Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[Major Robert Dump]

As a fan of fine music and cinematography, I decided to partake in the fine arts upon passing the XXX Barn south of San Antonio. I had heard rave reviews about the long-awaited release of Butthole Bandits 7: the music, the acting, the continuation of open ended plot lines, character development.

I entered the store and located my copy. I went to the counter to check out, and upon announcing "49.99" the clerk also asked to see an ID.

I was agast. An ID? This is art, something that should be shared and enjoyed by all. This was America. And this guy was asking me for an ID in order to purchase Butthole Bandits 7? I had purchased Butthole Bandits 1, 4 and 6 without showing an ID. Yet this guy -- this white tea partier in his Cure t-shirt and face piercings and Stalin tatoos -- wanted me to produce an ID?

It finally hit me, after all these years of being insensitive. What a throwback to Jim Crowe laws! Think of all the immigrants, think of all the so-poor-I-am-melting-people, think of all those senior citizens... they won't even be able to open a bank account, or get a drivers license, or buy alcohol, or wire money to their prostitute-turned-wife in the Philippines, or get a cell phone service plan, or buy a car, or buy tobacco, or rent an apartment, or rent a movie, or get a credit card, or get into a bar, or get utilities turned on, or get an Albertsons Savings Club Card, or buy a copy of Butthole Bandits 7 -- because they do not have an $20 ID. Why, there must be like 7 people in the whole state of Texas who are just absolutely screwed, and we aren't going to throw out all common sense and allow the obvious to transpire?? And in an election year, no less.

This country makes me sick.

[Montmorency]

upon announcing "49.99"

:sick:

You can't keep an industry afloat singlehandedly.

[Greyblades]

I'm too tired to think of some witty way of saying this, so I'll just say it; 'You still pay for your porn? What an idiot.'

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm going to make a guess that this is a critique of the liberal outcry over voter fraud laws enacted by Republican legislators across the country after the 2010 elections that require voters to show IDs. If so, what a masterful delivery. Good show!

[Major Robert Dump]

Why would you ever think that? No state EVER in the history of the USA has a program to help poor people get IDs, and no city anywhere EVER has a transit system to get people to the tag agency to get their ID, and no really, really, really poor person anywhere EVER has had enough free time due to being unemployed to make the trek to the tag agency to get their ID. Why, those whopping 5 people that were produced to explain they cannot get an ID because they cannot get their birth certificates are totally worth turning a blind eye to voter fraud that is TOTALLY NOT happening, because people NEVER EVER commit fraud anywhere ever when it benefits them financially, not with disability, not with insurance, not with stealing cable

I do not know where you get these accusations from PJ, this was but merely a story of a lonely guy shopping for anal sex movies (shhhh, don't tell Vuk or Xaihou)

[Strike For The South]

When I come home we are getting drunk

[Papewaio]

I think MRDs version of the Onion should be called the Chai & Cucumber.

[drone]

I get carded buying spray paint at Home Depot. I can make a few extra bucks supplying the underage taggers with the tools of the trade. :yes:

[Whacker]

:sick:

You can't keep an industry afloat singlehandedly.

Zen yu rakk skirr and disciprin!

[Major Robert Dump]

I was actually hoping for some Lefties to explain to me, without laughing, how this law is a massive attack on the poor, the minorities and the elderly.

So far, in the states where the law has gone forward, I hear three types of SOB stories:

#1: I am too poor to buy an ID/ get to the ID place. I am too busy being unemployed to walk there.

I find this incredibly hard to believe, all the "free ID programs" for the poor notwithstanding.

#2: Due to some bad clerical error on the part of the government, or unavoidable instances (like a courthouse fire that destroyed birth records) there are rare occasions when this is the case. Truly unfortunate and there should be an alternate means of getting this info, although I find it RICH that these people have never bothered with this until the voting ID thing came about, which leads me to

#3: I have never had an ID, have never needed the documents, etc etc. This is the one I am reading the most. In other words, you have managed to fly under the radar for the last 20 years. And now you actually have to go file applications and stand in line like the rest of us. My sympathy is lost here. I cannot for the life of me feel sorry for someone who has lived in this country for 20 years and never had an ID. This person has obviously gone to GREAT PAINS to not get an ID, as she would only be able to pay in cash, would have no credit, would have to have utilities in someone elses name, would have to rent in someone elses name, would have to have someone else buy her booze and her smokes and pick up her prescriptions.

So basically, I feel sorry for group number two.

Now how many people is that really? And even if we include 1 and 3 how many people really?

I recall a Texas group that said it would alienate 400,000 potential voters in Texas. Turns out, that list also had George W Bush and several Texas legislators on it. So, a bad list. Back to square one.


If the left really wants to make an impact, instead of using a bogus Jim Crowe Poll Tax argument, they should take a page from the Libertarians and basically say that voting is a natural right in our country and we should not have to show ID. I would be willing to listen to that argument.

But instead, we get something that -- to me at least -- looks like a group of people who know fraud is occurring and will do anything to keep it that way. The argument that we have not exposed any fraud is bogus, as we quite frankly do not look for and have poor methods of stopping it. Just because I have not given any speeding tickets in my neighborhood does not mean that no one speeds. People will commit fraud wherever fraud can be committed for financial or personal reasons. A presidential/Senate/House race -- and more so state and local -- has an impact on peoples pocket books, both real and percieved.

We see what groups like Acorn are capable of. We see what police are capable of. We know that there are people who will justify the means by the end, hence the Chic Fil A thread and FRC, so whats a little lie here and there to get your guy in office?

I tend to vote Democratic. And while I would like to sit back and say that fraud is okay as long as it benefits my guy, it's not okay, and it always comes full circle. If one side does it both will do it. Patriot Act, cough cough.

So yeah, completely obvious what the Democrats are doing here.

And their reasoning and accusations of institutional racism is no less than shameful

[Ironside]

I was actually hoping for some Lefties to explain to me, without laughing, how this law is a massive attack on the poor, the minorities and the elderly.

US issue. Yes I find it as stupid as you do, but in the US you got enough of persecution complex and "total withdrawal from an oppressive state" for someone to drive it as an issue.

To compare, if you're over 18 and have a residential adress, then you can vote here. The'll send you a paper that says where your designated voting spot is (the closest one). If voting somewhere else, then you'll need to bring that paper, so they can phone in and check you off the list. ID required since 2006 (or that someone with ID confirms that you are you).

[HoreTore]

US issue. Yes I find it as stupid as you do, but in the US you got enough of persecution complex and "total withdrawal from an oppressive state" for someone to drive it as an issue.

To compare, if you're over 18 and have a residential adress, then you can vote here. The'll send you a paper that says where your designated voting spot is (the closest one). If voting somewhere else, then you'll need to bring that paper, so they can phone in and check you off the list. ID required since 2006 (or that someone with ID confirms that you are you).

I see Sweden still has their bogus elections.... Lrn2vote, Ironside.

Identifying yourself with an ID is a complete non-issue. Of course you should have to identify yourself when voting. What is this really, Iraq under Saddam? And while we're at it, everyone should also be given a social security number at birth and kept in state records from the moment you shoot out of mommy. You shiuld of course also be required to have an ID. I find it hard to believe that someone living in the west in 2012 is capable of not owning a drivers license, passport, bank card, etc. Have you by any chance moved to Burkina Faso, MRD?

And a final question; can anyone tell me how this is a left/right issue? Isn't this a sane/loonie issue?

