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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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.



Being low income does not make you stupid or absolve you from your responsibilities. Even low income people need ID to function. You need ID to get govie benefits. If it is important, they will find a way to get whatever is needed.




posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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.



Being low income does not make you stupid or absolve you from your responsibilities. Even low income people need ID to function. You need ID to get govie benefits. If it is important, they will find a way to get whatever is needed.


Except just like various other limiters to voting that have been struck down in our nations history, all under the directive of not biasing availability of voting to any eligible voter, so to is the myriad and often impartially applicable voter ID laws a potential issue that needs attention. Some states require forms of identification that are not easy for low income folks to acquire, so while (as you rightly state about low income individuals) they are smart and capable enough to acquire a form of ID that suits their situation, it's often counted as a 'non-valid' form of ID for the purpose of voting and therefore the disenfranchisement referenced earlier in the thread is being empowered through either a lack of understanding of the hardships some low income people endure to acquire various forms of ID, or possibly because those making the ID laws understand through such actions they can affect overall voter turnout and the final vote tallies potentially (heck, there's a recording I heard several years back with two conservative politicians discussing that very thing, so its not entirely out of the realm of possibility).

I guess I just can't think of a good reason why anyone who is entitled to vote should have 'hoops' to jump through at all....
edit on 32pm18fpmFri, 10 Aug 2018 15:06:08 -0500America/ChicagoFri, 10 Aug 2018 15:06:08 -0500 by Wayfarer because: grammar



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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.



Being low income does not make you stupid or absolve you from your responsibilities. Even low income people need ID to function. You need ID to get govie benefits. If it is important, they will find a way to get whatever is needed.


Except just like various other limiters to voting that have been struck down in our nations history, all under the directive of not biasing availability of voting to any eligible voter, so to is the myriad and often impartially applicable voter ID laws a potential issue that needs attention. Some states require forms of identification that are not easy for low income folks to acquire, so while (as you rightly state about low income individuals) they are smart and capable enough to acquire a form of ID that suits their situation, it's often counted as a 'non-valid' form of ID for the purpose of voting and therefore the disenfranchisement referenced earlier in the thread is being empowered through either a lack of understanding of the hardships some low income people endure to acquire various forms of ID, or possibly because those making the ID laws understand through such actions they can affect overall voter turnout and the final vote tallies potentially (heck, there's a recording I heard several years back with two conservative politicians discussing that very thing, so its not entirely out of the realm of possibility).

I guess I just can't think of a good reason why anyone who is entitled to vote should have 'hoops' to jump through at all....


I think the only IDs that should be acceptable for voting are: Driver's license (or state issued ID if you don't drive) or Passport.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: face23785

It a point, but many are going to jump on this...so

These votes mean little in a national election involving millions.

What is always missed, is many times local elections are decided by 100's of votes (hundred). Plenty of voter fraud at local levels. E.g.. one "conviction" involved more than just their vote.

Mg



It "doesn't matter" unless the margin of victory is really close. And this is just one method of voter fraud. How many more fraudulent votes would be found if there was a comprehensive audit?


Yeah something stinks. how much you wanna bet the people counting are fudging the numbers a bit? This is why you never allow recounts because someones is gonna cheat.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
So what the OP is saying is that Trump's very own Voter Fraud SWAT Team --- who was unable to identify any meaningful level of voter fraud --- are incompetent nincompoops?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   
1st of all - I do not believe that all Republicans are racist or their motives for Voter ID laws is racist. It just happens to be that the people they target are minorities and not because of their race but because they vote Democrat.

2nd there may be some racists pushing this due to race but I don't think they are the majority.

Voter ID laws sound great and all but for me, what bothers me is the lying about what they truly hope to achieve.

The Long and Despicable Roots of Voter Suppression and Similar Tactics



Taking advantage of the elimination of crucial preclearance requirements in the Voting Rights Act by Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, current strategies for disenfranchising African Americans, college students, and the poor echo earlier Jim Crow, segregationist voter suppression tactics such as poll taxes, reading tests, and grandfather clauses. These practices include racially biased gerrymandering, extreme voter identification requirements, and use of the notorious Cross-Check system which allows state officials to purge from the rolls eligible voters who have the same minority-sounding names as others in different states, on the absurd theory that they may be the same person voting twice in the same election.

The results of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act dragged an unwilling South into the twentieth century. In subsequent years the Republican Party, with its foundation now in the solid South, has done all it can to drag the country back into the nineteenth century through egregious voter suppression, mass incarceration, and financial and economic deprivation—actions that are no longer limited to the South, but which manifest themselves in other regions of the U.S. as well. The intransigence of the South and its allies renders the future of the country contentious and bleak.


Republicans Continue Voter Suppression Tactics




During last-minute voting, Ohio House Republicans sneaked in an amendment to the Ohio House budget bill that requires public universities to classify students as “in-state” if the students are given documents required for voting. For universities, it means deciding between charging for out-of-state tuition rates, which are higher than in-state tuition rates, and providing documents to students that are required for voting. For out-of-state students, it likely means a more difficult time voting in Ohio. Of course, Republicans’ public reasons for this measure appear level-headed. Republicans say that they just want to reduce tuition costs and prevent out-of-state students from voting on local issues that they know little about.




But there’s a very clear political motivation for Republicans supporting a measure like this one: College-aged voters tend to support Democrats
. In 2012, young voters were particularly highlighted by media outlets as key supporters of President Barack Obama, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and other Democrats around the nation. But one day Doug Preisse, close adviser to Gov. John Kasich and


chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party, was a little too honest in an email to The Columbus Dispatch: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.



Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law



A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.


Judge: GOP vote-suppression tactics have ‘no legitimacy




Federal District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos has had to deal with a law of the latter sort,


Texas’s voter identification law, for years now. Imposing new voter ID rules is among the underhanded tricks that Republicans have used over the past decade to skew elections.
Texas’s legislature passed — and, against court skepticism, has attempted to maintain — the most restrictive in the country. Ramos wrote, in the decade before the Texas legislature passed its voter ID law, “there were only two votes cast that resulted in fraud convictions.” That is out of 20 million votes counted. Since the law was passed, she noted, “the rate of referrals, investigations, and convictions (detection and deterrence) did not increase.

Allegations of widespread in-person voting fraud rely not on evidence, but on rhetoric, innuendo and credulous people so blindly partisan that they will accept these as evidence.Republicans pass voter ID laws to try to prevent Democrats from winning, with requirements that disproportionately affect poor minorities. They add hassle for some people and not others, and they force vulnerable people without the specified ID to worry about signing their name to an affidavit, under threat of prosecution, just to be able to vote. The point is to get as close to imposing voter suppression rules — such as the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow South — as the courts will let them.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It's just part of life now that Democrats use illegal aliens and dead people to boost their vote totals - as well as bussing people around to vote more than once in different states.
It's not going to change - just got to get on with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Not my 'dream' it would just turn out that way.
Anyone remember when the average Democrat was proud to manufacture USA made products?
Who signed NAFTA and flushed that dream away?



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

So anyone who leans left is a cheater by their very nature? Sorry DB but I'm calling BS on your generalizations and broad brush stereotypes.
No but the Democrats sure have a momentum on having dead people vote for them.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Yes. Or we could just get the address of said 116 year old person who voted and see if they are in a house or a cemetery. That should be easy enough for the law to investigate.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Agreed, I certainly support positively ID'ing voters but we can't let it turn into another clearly unconstitutional poll tax

I also don't see why voting itself can't be more accessible. Heck, in our neighboring State you can renew your plate/operator license at a kiosk in gas stations so there surely is a way to do that for voting in a secure way too


I guess I just can't think of a good reason why anyone who is entitled to vote should have 'hoops' to jump through at all....


I agree, it is well past time to stop treating our rights as anything other than absolute. Denying folks the right to vote for arbitrary reasons (especially reasons that target specific segments of the population) is unreasonable and not in line with American values. Seems to me a party in power could use "dirty tricks" like that to dissuade voters from a certain bloc or demographic



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
So what the OP is saying is that Trump's very own Voter Fraud SWAT Team --- who was unable to identify any meaningful level of voter fraud --- are incompetent nincompoops?


The states refused to turn over the information that Trump's voter fraud team needed in order to even evaluate it. This is ultimately why it was dissolved.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

So anyone who leans left is a cheater by their very nature? Sorry DB but I'm calling BS on your generalizations and broad brush stereotypes.
No but the Democrats sure have a momentum on having dead people vote for them.


Surely dead people have rights too.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

UK, no doubt that does happen to some degree. But I personally don't believe it is limited to Democrats or the left

It would be nice to see an actual effort at eliminating vote fraud. An concerted bi-partisan effort is needed to shore up our election integrity on multiple fronts



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Let them do it again and some countries may not accept the result of election.
I wonder what those international election observers are good for. Yea, acknowledge US a third world country it is and stock up a good ole election ink and paper ballots.
...voter ID could fix it though
edit on 12/8/2018 by PapagiorgioCZ because: now its better



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Isn't it funny how even when the situation defies all sense, a certain faction show up and claim it's A-Ok, nothing to see here?

But then again they're the true partisans. There was a study done not too long ago about how the left discounts voter fraud because they believe they benefit from it but the right wants to stop it regardless of who benefits. even to the detriment of their own candidates.



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: face23785

The only way leftists win is to cheat.



While I suspect this works both ways, I generally agree with you



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Does anyone else think its purely coincidental that the Republican/Conservative strategies to combat voter fraud disproportionately disenfranchise legal voters who by some strange coincidence heavily lean left?

Does anyone else find it amusing that Leftists keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again, expecting anyone with half a brain to believe them?

Voter ID in no way, shape or form disenfranchises anyone, save those who refuse to make a minimal effort to go get a satisfactory ID.



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

To borrow a phrase, "That is why we can't have nice things"


Very disheartening to see an American citizen actually calling for arbitrary "poll tax" type voter roll purges. Even worse is their intent to specifically target Democratic voters.


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


That sums it up nicely



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I support voter ID also, but what is wrong with issuing the ID vs. requiring payment? We've thrown away far more money on much worse ideas

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, specifically those targeting an arbitrary demographic. I'm all for ensuring elections are valid/accountable, which I believe falls in line with the goals of democratic voters as well.

I believe in our pro-liberty pro-Constitution pro-Republic agenda. I believe in it so much that I am confident it will prevail in an objectively fair election. And if it doesn't? At least we didn't have to compromise our values and tread on our Constitution to get there.

As the party currently in power we have an obligation and moral duty to ensure the rights of all Americans are upheld and defended. I can only trust that Democrats will have the same consideration if and when they are the majority party. We should of course enact our agenda, but at all times it must be constrained by the Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join