters who should lost their right to vote to stop 1 unlawful vote?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785


Those particular instances very well could be software errors. Those are given as additional examples of how messed up the voter rolls are. Those people would be well over 200 years old. Obviously those aren't the same cases as the 72 voters who were 116 or older.


Actually, I just looked at the GAI list of the dates of birth that was linked. You should give it a look. There are only 4 different DOBs in the list of 170:

1800-01-01 (124 rows)
1900-01-01 (24 rows)
1901-01-01 (21 rows)
1900-10-08 (1 row)

These don't appear at first blush to be registrations for dead people.


That said, the ones with the 1800 birth dates are still invalid registrations and should be verified and fixed. We can't do that though because it's "racist". It just further illustrates the point that our voter registration system needs an overhaul.


What do you mean by "verified and fixed?" Because in my experience, the "solution" often put forth by conservative groups is to simply purge.

Honest question: how do you weigh the concern for fraudulent votes vs legitimate voters not being able to vote?

In other words, how many people showing up to the polling place and being told they're not registered to vote because they were purged is justified by stopping 1 fraudulent vote? If 10 people don't get to vote to stop 1 fraudulent vote, is that okay? How about in states with provisional balloting for people who encounter registration issues — would it be okay to have 1,000 people casting provisional ballots that they can't follow up on, which are out of normal process and subject to mishandling, to stop a single fraudulent vote? Are you going to demand auditing of provisional ballots to make sure everyone who cast one had their vote recorded?

I get the concern for fraudulent voting, I really do. I don't want fraudulent votes cast. I'm also concerned that citizens will be denied the right to cast their legitimate votes.

Would you say that you have an equal concern?


Do we know how many people are turned away who should be able to vote?

One of the things that is frustrating is that we can seem to track people for everything else, but some how registering to vote becomes a fustercluck. Property taxes? income taxes? govie benefits? School eligibility? Oh, government can find and verify you.... but to vote? Oh Noes, it is so hard...

Not buying it.


So then can we take it to assume that there is no limit to the number of lawful voters who should lost their right to vote to stop 1 unlawful vote?


We don't assume anything. We lay out a process to vote that is followed by those who want to cast a vote. I don't get what is so difficult about this.

If you want to vote but say moved away to attend school and didn't take the right steps to ensure you can legally vote, whose fault is it?

If you know ID is required but didn't take steps to obtain one, whose fault is it?

My point was simply that somehow people are able to figure out requirements for everything else in their lives and government should be making it easy to do so, but when it comes to voting we all of a sudden act like it a brain surgery or requires some overly bureaucratic process to determine eligibility.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Irishhaf

The military always gets # on when it comes to absentee ballots. Mailing stateside doesn't have the problems of overseas assignments. I can sort of understand why overseas ballots are more stringent though.

As far as voter ID I think the argument is stupid. We ID here it isn't a problem and I think if people want to vote spending 12 dollars for a state ID is very reasonable.


I'd even be for giving them free IDs. Of course it won't be free, it's paid for with tax money, but of all the things our tax money pays for this would be one of the most worthwhile.


I agree. I think it would also save the country money doing so. How much money has been wasted on this issue court cases are not free the tax payers pay along with all the other BS. So we should do ourselves a favor nip it in the bud and give them some damn ID to shut them up.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: face23785


Those particular instances very well could be software errors. Those are given as additional examples of how messed up the voter rolls are. Those people would be well over 200 years old. Obviously those aren't the same cases as the 72 voters who were 116 or older.


Actually, I just looked at the GAI list of the dates of birth that was linked. You should give it a look. There are only 4 different DOBs in the list of 170:

1800-01-01 (124 rows)
1900-01-01 (24 rows)
1901-01-01 (21 rows)
1900-10-08 (1 row)

These don't appear at first blush to be registrations for dead people.


That said, the ones with the 1800 birth dates are still invalid registrations and should be verified and fixed. We can't do that though because it's "racist". It just further illustrates the point that our voter registration system needs an overhaul.


What do you mean by "verified and fixed?" Because in my experience, the "solution" often put forth by conservative groups is to simply purge.

Honest question: how do you weigh the concern for fraudulent votes vs legitimate voters not being able to vote?

In other words, how many people showing up to the polling place and being told they're not registered to vote because they were purged is justified by stopping 1 fraudulent vote? If 10 people don't get to vote to stop 1 fraudulent vote, is that okay? How about in states with provisional balloting for people who encounter registration issues — would it be okay to have 1,000 people casting provisional ballots that they can't follow up on, which are out of normal process and subject to mishandling, to stop a single fraudulent vote? Are you going to demand auditing of provisional ballots to make sure everyone who cast one had their vote recorded?