[Major Robert Dump]

This is a left/right issue because Democrats in the USA like to use a couple of choice arguments, chock full of blanket statements and racial undertones:
#1: Poor people and minorities (who or more likely to be poor or, perhaps, won't get an ID because they are too busy fighting The Man) will be disproportionately affected by ID laws, and in at least one of the cases in the high court the voter advocacy group sued under the guise that the law was discrinimatory against minorities
#2: Very little voter fraud has been discovered, therefore it must not happen. Of course, no one looks for it and there is very little governance over the issue, but that is a moot point for the left


To take a page from the play book of US Democrats, I think we may be the only industrialized democracy on the planet that does not require an ID to vote.

I do not see it as a left/right issue, but that is what it has become. It is discussed almost in passing amongst the talk shows. No one debates this from the left, they just throw out pointless statistics and heart wrenching tales of grandma, and call supporters racist. It is obvious pandering. It is obvious there is fraud. I am insulted byt heir arguments

[Vladimir]

And a final question; can anyone tell me how this is a left/right issue? Isn't this a sane/loonie issue?

Although I know both parties have done it, the Democrats, or the left, are more known for voter fraud (e.g. Chicago, Jackson's spoils system, etc). They're better at gaming the system. It's also more of a "leftist" issue because the people who would be discouraged by this are more likely to vote Democrat and/or receive public assistance. In both cases, the Democrat Left wouldn't benefit as much, or have their influence decrease, as a result of such a law.

There are also a lot of people that genuinely believe this would disenfranchise the poor or cause them additional, if minor, financial and personal hardship. Those tend to be to the left as well.

It is a sane/loonie issue, but the effects affect each side differently.

[Major Robert Dump]

There are also a lot of people that genuinely believe this would disenfranchise the poor or cause them additional, if minor, financial and personal hardship. Those tend to be to the left as well.

I don't think any of these people are genuine. It will affect .00001% of potential voters, so lets not only not require IDs, lets go to court and if the left wins it will be tantamount to endorsement of the fraud we all know is happening.

So do we open ourselves up for exploitation to cater to a very small, small, small minority of people affected (who can be helped and appeased through various other methods that do not include blanket allowance of fraud?)

I just don't see anything genuine here.

[Vladimir]

I don't think any of these people are genuine. It will affect .00001% of potential voters, so lets not only not require IDs, lets go to court and if the left wins it will be tantamount to endorsement of the fraud we all know is happening.

So do we open ourselves up for exploitation to cater to a very small, small, small minority of people affected (who can be helped and appeased through various other methods that do not include blanket allowance of fraud?)

I just don't see anything genuine here.

Most of the post is based on perception to answer HoreTore's question. It doesn't have to be true but people have to believe it's true, then go about their daily lives.

[Lemur]

Actually, this is a partisan dogfight on more than one level. If we were all behaving in good faith, it would look something like this:


In-person voting requires photo ID
State IDs need to be 100% subsidized, no fees whatsoever, to avoid any possibility of a poll tax. (We just need to eat this cost. There are already documented cases in both WI and PA of low-income voters being told that they need to pay for IDs, even though the state law says for teh poors it's free. Most reliable way to avoid this is make all State ID (excepting commercial and drivers' licenses) free.)
All voting machine software need to be open-source (this will help with the well-documented red shift (http://richardcharnin.com/SwingVsRedshift1992to2004.htm) in swing counties, thanks, Diebold!)
Mail-in ballots need to be looked over as well, but I've never used one, and I know little about how they work. I do know that almost every documented case of widespread vote fraud that does not involve a vote machine involves mail-in ballots.


Now, of course none of this will happen, because the Dems are operating in bad faith, and the Repubs are operating in atrocious faith. If Repubs actually gave 1/10th as much of a damn as they claim to about voter fraud, they would attack it from the two most commonly known angles: paperless vote machines and mail-in ballots. But they are spending 0% of their effort on either of those.

And if the Dems had any honesty they would concede that an ID is not a ridiculous request for in-person voting, and would instead fight to make IDs widely available for free. That's the tack they should be taking, but they're not. Why? Because they're Dems, and they never miss a chance to miss the point.

I hate to say "a pox on both your houses," but, well, a pox on both your houses. The Repubs are obviously, clearly uninterested in voter fraud, since they are ignoring the most well-documented methods, and instead focusing on in-person voting, which has as close to zero documented cases as you could care to model.

And the Dems, being Dems, just want to keep doing the voter turnout thing they've been doing for decades, and can't imagine changing, because they're Dems.

Manufactured controversy, plain and simple.

If somebody has the testicular fortitude to go after Dieblod (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/), then I might be impressed.

-edit-

Last point: Any changes to voting requirements should be made during non-major-election periods, for obvious reasons. All of this jockeying for position a few months before a presidential cycle is ridiculous.

[Major Robert Dump]

The timing is suspect. I was actually surprised about the one case that resolved itself, as I assumed they would all be delayed until after the election, that way both parties had an out in the event they lose.

[drone]

The GOP is doing it now not to catch walk-in fraud, but to spread FUD among the people that aren't going to vote for them. Discouraging poor people from voting is a win for them.

Large scale fraud through sketchy electronic voting machines? That's the real way to steal an election.

[Lemur]

Large scale fraud through sketchy electronic voting machines? That's the real way to steal an election.
Don't get me started. Every single voting machine should use open source code that our brightest geeks can inspect. Since the introduction of electronic, paperless voting, there has been a real and measurable shift in voting outcomes, which historically correlated pretty closely with exit polls. Since the introduction of these voting machines, reputable exit polls no longer track with outcomes. Instead, they shift Republican, hence the term "redshift." Go figure. The paper I linked earlier goes pretty deep into the statistical math, but here's a (somewhat hysterical, but plain-English) article (http://www.allword-news.co.uk/tag/red-shift-adjustment/). (I suppose you could make the argument that voters began lying in exit polls around the time these machines were introduced, and they just happened to start lying in the small percentage required to change election outcomes. I would find such an argument a bit iffy.)

Unadjusted exit polls are the gold standard in uncovering election fraud. Ohio’s 2010 unadjusted election exit poll results showed incumbent Governor Strickland defeating John Kasich by 50.1% to 47.4% of the vote. However, when Kasich won the actual vote on the voting machines provided and serviced by private Republican-connected vendors, then the exit pollsters adjusted the exit poll numbers to match the machine vote count.

Overwhelmingly, the adjustments are red, or Republican, in terms of a beneficial shift in what voters are saying when they exit the polls and what the Republican-connected voting equipment company machines are reporting.

Despite public pressure for universal automatic voter registration and hand-counted paper ballots, the unverifiable electronic voting system remains intact in Ohio and proliferates throughout the nation.

The source code for these machines is not available for public scrutiny. Nor is there a reliable paper trail provided individual voters or independent monitors.For further reading, here's a link to a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=15) by a mathematician who has been playing with the numbers. Of interest to statisticians such as CountArach.

[Lemur]

The Onion, as per usual, nails it.

Restrictive Voter Laws On The Rise (http://www.theonion.com/articles/restrictive-voter-laws-on-the-rise,29272/)

This year 41 states have introduced at least 180 bills that would reduce voting, whether by requiring an ID at the polls, curbing registration drives, or limiting early balloting. Critics argue these measures are aimed at disenfranchising the young, minorities, and the poor. Here are some of the more controversial laws under consideration:


Nevada: Polling places will no longer supply ballots; voters must bring their own
Ohio: Voters must present valid Republican Party membership card
Tennessee: All registered voters must show up at polling areas with at least one normal-looking coworker who promises that voter is cool
Pennsylvania: No restrictions
Kentucky: Polling place staffed by voters’ high school girlfriends and boyfriends
Alabama: Voters required to correctly guess the number the voting inspector is thinking of
Arboria: To be deemed worthy, potential voters must complete the Rite of Passage ceremony by sticking their hands into the hollow stump
Oregon: Voters have to give five reasons why voting actually matters
Minnesota: Each voter must devise one new voting restriction for next person in line before being allowed to enter booth

[drone]

Source code isn't going to cut it, the machines' physical security is a joke. You would think the manufacturer of ATMs would know how to make a secure cabinet, which tips the incompetence/malice debate towards the latter.

