Next Level BS #16: Election Fraud in the United States, with Brad Friedman of the BradBlog

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Right, let's look at a quote from that one:

None of that is particular unusual, unfortunately. These systems are garbage, frankly, designed and manufactured incredibly cheaply (see Part 1 of this 2007 report for some jaw-dropping examples) and, in the case of the specific 100% unverifiable e-voting systems used in Collin County, pretty old at this point.

Now lets look at one that is D to R:

More than a quarter of U.S. voters this year will cast 100% unverifiable votes on such e-voting systems which may, or may not, record and register any votes the way that voters intended. There is no way for voters to ever know one way or another.

Why the complete contrast in language?

a reply to: raymundoko

I don't see a contrast. The machines suck, to the point where they're designed to suck. What point are you trying to make?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I watched it until Brad loudly proclaimed you do not need photo id to buy beer. If he grossly misrepresents that undisputed fact, why put blind faith in anything else he proclaims?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Like I said, I agree that more needs to be done, but the fact that there is such a outcry from the opposition to voter-ID laws (for whatever reason, I still can't tell, other than hoping that voting loophole remains open, regardless of the frequency of its exploitation) absolutely baffles me. What is the problem with voter ID?

It seems like you didn't watch or listen to the video.

Brad had no problem with requiring identification at the polling places, as long as it's like the majority of states: forms of ID that everyone has. The problems is -- as has been identified in the description of the video -- the strict voter ID laws that require ID a lot of people don't have, like a driver's license. That, on top of not properly communicating the fullness of the new stricter ID requirements to all voters, results in lots of people being turned away.

'Born and raised' Texans forced to prove identities under new voter ID law

The law, which has been deemed by the courts to be the strictest of its kind in the US, forces any would-be voter to produce photographic proof of identity at polling stations. It was justified by Governor Rick Perry and the Republican chiefs in the state legislature as a means of combatting electoral fraud in a state where in the past 10 years some 20m votes have been cast, yet only two cases of voter impersonation have been prosecuted to conviction.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Also, easily compromised. Argonne researchers 'hack' Diebold e-voting system

Roger Johnston, head of the Vulnerability Assessment Team at the U.S. Department of Energy's science and engineering reseaech lab, said the hack, which requires about $25 and very little technical expertise, would let cybercriminals "flip" votes gathered on Diebold Accuvote TS machines and change election results without raising any suspicion.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I watched it until Brad loudly proclaimed you do not need photo id to buy beer.

You don't.

The typical laws in place in most states require store owners to verify age before selling beer or alcohol for people who appear under a certain age. There is no law requiring all customers to produce ID before they can purchase alcohol.

But more importantly, buying beer is not singled out as a constitutional right, voting is.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Age is still linear as far as I know. In order to reach an older age you have to go through the younger ages where id is required. I am bald and have a gray beard yet I was asked for id along with everybody else at the entrance of the club on halloween.

A signature is a form of id so is that unconstitutional? Of course not as long as you do not have to pay for your own pen because that might be considered a poll tax in the loosest interpretaion. As long as the state provides an ID free of charge it is not unconstitutional.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

The law, which has been deemed by the courts to be the strictest of its kind in the US, forces any would-be voter to produce photographic proof of identity at polling stations. It was justified by Governor Rick Perry and the Republican chiefs in the state legislature as a means of combatting electoral fraud in a state where in the past 10 years some 20m votes have been cast, yet only two cases of voter impersonation have been prosecuted to conviction.

How I got a SCOTUS ruling changed: My unusual Ruth Bader Ginsburg story

In ticking off her objections, Ginsburg wrote that Texas would not even accept “photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.” On Wednesday, the Justice conceded that that comment was incorrect. That kind of ID card, she said through the Court’s public information office, is “an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas.” So she simply deleted the sentence, and reissued the opinion. The Court also said that she had made “small stylistic changes” on two pages of her opinion, and that the corrected version could be read on the Court’s website.

All brought to light by Brad Blog

Acceptable forms of Identification for Voting in Texas

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
As long as the state provides an ID free of charge it is not unconstitutional.

Part of the problem is that the requirements for the "free" voter ID haven't been clearly communicated, and typically requires visits between two different government agencies (several stories about this), several miles apart. For people without vehicles, it's no longer free.

And in cases where someone's driver's license is expired (but all data still valid), they need to produce a birth certificate -- if you don't have one (many don't), it costs at least $30 (sometimes more) and more travel and waiting. For people without both vehicles and a birth certificate, it's even more expensive.

Why should someone with an expired driver's license, a voter registration card, a social security card, social security statement, and utility bill -- all with the right address, but no birth certificate -- be denied from voting this year; especially when that person voted, using some of those ID's, just two years ago?

a reply to: theNLBS

So clearly, the elections officials at the polls aren't even aware of the new restrictions.

Validating my point that communications of the new requirements hasn't been done properly.

a reply to: theNLBS

'Election Fraud' = GOP excuse to cheat.

I'm not real sure how I feel about all of this.