I get the concern for fraudulent voting, I really do. I don't want fraudulent votes cast. I'm also concerned that citizens will be denied the right to cast their legitimate votes.

Would you say that you have an equal concern?


Do we know how many people are turned away who should be able to vote?

One of the things that is frustrating is that we can seem to track people for everything else, but some how registering to vote becomes a fustercluck. Property taxes? income taxes? govie benefits? School eligibility? Oh, government can find and verify you.... but to vote? Oh Noes, it is so hard...

Not buying it.


So then can we take it to assume that there is no limit to the number of lawful voters who should lost their right to vote to stop 1 unlawful vote?


We don't assume anything. We lay out a process to vote that is followed by those who want to cast a vote. I don't get what is so difficult about this.

If you want to vote but say moved away to attend school and didn't take the right steps to ensure you can legally vote, whose fault is it?

If you know ID is required but didn't take steps to obtain one, whose fault is it?

My point was simply that somehow people are able to figure out requirements for everything else in their lives and government should be making it easy to do so, but when it comes to voting we all of a sudden act like it a brain surgery or requires some overly bureaucratic process to determine eligibility.


Well, you response was reasonable and measured, so in kind;

The crux of this is that even in the language you used, suggesting its easy to obtain ID, belies a lack of understanding over the difficulties low income folks have even in achieving those requirements. I can sympathize with your assumption that everyone is on equal footing, but its not really the case. For example, lacking personal transportation and having to work multiple jobs leaves little time to do the diligence in acquiring some forms of ID. Then there's the fact that the ID requirements vary, and in some cases are applied disproportionately across the types of voters most likely to be affected by it (for example, making a drivers licence count as valid ID, but not a citypass ID card or other alternatives that are more commonly and easily acquired by low income folks).

I don't think anyone here is arguing to get rid of voter ID requirements, but rather want them applied in the most fair and impartial way possible.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
when I see a decided court case , i'll believe it....otherwise it's the daily right-wing BS on ATS to gin up more rage toward democrats......



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Actually just found a Republican politician pushing some common sense voter registration reform: Here's a tweet about it



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I think voter fraud would be politicians lying and stuff like that to voters.

I think voting fraud would be a voter committing fraud in voting.

just sayin..words mean things
at tha article not tha op



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The proposed solution is not to simply purge. That's a propagandized misrepresentation of what is usually proposed, which is to try to contact people who have registrations that have errors or who haven't voted in 15 or 20 years to fix their registration or confirm that they still live in that district or are still alive at all. We can make it a rigorous effort by looking at public records to find if they moved, changed their name, etc. Their social security number can be used to find out if there's been activity from them in another state, and to try to contact them there. There are all kinds of ways you can try to find people to verify them. If, after all that, they can't be contacted or located, then purge them from the voter registration database, which still won't stop them from voting if they're an eligible voter. That's a perfectly reasonable course of action that is independent of any race, religion, or gender consideration. It's not racist, it's not sexist, and it's not voter suppression. The only thing it will do is stop fraud.

If we need more stringent measures to make sure every provisional ballot is counted, go for it. Whether that's necessary or not is unknown. The supposed 1000 eligible voters that would be stopped to prevent 1 fraudulent vote scenario you threw out are just arbitrary numbers you pulled out of thin air. You can be concerned about both preventing fraudulent votes and ensuring everyone who is eligible to vote can vote if they want. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

The fact is we have no idea how many fraudulent votes there are and how many eligible voters don't have their votes counted because some people don't want to study that. It's "racist". We do know we have 72 here that should never have been cast if we had halfway decent voter registration standards. Maybe after investigation it would be found some of them are actually eligible voters. Maybe they were Russians and voted for Trump. We just don't know.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Basically it's OK to influence an election if you're an illegal alien, as long as you're not from Russia.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BTPowers
Basically it's OK to influence an election if you're an illegal alien, as long as you're not from Russia.


Pretty much sums up the thread. I could've saved myself a lot of typing.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


I can sympathize with your assumption that everyone is on equal footing, but its not really the case. For example, lacking personal transportation and having to work multiple jobs leaves little time to do the diligence in acquiring some forms of ID.


Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? If someone can find a way to a polling station to vote, they can find transportation to get an ID. If someone can take the time out of working multiple jobs to go vote, they can take the time out of working multiple jobs to go get an ID in order to allow them to vote.

When I accidentally misplaced my daughter's birth certificate, I contacted the state to issue me a certified copy of it in order to enroll her in school. If I have to do it, so should everyone else. Yet we're letting undocumented children enter our education system everyday.