[Lemur]

I would also be curious to hear how absentee mail-ballot fraud works, since apparently the biggest documented cases of vote fraud all centered on them.

[Major Robert Dump]

I do know that you have to make the request early, and that all of our (military) ballots come through a central person who distributes it to the individual.

I was under the impression that absentee voter fraud had more to do with losing, delaying or not counting ballots due to technicalities, real or percieved.

In order for an illigetimate person to use an absentee vote, that person would need to make the request in the voters name. The request that I made asked for name, birthday, state and county/district, but this was through the military.

[Lemur]

Gah, I got nothing on hand, and no time to do the research (end of day deadlines) but I recall reading that the BIG vote fraud operations of the past involved fictitious people, dead people, and shut-ins being absentee balloted.

In other words, you wanted to mess with an election, you used mail-in ballots. Makes much more sense than trying to do it with walk-in voting.

Hasn't been a big case for a while, at least I don't think. Why mess with the mail when you can adjust a voting machine, or better yet, just fiddle the numbers a little bit at the back end? Much safer, much simpler.

[Montmorency]

Allegations of vote-fixing on a massive scale, if ever proven and linked to the Republican leadership, would precipitate one of the biggest political shakeups in American history.

Should we hope it's the case?

[Major Robert Dump]

Allegations of vote-fixing on a massive scale, if ever proven and linked to the Republican leadership, would precipitate one of the biggest political shakeups in American history.

Should we hope it's the case?

No one will ever prove anything, and even of they did, no one would really be punished.

We aren't even allowed to know who exploded our Presidents head on live television. Apparently, we can't handle the truth.

[Ironside]

I see Sweden still has their bogus elections.... Lrn2vote, Ironside.

It's identical to yours afaik. The paper you get is proof on that you're on the electoral roll (röstlängd) and the extra thing about phoning in is because only the local voting place will have the one with your name on.

[Lemur]

Had a moment to get my Google on. I guess absentee ballot fraud is not so much a thing of the past, although it seems a lot of it is confined to primaries these days, which makes sense. Smaller number of total votes, so a smaller fraud can have a bigger result. Also, I don't believe primaries are policed by the state so much as the parties themselves. Fudging the numbers makes a lot more sense. Anyway, recent examples:

State senate primary, Republican, MA (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/14/absentee_ballot_fraud_suspected_in_massachusetts.html)

Congressional primary, Democratic, FL (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/julien-voting-irregularities-and-absentee-ballot-fraud-tainted-razor-thin-race.html)

Local elections, FL (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/31/2923691/miami-dade-absentee-ballot-fraud.html). This is a good one, cops actually found filled-in absentee ballots warehoused in the home of a self-described "ballot broker."

Lots and lots of articles about Florida. I guess something about the election structure of the Sunshine State makes absentee ballot fraud especially easy. I've said it before, I'll say it again: God hates Florida.

So these are recent, verified, and in some cases quite large instances of vote fraud. Apparently nobody cares. All anybody wants to talk about is walk-in voting, which makes sense if you are a complete and total idiot.

Look at it from a criminal's perspective: What's the least-effort, lowest-risk way to stuff a ballot box? How unbelievably stupid would you have to be to commit the crime in person when you could insulate yourself? This is why there are a grand total of ten (10) documented cases of in-person voter fraud since 2000. Here, a detailed list of all of them (http://assets.news21.com/fraud/?category=3&type=&status=&offset=0&query=&state=&year=#). I cannot begin to express how false and mendacious I find this entire "controversy." Even if you decide to count every single charge of in-person voter fraud, and don't bother with due process or conviction, there have been 633 charges of in-person voter fraud since 2000. That averages out to 53 charges of in-person voter fraud in the entire USA per year.

As opposed to the well-documented problem of absentee ballot fraud, and the inexplicable redshift since the introduction of paperless voting machines.

Gah.

[Beskar]

There was also the whole Bush/Gore scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000) which would have changed history as we know it.

Voting errors can cause serious differences in outcomes.

[Lemur]

Well, Bush v Gore was kind of a special case. The margin of victory was inevitably going to be smaller than the margin of error. And every election has a margin of error.

Add to that the sad show of Gore selectively suing for a recount in certain counties, and the cringe-inducing spectacle of the Supreme Court dragging Bush 43 across the finish line.

I don't think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from that low point. Except, perhaps, that our national system is not well-equipped for close elections.

[Vladimir]

As opposed to the well-documented problem of absentee ballot fraud, and the inexplicable redshift since the introduction of paperless voting machines.

Gah.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

None dare say it: Conspiracy!

[Lemur]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Oh, I'm quite aware of the physics version of the term.

The fun thing with paperless voting machines is that nothing can be proved, ever. That's the joy of eliminating the paper trail. So the exit polls suddenly start deviating from election outcomes in statistically measurable ways? So what? There was even a theory put forward in 2004 about "shy Bush voters" to explain the discrepancies. (Needless to say, that theory has been disproved.)

I believe both Dems and Repubs would sell children into slavery if it might win them a local election (and they thought they could get away with it). There's very little I would put past either party. If nothing else, paperless voting machines manufactured and serviced by companies with strong ties to a single party present, shall we say, temptation.

-edit

Mental exercise: Reverse the equation and measure your reaction. Imagine that the vast majority of voting machine contracts went to companies with strong Dem ties. After their introduction, you start to see blueshift; small but measurable deviations from the statistical norm of correlation between unadjusted exit poll data and final vote tallies. Nothing can be proved, because the voting machines have no paper trail, but these sorts of deviations have always been the starting point for fraud investigations. Which cannot take place, because there are no original documents to tally and inspect. Also note that both the manufacturers and the Dems have made it illegal for anyone to inspect the source code.

Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious?

[Montmorency]

Well, it's easily resolved:

1. Organize an elite Orgah T.E.A.M. (Taverners Entrepidly Affirming Meritocracy)
2. Infiltrate the HQ.
3. Extract the intra-company emails and source code.
4. Forward the data to Tincow.
5. Republican hit squads have sealed off the exits; prepare for glory.
6. Xiahou is a double agent, look out.
7. TRON fight in the Watchtower.
8. Cable news reports on terrorist break-ins, but broadcast is hacked into and replaced with blurry images of relevant documents.
9. Mitch McConnell pushed off a skyscraper by shadowy paymaster.
10. Larruping good stuff.

[Lemur]

Well, even if one chooses to completely ignore paperless voting machines, that still doesn't change the equation:

People who engage in vote fraud do not use in-person voting to get the job done. Period.

I'd say the reasons for this are obvious, but that would be an insult to obvious things everywhere.

[Vladimir]

Oh, I'm quite aware of the physics version of the term.

The fun thing with paperless voting machines is that nothing can be proved, ever. That's the joy of eliminating the paper trail. So the exit polls suddenly start deviating from election outcomes in statistically measurable ways? So what? There was even a theory put forward in 2004 about "shy Bush voters" to explain the discrepancies. (Needless to say, that theory has been disproved.)

I believe both Dems and Repubs would sell children into slavery if it might win them a local election (and they thought they could get away with it). There's very little I would put past either party. If nothing else, paperless voting machines manufactured and serviced by companies with strong ties to a single party present, shall we say, temptation.