I live in Texas. I'm closer to 40 than I am to 30.... I think that you should show identification at the polls. I do get carded every time I buy beer. I actually swipe my Drivers License through the little POS kiosk just to get a sixer of whatever wheat beer is available.

I also know that there really is a flood of illegals coming across the southern border. They have transformed my town over the last decade in a noticeable way. I've learned spanish just to be able to communicate in my own town. I'm not anti-this or that, I work closely with many who have migrated here, and call many of them my friends. Those people did it the hard way though. They worked very hard to be able to cast their votes and be recognized as US citizens. That aside, this cannot all be blamed on the GOP. I realize they are very vocal and have politicized the issue, but fraud does exist on both sides. Electronic voting machines are crap and should be banned.

I also watched a short video showcasing the ignorance of young people toward politics that was recorded on Texas Tech Campus. After watching that I kind of hope that those people are too lazy to vote, because they are obviously too stupid. But I go to Lubbock all the time and see countless bumper stickers supporting Wendy Davis..... It makes no sense. I know from personal experience that those students will argue all day long that they are of superior knowledge because they are in "college", but can't even tell you who won the American Civil War.... Snuff it...

This was a good show, and it went quite a ways away from the general shock value which I find most entertaining. It is a good break though, and I hope that it will underscore the seriousness of the issues that Joe and Crew take on.

On a side note, and a little off topic, would you believe that it is 2014, and one of the ballot initiatives of a town in my county is rather or not to legalize the sale of alcohol in that town. Sadly I can't vote in that particular instance. I don't live within those city limits. But oh well, my little town got legal beer sales two years ago when our newly elected mayor "discovered" that the sale of alcohol was banned here illegally way back when.... Funny stuff, and only in Texas.

Keep up the good work Joe and Crew. Keep labeling the Bullsh*t so nobody tries to feed it to us and tell us it's baby food.

Boba

a reply to: TownCryer

Nope, Voter Fraud = how the ONE party system in the U.S.(it's name is MONEY) gets the moronic hacks we have in office elected. If you honestly believe "either" party (I hate typing the word "either" because there's only one) is pure I seriously have question if you have any historical Poly Sci research in your background. If the answer to that is yes, please give my best to Ms. Wasserman-Shultz.

a reply to: Springer

Not relevant to this thread but I'd honestly like to hear how your service with the military has had an impact on your current perspective, and how you look at your service with this new perspective AND weather you'd do it again.

There's more but you know...maybe start a threads on it someday,

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: okamitengu

what is the problem with verifying who someone is before letting them vote?

I don't see any problems with it.

Considering a person's existence depends on ID these days.

I just got done voting here in California...my name was only on 1 voting list in 1 certain precinct....maybe the state you're in doesn't give a damn, or doesn't allocate the money needed to upgrade the voting system.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You don't see a difference?

When it's R to D he says "machines are old and suck, it happens"

When it is D to R he says "1/4 of people who cast votes could be voting wrong and don't know it."

To me that looks like he is telling republicans "get over it" and he is telling democrats "your vote might not be going through correctly."

The blogger this is about seems incredibly biased towards the left at least from my point if view.

Edit: to be clear, I disagree with Texas' voter ID laws. Any government issued ID should work. I posted Jimmy Carters recommendations in another thread.

originally posted by: raymundoko
When it's D to R he says "machines are old and suck, it happens"
When it is R to D he says "1/4 of people who cast votes could be voting wrong and don't know it."

I have no idea how you're taking that away from the material. Seriously.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Maybe I'm just being sensitive because I'm sick of the partisan hackery going on in the media during this election season. Maybe when I come back to his blog after the elections I'll look at it with a refreshed mindset.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

As I stated in other posts, though--if someone can not get appropriate ID that is required by law to vote within the two years between voting cycles, they're doing something wrong and don't appear to care that much about casting a ballot.

But just because I say that doesn't mean that I don't think some of the ID laws have been implemented at bad times or that they can be unclear as to what is accepted--new laws should be implemented the day after a voting cycle and widely publicized for months so that people pay attention and have that full two years in which to comply with the law.

As for your first video, I have that same card, and it resides in my wallet right behind my state-issued ID (in my case, a driver's license). I fully believe that the reasoning behind not accepting the card is valid--it needs to show proof not only of who he is, but where he lives. I moved to a new county and city two months before the election and that was plenty of time to get a new card issues...I did it within a week of moving. And guess what I needed in order to get my VA disability card--an ID to prove who I was. I don't buy his argument that there are hundreds of thousands of vets that only have that card for identification.

Neither video you posted negates my point that people--if the laws were passed with fair timing and publicity (we both know the publicity is there)--have plenty of time to comply with the law and it should be of zero surprise what they need when they get to the polling station. If there is confusion, at that point it probably lies on the back of the election officials who probably did not clearly communicate to the public what was needed in order to vote--that's not the fault of the law.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
As for your first video, I have that same card, and it resides in my wallet right behind my state-issued ID (in my case, a driver's license). I fully believe that the reasoning behind not accepting the card is valid...

Here's the thing, the VA card IS valid. The election official keeping him from voting was misinformed.

The same was happening in a few states were voter registration cards are valid ID -- people were being turned away for no having a driver's license.