This double standard is getting old. When I show up at my voting station, I not only have to give them my driver's license, but they ask me to practically repeat everything printed on it to them verbally so they believe I am who my license shows I am.


edit on 10-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Wayfarer


I can sympathize with your assumption that everyone is on equal footing, but its not really the case. For example, lacking personal transportation and having to work multiple jobs leaves little time to do the diligence in acquiring some forms of ID.


Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? If someone can find a way to a polling station to vote, they can find transportation to get an ID. If someone can take the time out of working multiple jobs to go vote, they can take the time out of working multiple jobs to go get an ID in order to allow them to vote.

When I accidentally misplaced my daughter's birth certificate, I contacted the state to issue me a certified copy of it in order to enroll her in school. If I have to do it, so should everyone else. Yet we're letting undocumented children enter our education system everyday.

This double standard is getting old. When I show up at my voting station, I not only have to give them my driver's license, but they ask me to practically repeat everything printed on it to them verbally so they believe I am who my license shows I am.



Uh, for real dude, its not ridiculous at all. The fact it sounds ridiculous to you has more to do with your critical lack of introspective and sympathetic understanding for the plight of those less fortunate than yourself.

I'm saying (and have given examples) of difficulties that low income folks face that you don't. To even reference your last reply, you have an easy time going to these places because you have a car. For those that don't have a car, just because I volunteer on election days to pick up low income Democrats and drive them to their polling place doesn't mean I can afford to be at their beck and call to make the half dozen trips to get alternate ID or a drivers license (assuming they've even had the opportunity to learn how to drive at all).



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Automatic registration makes it sound mandatory. Believe me I'm all for citizens exercising their rights but that includes their right to forego registration if that's what they want. Why couldn't they implement an "opt in" box on the form, similar to the organ donor box when you renew your drivers license? I just think "automatic" sets a bad precedent.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I don't care what party they voted for either, when dead people are showing up on the rolls something is wrong

This type of tampering (regardless of who it benefits) should not be tolerated. Election integrity, accountability and verification is long past being critically needed.

We need serious voter ID laws. And to shut the left up about "vote suppression" make the ID cards free
edit on 8/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Wayfarer

Automatic registration makes it sound mandatory. Believe me I'm all for citizens exercising their rights but that includes their right to forego registration if that's what they want. Why couldn't they implement an "opt in" box on the form, similar to the organ donor box when you renew your drivers license? I just think "automatic" sets a bad precedent.


Simply because the right to vote shouldn't be gated behind ANYTHING other than citizenship and age. In a perfect world that you and I both find agreeable, everyone is registered to vote automatically by some equal manner, and they have their own freedom to choose whether to vote or not.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: face23785



We need serious voter ID laws. And to shut the left up about "vote suppression" make the ID cards free


AMEN. This is all the left wants (as opposed to some hyper caricatured portrayal of them as only wanted illegal aliens to vote and nobody else). Remove the barriers for all applicable voters to vote, then go through and clean up the database to weed out old/invalid/fraudulent voter rolls.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Simply because the right to vote shouldn't be gated behind ANYTHING other than citizenship and age.


Hey I agree with that 100%, the right to vote is useless if we all can't exercise it


AMEN. This is all the left wants (as opposed to some hyper caricatured portrayal of them as only wanted illegal aliens to vote and nobody else). Remove the barriers for all applicable voters to vote, then go through and clean up the database to weed out old/invalid/fraudulent voter rolls.


Sounds reasonable to me wayfarer

And I probably should have said "to allay the left's concerns about vote suppression" not "shut the left up about vote suppression"

Hope to see our elections secured/verifiable while still making them more accessible to voters (perhaps more polling stations?)


edit on 8/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
This would never fly but in my dreams the only people who could vote would be those who pay more in taxes than they take in public services.
Anyone employed by state and local governments would be inelegible, corporat I ins subsidised by the government would be inelegible, teachers, police, people on public assistance (retirees fom private sector jobs get a pass as they have paid into the system all their life)

This would remove the glaring conflict of interest.
It would also gut the Democrat voter roles.
edit on 10-8-2018 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: VforVendettea
This would never fly but in my dreams the only people who could vote would be those who pay more in taxes than they take in public services.
Anyone employed by state and local governments would be inelegible, corporat I ins subsidised by the government would be inelegible, teachers, police, people on public assistance (retirees fom private sector jobs get a pass as they have paid into the system all their life)

This would remove the glaring conflict of interest.
It would also gut the Democrat voter roles.


Uh, so your dream is to stop Democrats from voting?

Well, I can appreciate the honesty, even if I believe your opinion is reprehensible....



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join