-edit

Mental exercise: Reverse the equation and measure your reaction. Imagine that the vast majority of voting machine contracts went to companies with strong Dem ties. After their introduction, you start to see blueshift; small but measurable deviations from the statistical norm of correlation between unadjusted exit poll data and final vote tallies. Nothing can be proved, because the voting machines have no paper trail, but these sorts of deviations have always been the starting point for fraud investigations. Which cannot take place, because there are no original documents to tally and inspect. Also note that both the manufacturers and the Dems have made it illegal for anyone to inspect the source code.

Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious?

Sorry. Thought the second line established context.

Inexplicable. You're sounding like a conspiracy nutter. Maybe it's for fun, I don't know.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't see what is so implausible about going to vote in the name of someone with whom, say, I live and take care of. Like a son living with his elderly father. Or a nurse living with a quadrapalegic. Voting stations are typically not high security, and the people who work them are not exactly in any shape to chase down someone they suspect of fraud. I am not undermining the argument about absentee ballots and paperless voting machines, but human habits seen in other forms of fraud make doing something like this seem no so far-out.

Yes, we have very few cases on record. But considering people are not carded when voting, that should indicate that standard fraud measures are not already in place. Carding would be the biggest countermeasure to in-person fraud, yet we do not use it.

Free state IDs are a great idea, and I wish that would be implemented, for various reasons in addition to voting. But showing an ID to vote just seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Lemur]

I don't see what is so implausible about going to vote in the name of someone with whom, say, I live and take care of. Like a son living with his elderly father. Or a nurse living with a quadrapalegic.
Sure, hypothetically that sounds fine. But is that any way to conduct vote fraud on any scale whatsoever? Srsly? Think like a criminal. Consider the best ways to stuff a ballot box or change the outcome. Look at the evidence.

Anyway, I'm fine with ID and voting, so long as the ID is made free. Already said that.

Vladimir, your two-sentence non-responses are poetic and amusing, but content-free. As the frat boys say, come at me, bro (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/come-at-me-bro).

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, your two-sentence non-responses are poetic and amusing, but content-free. As the frat boys say, come at me, bro (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/come-at-me-bro).

The Org is an often cathartic and somewhat creative outlet for me. I had a friend who didn't get subtle humor and insults, so I made them even more subtle, it was fun.

Anyway, a response is a response, even if it's not satisfying. And stop making me feel bad; SFTS and I are never in SA at the same time and we never get to party. (Frat boy reference, sorry)

[Lemur]

Fair enough, and you have my sympathies for your lack of man-time with Strike.

Just to show I'm not lost in some left-wing loonybin of tinfoil-hatted madness, this very issue was raised (and promptly crushed) at the RNC, um, yesterday (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9497&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter).

I actually feel sorry for Pat Kerby, the Republican delegate to the Republican National Convention from Nevada who attempted to add an amendment calling for paper ballots—so nobody would have to trust in the "voter machine fairy"—at the RNC's Platform Committee on Tuesday. [...]

It was a good idea, but Kerby wasn't clear on the exact language he needed to use and that opened up the door for others on the committee—who have more confidence in unverifiable electronic voting machines than in paper ballots—to completely gut the original amendment, compared to the one originally introduced during the proceedings. [...]

Kerby's amendment finally passed, completely gutted and meaningless, and with a fair number of voice votes against it. "In the opinion of the chair," McDonnell announced, "the amendment is adopted."

[Major Robert Dump]

I was never necessarily referring to wide scale voter fraud, or organized fraud.

But considering social security fraud and credit card fraud often occur as in-person crimes or by using ones own address, I cannot discount that people would be so brazen as to try to commit in-person fraud. Nor does it make me think that an ID is any less of no-brainer.

In a national POTUS election? Probably not. More likely at a state and local level, where the numbers are smaller, the vote actually counts and the issues have a more direct affect. Also, the more "organization" the more likley of a bust, so I genuinely do not think there is some big secret drive for illegal immigrant ex-con socialists to go vote in their dead uncles name.

I also understand that the type of idiot to commit credit card fraud and have the items shipped to his house is probably not the type to engage in his civic duty of voting, but I also understand that there are likley plenty of voters who do not have the faintest clue of the electoral college and that their one fraudulant vote will not make a difference in the POTUS election.

Just make free IDs and require an ID to vote.

[Lemur]

A documented case of an elderly person being denied ID in Tennessee (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/). Yeah, State IDs need to be made free, period. It's just too damn easy for the local DMV to ignore the rules otherwise, and this is just one of several cases that have come to light. This site, for example, lists 10 documented cases of eligible voters being denied ID (http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/page?id=0046) for some reason or another in PA. Not cool.

----------------------------

Dorothy Cooper is 96 but she can remember only one election when she's been eligible to vote but hasn't.

The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote. She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.

So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.

That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.

"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center.

"I don't know what difference it makes," Cooper said. [...]

The General Assembly passed the photo ID law earlier this year, with lawmakers saying it was needed to prevent voter fraud. The legislature allocated $438,000 to provide free photo IDs for registered voters who don't have a qualified ID. [...]

In her decades of going to the polls, "I never had any problems," she said, not even before the Voting Rights Act passed in the 1960s.

In her 50-plus years working for the same family, she never learned to drive so she never needed a license. She retired in 1993 and returned to Chattanooga from Nashville.

Now, on occasion, one of her bank's tellers or a grocery store clerk will ask for photo ID when she writes or cashes a check, Cooper said.

"I've been banking at SunTrust for a long time," she said. "Sometimes they'll say, well, do you have a Social Security card?"

And she shows it to them. She also has a photo ID issued by the Chattanooga Police Department to all seniors who live in the Boynton Terrace public housing complex, but that won't qualify for voting.

Cooper's younger sister, now 91, lives in a nursing home across town. Nursing home residents and assisted living residents are exempt from the new photo ID requirement.

But Cooper, who barely needs a walker, is not.

Though she's still able to walk around her apartment without assistance and "takes daily exercise" at a community center next door, Cooper never had any children -- although she has outlived two husbands -- and relies on others for transportation.

The law "is a problem if you don't have a way of getting around," she said. "I've been voting all these years."

After Cooper was denied a photo ID Monday, Kilpatrick contacted Hamilton County's Administrator of Elections Charlotte Mullis-Morgan, who recommended that Cooper vote with an absentee ballot rather than having to stand in line with her walker again at the state center.

Absentee ballots don't require photo ID, and the new state law was crafted to allow that exception.

[Xiahou]

How about we require absentee voters to show up somewhere in person with ID to apply for an absentee ballot in addition to requiring in person voters to produce ID?

Lemur, have any of your voting conspiracy buddies examined the effects of early/absentee voting on the accuracy of exit polls?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't like absentee ballots, even though I use them since my uni is away from my registered residence.

Voting day should be a national holiday in my opinion.

Finally, the following are identity documents in the united states as compliled by wikipedia. Obviously many are probably not recognized as official id's in different states, but there should be enough that I think the vast majority would be able to have at least one of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States

[Lemur]

How about we require absentee voters to show up somewhere in person with ID to apply for an absentee ballot in addition to requiring in person voters to produce ID?
Since absentee ballots are the best-documented mode for vote fraud, you are assuming either party has a vested interest in cleaning it up. I would suggest that there is no evidence to support this position.


Lemur, have any of your voting conspiracy buddies examined the effects of early/absentee voting on the accuracy of exit polls?
I'll keep an eye out for any articles that contain hard data and/or statistical analysis. As I said earlier in the thread, even if you completely dismiss paperless voting machines, the core of my argument still stands: In-person voter fraud is the least effective and least likely method for fraud. And as I said earlier, I doubt you would be so sanguine and chill about partisan control of voting machines with no paper trail were someone besides Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/machine-politics-in-the-digital-age.html) given the tempting scenario.

Lastly, do you agree that if state-sanctioned ID are to be required for the franchise that such ID should be made free?

[Strike For The South]

This is literal insanity

This country has a long and glorious history of disenfranchising people. Yet when someone mentions these ID laws may be a subtle way to do just that, they get shouted down.

I am for ID laws as long as they are free (or very cheap) and easy to obtain, anything else and this is literally a poll tax

[Kralizec]

Over here you also need to ID yourself when you're voting. Seems like a no-brainer to me, personally.

According to a law they enacted the last decade you've actually got to be able to identify yourself (with an ID card or better, like a passport) at any time - if you're stopped by the police for any reason and you can't ID yourself you get fined, allthough nobody I know has ever had that happen to them as far as I know. The reason for that is that you "need" an ID of some sort for a myriad of reasons and most people would carry one even if it wasn't proscribed by law.

IIRC I had to pay somewhere around 30 euro for mine, but it varies according to where you live. The money you pay actually goes to your city/town of residency, who issues them, despite the fact that they're produced at a central location and the costs for the town are minimal. Our "supreme court" ruled last year that municipalities can't charge you for it; there was no explicit law that enabled them to do so and at the same time it can't be considered a voluntary service because having an ID is mandatory. After that our parliament introduced a retroactive law to correct this, within a couple of months - a lot faster than usual :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, even if one chooses to completely ignore paperless voting machines, that still doesn't change the equation:

People who engage in vote fraud do not use in-person voting to get the job done. Period.

I'd say the reasons for this are obvious, but that would be an insult to obvious things everywhere.

I'm not a fan of postal ballots and I'm certainly not a fan of anything paperless.

My sister takes a postal ballot, but two years ago my mother hobbled into the polling station with broken ribs and a cracked skull after falling off her horse.

So, for me, anyone who isn't hooked up to an immobile iron lung, confined to ICU etc. can get up and vote.

[Major Robert Dump]

This is literal insanity

This country has a long and glorious history of disenfranchising people. Yet when someone mentions these ID laws may be a subtle way to do just that, they get shouted down.

I am for ID laws as long as they are free (or very cheap) and easy to obtain, anything else and this is literally a poll tax


I DO NOT SEE HOW ANY OF THIS IS A POLE TAX. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STRIPPERS

[Major Robert Dump]

It appears you need an ID to get credentials to enter the DNC. Funny, although the right wing bloggers are somewhat misrepresenting it.

You do not need ID to enter, you need ID to get credentials; And, you can get credentials for an entire group, so if you fill out a group form, one person with an ID can get credentials for the entire group.


Still amusing though

http://www.demconvention.com/official-providers-distribution/

[Lemur]

Looks like a lot of the state ID laws are getting overturned. Interesting analysis (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/backlash-swells-against-voter-laws.html):

Voting experts say that beyond the legal attacks from outside groups, the biggest enemy of struck-down voter laws may be the laws themselves.

“These courts smelled a rat,” says Dan Tokaji, a professor of election law at Ohio State University’s Moritz School of Law. “State legislatures overplayed their hand and got greedy. It was transparent that the real reason for these changes was to make it difficult for some people to vote.” [...]

Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UC Irvine and the author of The Voting Wars says “some of these laws are an overreach without good reasons for their enactment—and sometimes run afoul of federal, constitutional or statutory law.”

[a completely inoffensive name]

When the vast majority of voter ID laws stem from state legislatures dominated by one political party (at the time of passing), you begin to understand how this could have come about.

While having an ID isn't like a poll tax or a literacy test, the way US politics operates makes it very naive to think that attempts at safeguarding voting integrity could not lead to organized suppression of one or more demographics. The statistics show very limited voter fraud in person anyhow, and the real problem as always is in the inherent weakness of voting on computers (Diebold).

[Major Robert Dump]

I think if u show ur breasts at the poll u should get to vote twice thats what I think

[Lemur]

Texas is trying a thing where they simply declare voters to be dead (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161145248/many-texans-bereaved-over-dead-voter-purge). Points for originality.

In Houston, high school nurse Terry Collins got a letter informing her that after 34 years of voting she was off the Harris County rolls. Sorry.

"Friday of last week, I got a letter saying that my voting registration would be revoked because I'm deceased, I'm dead. I was like, 'Oh, no I'm not!' " Collins says.

In order to stay on the rolls, the 52-year-old nurse had to call and inform the registrar of her status among the living. She tried, but it didn't go so well.

"When I tried to call I was on hold for an hour, never got anyone," she says. "I called three days in a row and was on hold for an hour or more."

Collins, who is black, says she noticed that in Houston, quite a few of those who got the letters seemed to be older and black.

"There's one lady here. She's 52. She's African-American. Her dad is 80. They both got a letter saying they're dead," she says.

Like all states, Texas regularly purges its rolls of voters who've died. Normally, this is a low-key process where the state passes along to the counties a small list of dead voters as they become available. But this massive mailing two months before the election is new.

Rich Parsons, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state, says the state is not targeting anyone but dead voters.

"We're required by law to maintain a clean and accurate voter registration list, and we're attempting to comply with that mandate," he says. "I will tell you that it was our hope to have done this after the March primary but, unfortunately, redistricting litigation delayed the primary and the associated deadlines."

Parsons says none of this is a problem; voters who've been wrongly purged from the rolls can simply show up and vote anyway.

[Vladimir]

Texas is trying a thing where they simply declare voters to be dead (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161145248/many-texans-bereaved-over-dead-voter-purge). Points for originality.

In Houston, high school nurse Terry Collins got a letter informing her that after 34 years of voting she was off the Harris County rolls. Sorry.

"Friday of last week, I got a letter saying that my voting registration would be revoked because I'm deceased, I'm dead. I was like, 'Oh, no I'm not!' " Collins says.

In order to stay on the rolls, the 52-year-old nurse had to call and inform the registrar of her status among the living. She tried, but it didn't go so well.

"When I tried to call I was on hold for an hour, never got anyone," she says. "I called three days in a row and was on hold for an hour or more."

Collins, who is black, says she noticed that in Houston, quite a few of those who got the letters seemed to be older and black.

"There's one lady here. She's 52. She's African-American. Her dad is 80. They both got a letter saying they're dead," she says.

Like all states, Texas regularly purges its rolls of voters who've died. Normally, this is a low-key process where the state passes along to the counties a small list of dead voters as they become available. But this massive mailing two months before the election is new.

Rich Parsons, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state, says the state is not targeting anyone but dead voters.

"We're required by law to maintain a clean and accurate voter registration list, and we're attempting to comply with that mandate," he says. "I will tell you that it was our hope to have done this after the March primary but, unfortunately, redistricting litigation delayed the primary and the associated deadlines."

Parsons says none of this is a problem; voters who've been wrongly purged from the rolls can simply show up and vote anyway.

So let me guess, you think Texas is racist? Because if the victim was black, it's obviously racist.

Some context as to why the state launched this initiative should help.

[Lemur]

Some context as to why the state launched this initiative should help.
If only I had linked to an easily accessible source (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161145248/many-texans-bereaved-over-dead-voter-purge) ... why didn't I do that? Why must I be bad when I could be good?

[Vladimir]

If only I had linked to an easily accessible source (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161145248/many-texans-bereaved-over-dead-voter-purge) ... why didn't I do that? Why must I be bad when I could be good?

~;) Thank you. I'm getting flashbacks to Trayvon Martin.

I was hoping you would provide the context, and not just letting us know that people can make mistakes.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's like they try everything except the actual correct course of action. What a joke.

On a lighter side, I am pleased that a thread about voting has the word butthole in the title

[Ironside]

Death and taxes. Why not combine it? Or rather, why aren't you getting the info on dead or living people from the tax office? I mean, even if you don't pay taxes, the IRS has to make sure that you don't have any income that they could tax.

[Lemur]

Useful, clickable map of alleged and convicted voter fraud since 2000 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost _none_.html).

Full, searchable, indexed database here (http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/).

[Vladimir]

How does one allege election fraud?

It looks like you're just indulging in more confirmation bias.

[Lemur]

How does one allege election fraud?
You bring a case. It may or may not be borne out in court. What News21 appears to be doing is counting cases brought as well as convictions, giving a much better picture.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first comprehensive survey of voter fraud in all 50 states, quite the labor of love. If you care about he issue, perhaps you'll take a look at the data?

[Vladimir]

Yes, the data is nice, but the question is: How does one allege voter fraud? It's much more reasonable to believe in a poor accountability system than a machine voting conspiracy.

[Lemur]

How does one allege voter fraud?
I dunno, maybe you find a known operator who has been shredding legitimate voter registrations (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/fla_voter_fraud_charge_has_ties_to_romney/singleton/) and has over a hundred fraudulent voter registration forms, and you bring charges? It helps, as with all bad things, if it's in Florida. And as I pointed out over and over again in this thread, almost every known case of voter fraud centers on mail-in ballots. Which should be forehead-smackingly obvious.

And God hates Florida.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The best way to combat voter fraud in the presidential race would be to get rid of the electoral college. Besides all the other arguments in favor, it would greatly reduce the chances of there being a tipping point state where a small number of false votes could swing things. And every potential fraudulent voter would know that.

As far as the voter ID laws, aside from what the machiavellian higher ups supposedly think, the regular republicans care about the integrity of the system--regardless of how many cases there are, we shouldn't have obvious loopholes. This is correct, especially since we should avoid giving conspiracy theorists any leg to stand on. Absentee ballots have a potential for fraud and for "you don't really care about the election huh honey? I'll fill it out for you" and they also decrease the secret ballot nature. We should only use them for special reasons.

Aside from that, we should institute a nation wide poll tax. Someone who won't pay a small amount to vote has no business voting. The idea of the divine sanction of the people is a religious superstition.

[Montmorency]

a small amount

Then what's the purpose? A tax can serve to inhibit certain actions, or to raise revenue. If it ain't revenue...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Then what's the purpose? A tax can serve to inhibit certain actions, or to raise revenue. If it ain't revenue...

Inhibition obviously...

[Montmorency]

Yes, but if you'd rather poor people didn't vote, just out and say it.

Don't put out some fluff about "caring" enough to vote or whatever.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, but if you'd rather poor people didn't vote, just out and say it.

Don't put out some fluff about "caring" enough to vote or whatever.

Poor people can vote with a small poll tax. Will they? Mostly they don't already. Something like 3 times as many college educated people vote compared to high school dropouts.

Homeless people, yes, it's absurd that they can vote. I don't know how many gallons of kool-aid someone would have to drink to think otherwise.

[Strike For The South]

e·gal·i·tar·i·an/iˌgaləˈte(ə)rēən/

Adjective:


Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.







Why do you hate poor black minorities?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

e·gal·i·tar·i·an/iˌgaləˈte(ə)rēən/

Adjective:


Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.







Why do you hate poor black minorities?

Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

It would only be an opportunity in a corrupt system where voting was the way you ensured that "your guy" got in, the guy who was going to reward you financially.

[Strike For The South]

Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

Finally, someone who understands what it means to be a true citizen of a republic. Citizenship is not just rights and privileges.

I happen to agree, but these laws are meant to ensure a certain part of the "your guy" system, not to ensure responsibility

[Montmorency]

Sasaki: you seem t believe that poor voters are more likely to be irresponsible and that a poll tax will weed out at least the most irresponsible.

That's clearly nonsense. It would merely weed out the more apathetic poor voters. Interest, as you allude to, is not equivalent to responsibility. It would only serve to further polarize the political sphere.

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

[Strike For The South]

Sasaki:

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

How about $ and a test?

Apathetic voters are precisely the reason why partisans have such a choke hold on our system.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Finally, someone who understands what it means to be a true citizen of a republic. Citizenship is not just rights and privileges.

I happen to agree, but these laws are meant to ensure a certain part of the "your guy" system, not to ensure responsibility

I think we should work harder to ensure responsibility. Honestly a poll tax would probably be insignificant. I only speak in favor of it because it's empty as an objection to the voter idea laws.

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.


Sasaki: you seem t believe that poor voters are more likely to be irresponsible and that a poll tax will weed out at least the most irresponsible.

That's clearly nonsense. It would merely weed out the more apathetic poor voters. Interest, as you allude to, is not equivalent to responsibility. It would only serve to further polarize the political sphere.

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

The thing that polarizes the political sphere is when partisans can inflate their numbers by pulling in extra voters who are apathetic enough that they don't even realize how radical the person they are voting for is.

[Montmorency]

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.

Would this demographic be more responsible? Overall, perhaps more so than the population as a whole. Not much more so, mind. It wouldn't do to rely on them alone to uphold the country. Either broaden the voting base or narrow it to the point of aristocracy for better results.


The thing that polarizes the political sphere is when partisans can inflate their numbers by pulling in extra voters who are apathetic enough that they don't even realize how radical the person they are voting for is.

Then these are no longer apathetic voters. If a partisan 'fires up' an independent...

A better argument would be that apathetic voters lean one way or another anyway and, being regularly and easily fired up, don't really exist as an expansive or even distinct category in the first place. That such voters allow an already unacceptable level of fringe influence or partisan influence to permeate the system.

Still, removing this sort of voter from the pool would give it all away to the partisans, particularly considering that the legislation you propose would create many genuine partisans. It's wholly counterproductive.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Would this demographic be more responsible? Overall, perhaps more so than the population as a whole. Not much more so, mind. It wouldn't do to rely on them alone to uphold the country. Either broaden the voting base or narrow it to the point of aristocracy for better results.

Intellectuals and rich people would have basically as much influence as before. They didn't get influence through their vote anyway, really.




Then these are no longer apathetic voters. If a partisan 'fires up' an independent...

A better argument would be that apathetic voters lean one way or another anyway and, being regularly and easily fired up, don't really exist as an expansive or even distinct category in the first place. That such voters allow an already unacceptable level of fringe influence or partisan influence to permeate the system.

Still, removing this sort of voter from the pool would give it all away to the partisans, particularly considering that the legislation you propose would create many genuine partisans. It's wholly counterproductive.

They are still apathetic...that's why campaigns focus so much on getting absentee ballots out and knocking on doors and so on. Campaigns not focusing on these voters or being able to use them would be good. Also, conservatives are rarely radical, liberals often are, and have to hide it, like when Obama pretended not to support gay marriage when he ran for office.

[Montmorency]

Intellectuals

Influence on policy? How much do they have now, aside from a broad ideological basis for policy? What are we looking for from "intellectuals", politically?


rich people

Plutocracy is what we're going for?


Also, conservatives are rarely radical, liberals often are, and have to hide it

The perspective seems heavily dependent on one's position in the spectrum...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Influence on policy? How much do they have now, aside from a broad ideological basis for policy? What are we looking for from "intellectuals", politically?

Plutocracy is what we're going for?

On the voters. Sponsoring an ad or writing a column probably affects more votes than their own.




The perspective seems heavily dependent on one's position in the spectrum...

But the truth is not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But the truth is not.

That sounds like something I would have written in 2008, back when I thought I knew it all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That sounds like something I would have written in 2008, back when I thought I knew it all.

And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.

Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.

[Strike For The South]

Ha.

You still think you know it all, just from a different perspective

[a completely inoffensive name]

And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.
Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.
Most of the changes structurally in government over the past 12 years has been from self proclaimed Conservatives. I don't think that asking for changes whether it be smaller or bigger government is radical.

If you are going to use that word as a slur, then I guess you look down on the radicals asking for women's suffrage. Overturning 120 years of traditional, male only voting is pretty radical.


Ha.

You still think you know it all, just from a different perspective

What perspective is it from now? If you say I just parrot DailyKos or HuffingtonPost again, I am going to have to start threads where I have conservative views on things.

[HoreTore]

Restricting voter turnout even more is a step backwards.

We need more people taking an active part in government(ie voting), not less. The great thing about democracy is that it is in the interest of people who believe themselves to be enlightened to make other people become enlightened, as all votes are equal(in principle, but different groups have different voter turnout, thus different power).

[Kralizec]

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.

"Invested in the countries future"? That's a stupid standard. Singles, childless couples and people between the age of 16-25 are liable to pay taxes and have to obey the law and authorities like anyone else. That's the only justification you need for franchise.

Not to mention that you and I seem to have a different idea of what "responsible" means. I've seen faces of middle aged people, presumably married with children, in photos of rallies for Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman. I don't think that either of them are responsible choices, but then again, I never argued for banning the idiot vote.


Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

You're wrong. Voting is most definitely a right.

If my government ever decides that I can't be allowed to vote because I don't conform to some guy's idea of the "responsible citizen" and can't be trusted to support their idea of what's best for the country I will start burning things to the ground. If you don't treat me like a citizen with rights I will not behave like one.

(EDIT: unfortunate choice of words - no offence intended to anyone)

[HoreTore]

You're wrong. Voting is most definitely a right.

Article 21(1) of the UDHR states pretty damn clear that voting is most definitely a fundamental right.

[Montmorency]

On the voters. Sponsoring an ad or writing a column probably affects more votes than their own.

A column? What is that, an extra half-vote per?

Sponsoring an ad? Intellectuals? Would solemn soliloquies by rarefied Ivory Tower types? .1 votes per ad, I'd bet.

So yes - cumulatively...


And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.

I was under the impression that you didn't credit notions of progress.


But the truth is not.

The truth dwells in my heart, surely.


Conservatives are pretty moderate.

You're looking to reinstate the poll tax here. As I said, it clearly depends on one's position on the spectrum.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.

The last Republican President was a religious fundamentalist - the one prior to that was his father, the one prior to that used the Religious Fundamentalists to get elected despite not being one.

Anyone who belongs to a political party in the US is already 50% of the way to being a political fundamentalist - the only people with anything like a balanced view are the independents.

This is also true in the UK, but we have (I believe) much lower party affiliations, and more parties.

So - don't go saying all the nuts are on the Left, and bear in mind that "Libertarians" would be on the Right anyway.

[Vladimir]

The last Republican President was a religious fundamentalist - the one prior to that was his father, the one prior to that used the Religious Fundamentalists to get elected despite not being one.

Anyone who belongs to a political party in the US is already 50% of the way to being a political fundamentalist - the only people with anything like a balanced view are the independents.

This is also true in the UK, but we have (I believe) much lower party affiliations, and more parties.

So - don't go saying all the nuts are on the Left, and bear in mind that "Libertarians" would be on the Right anyway.

A "religious fundamentalist," really?

I do not think that means what you think you means. If you means that he was religious, and believed in fundamentals, than yes. Otherwise, your opinion is a bit off. Varies by culture, I suppose. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A "religious fundamentalist," really?

I do not think that means what you think you means. If you means that he was religious, and believed in fundamentals, than yes. Otherwise, your opinion is a bit off. Varies by culture, I suppose. :shrug:

Um - technically it means he had a religious outlook lacking in nuance. What I really meant, however, was that he belongs to the same group of Evangelicals that can't fart without praying first, believe Gays are the work of the Devil, and supports emotional torture for women getting an abortion because you can't ban it.

We don't have ANYONE like George Bush in national politics, apart from possibly Nadine Dorries, but she's more of a laughing stock than Sarah Palin was and she's just an MP.

[Major Robert Dump]

Foul language. Please someone care to debunk this? A Student ID and a Gov't ID Card don't work without an address? For realz??


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5qoraTw&feature=share

[Strike For The South]

As a white man with a license, I don't care

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah but Sara Silverman is hot. I would like to commit fraud in her polling booth, if you know what I mean

[Strike For The South]

Can I keep an eye open?

[Major Robert Dump]

Totally up to her, just watch out for hanging chads

[Lemur]

Meanwhile ... (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9598)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc

[A] criminal election fraud complaint has now reportedly been filed with law enforcement in the state of Florida against a Republican firm, owned by a paid Mitt Romney consultant, which was hired by the GOP to carry out partisan voter registration operations in at least five battleground states.

Millions of dollars were spent on the aborted effort by the GOP over the last two months --- their largest single expenditure in several of the states where the scheme was in full tilt --- to seek out Romney supporters only, and sign them up to vote.

The strategy resulted in (or included) fraudulent registration forms collected by the firm and then submitted in Florida by the state GOP with voter addresses, signatures and party affiliations changed. Election officials in the state have told The BRAD BLOG that they fear the scheme could result in the disenfranchisement of a still-unknown number of otherwise legal voters, and they are taking extraordinary measures to try and contain the potential damage as they attempt to work through more than 45,000 new and updated registrations submitted by the GOP and verify their legitimacy.

The fraudulent voter registration forms have so far been discovered in "at least 11" FL counties at this hour, all submitted by the state Republican Party and collected by the RNC's top voter registration firm, a shell company formed in June called Strategic Allied Consulting, as owned by a notorious GOP operative named Nathan Sproul.

On Thursday night, the RNC finally fired the firm which they'd paid more than $3 million dollars over the past two months alone, for voter registration work in at least five key battleground states, and "Get Out the Vote" efforts in at least two more. [...]

FOX31 in Denver "confirmed that the young woman seen registering voters outside a Colorado Springs grocery store in a YouTube video, in which she admits to trying to only register voters who support Mitt Romney, was indeed a contract employee of Sproul's company."

FOX31 goes on to quote Miller telling them that "We are not aware of any voter registration irregularities from our efforts to register voters."

The local news outlet then wisely adds: "Of course, the state has little way of knowing if some registration forms were filled out and then discarded."

[Papewaio]

Meh we have the AEC here which is a statuary body headed by a Federal Court judge (active or retired)

It's primary aim is:

"Maintain an impartial and independent electoral system for eligible voters through active electoral roll management, efficient delivery of polling services and targeted education and public awareness programs."

[Major Robert Dump]

She is a babe

[Lemur]

Meh we have the AEC here which is a statuary body headed by a Federal Court judge (active or retired)
But ... but ... FREEDOMS!

[Papewaio]

But ... but ... LIBERTY!

:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Is butthole bandits a real series?

Google it and it shows up third in the results. Or so I've heard.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think so, I made it up. I was going to use some others, but it turned out they were all taken. I won't say the names because I don't want to get in trouble, but it's kind of funny when you think of a phonetically catchy phrase for an adult movie and then google it and see its already been done.

I think there is a gaming group called this. I have seen them on Steam.

What is discerning is that this thread shows on the first page of google.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Restricting voter turnout even more is a step backwards.

We need more people taking an active part in government(ie voting), not less. The great thing about democracy is that it is in the interest of people who believe themselves to be enlightened to make other people become enlightened, as all votes are equal(in principle, but different groups have different voter turnout, thus different power).

Really? It's in their interest to make everyone enlightened? :stare:

In any decent country the majority of people should have no need of paying attention to politics.


"Invested in the countries future"? That's a stupid standard. Singles, childless couples and people between the age of 16-25 are liable to pay taxes and have to obey the law and authorities like anyone else. That's the only justification you need for franchise.

Having the franchise isn't a right.



If my government ever decides that I can't be allowed to vote because I don't conform to some guy's idea of the "responsible citizen" and can't be trusted to support their idea of what's best for the country I will start burning things to the ground. If you don't treat me like a citizen with rights I will not behave like one.


You make my argument for me :2thumbsup:

I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

If you lived in a country like greece or something that was ruining itself, and there was a method of restricting the franchise that would improve things, wouldn't you be for it (assuming it was possible, this is like a thought experiment). Is voting that important to you?


A column? What is that, an extra half-vote per?

Sponsoring an ad? Intellectuals? Would solemn soliloquies by rarefied Ivory Tower types? .1 votes per ad, I'd bet.

So yes - cumulatively...

Eh, averages don't mean anything. Some do nothing, a few shift the whole campaign.


I was under the impression that you didn't credit notions of progress.

I don't credit the ideology of progress.



You're looking to reinstate the poll tax here. As I said, it clearly depends on one's position on the spectrum.

I'm not really conservative.

[Kralizec]

Having the franchise isn't a right.

It is under your law, under my law and several international treaties.


You make my argument for me :2thumbsup:

I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

If you lived in a country like greece or something that was ruining itself, and there was a method of restricting the franchise that would improve things, wouldn't you be for it (assuming it was possible, this is like a thought experiment). Is voting that important to you?

That's an interesting dilemma - chosing between "the will of the people" and "good governance". I have some objections to your idea, principal and practical.

For the principal part: my right to vote is a key part of my identity as a citizen. If I don't get to vote in someone to represent me in the machinery of government, what reason do I have to give it my allegiance? Why should I obey its laws, when I think I can get away with it? Every regime on Earth has its supporters and oponents; what's special about democracy is that you can say: "I think this policy is bad, but the majority thinks it's good, and I'll have to accept that".

You could say that it's in my interest to obey the government because it knows best, and takes care of my interests as well. Which brings me to the practical objections. Short answer: I don't think that limited suffrage will produce better governance. People always take their self-interest into account, to varying degrees. Your idea of limiting suffrage to couples with kids: it's one thing, entirely legitimate, to ensure the interests of future generations are not harmed by short-sightedness. But not having kids is a legitimate choice, and sometimes not a choice, and people should not be penalised for it. People without children are still citizens and shouldn't be written off on the mere ground that they don't produce future citizens.

You said you don't trust yourself to vote on stuff like education on the grounds that you don't have kids. If you were Swiss this might be a concern. But you don't vote on these issues directly, you elect congressmen, governors and presidents to decide the totality of policies on your behalf.

[Montmorency]

I'm not really conservative.

Yes, you come off as a reactionary. :shrug:


I would give up my vote in a second for a system that did a better job of electing good people. Even if you don't think my suggestion is any good, surely you can agree with that?

Sort of. I'd be willing to support political expediency and tactical application of social influence to the highest degree and at the highest level. Does that sound pleasing to you?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is under your law, under my law and several international treaties.

Treaties, schmeaties. In a country that hasn't agreed to the treaties, and doesn't have the law, would you say they have no right to vote?



For the principal part: my right to vote is a key part of my identity as a citizen. If I don't get to vote in someone to represent me in the machinery of government, what reason do I have to give it my allegiance? Why should I obey its laws, when I think I can get away with it?

Why is part of your identity? Some countries ran for a long time on limited suffrage and people were happy with it. The expansion often had unforeseen and unfortunate effects.


You could say that it's in my interest to obey the government because it knows best, and takes care of my interests as well. Which brings me to the practical objections. Short answer: I don't think that limited suffrage will produce better governance. People always take their self-interest into account, to varying degrees. Your idea of limiting suffrage to couples with kids: it's one thing, entirely legitimate, to ensure the interests of future generations are not harmed by short-sightedness. But not having kids is a legitimate choice, and sometimes not a choice, and people should not be penalised for it. People without children are still citizens and shouldn't be written off on the mere ground that they don't produce future citizens.

But the point is not to treat the ability to vote as a reward to distribute to the most people, or to punish people by depriving it. The point is simply in the function: having the people as a check or influence on the government. And the right thing to do is to maximize their ability to carry out that function well.


Yes, you come off as a reactionary. :shrug:

Strict conservatism doesn't work as a philosophy because the status quo always changes. The status quo changes, and it's conservative to oppose it, but after a couple generations the changed world the new status quo. Being reactionary is just looking at the past and saying "the conservatives back then had a point". There's nothing goofier than conservative republicans idolizing radicals like the Boston tea partiers just because they are traditional heroes.


Sort of. I'd be willing to support political expediency and tactical application of social influence to the highest degree and at the highest level. Does that sound pleasing to you?

I don't understand.

[Montmorency]

Strict conservatism doesn't work as a philosophy because the status quo always changes. The status quo changes, and it's conservative to oppose it, but after a couple generations the changed world the new status quo. Being reactionary is just looking at the past and saying "the conservatives back then had a point". There's nothing goofier than conservative republicans idolizing radicals like the Boston tea partiers just because they are traditional heroes.

A "yes" would have sufficed.


Why is part of your identity? Some countries ran for a long time on limited suffrage and people were happy with it. The expansion often had unforeseen and unfortunate effects.

Do you believe that there have been no desirable consequences, or that the bad ones outweigh the good ones?


I don't understand.

As Marx would have permitted the possession of petty property, so here would the exercise of petty liberties be permitted.

[Lemur]

And then we have things like this (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/04/new-mexico-republican-official-caught-training-polls-challengers-to-suppress-votes/), seemingly well-documented.

A liberal group in New Mexico claims to have undercover video showing the vice chair of the Sandoval County Republican Party training poll challengers to use illegal tactics that could suppress voters’ rights. [...]

[F]ormer Republican Sandoval County Commission candidate Pat Morlen misinformed voters about ID requirements and assistance for Spanish-speaking citizens.

“At the request of two or more precinct board members of different political parties, a voter shall still present the required physical form of identification,” Morlen says in the video. [...]

The trainer also falsely claims that voters who changed their address but stayed in the same voting district should receive a provisional ballot and that no assistance would be provided to non-English speaking voters.

Morlen, who is now a tea party activist, later mocks disabled voters in New Mexico.

“In this state, if you’re in a coma [laughing] and your parent wants you to vote, they can vote for you,” she quips. “My own opinion is if the person can’t even say their name, at least their name, I don’t see why they should be voting.”

[Lemur]

Why are Democrat operatives trying to subvert the election process? Oh, wait ... (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud)

A campaign worker linked to a controversial Republican consulting firm has been arrested in Virginia and charged with throwing voter registration forms into a dumpster.

The suspect, Colin Small, 31, was described by a local law enforcement official as a "supervisor" in a Republican Party financed operation to register voters in Rockingham County in rural Virginia, a key swing state in the Nov. 6 election. He was arrested after a local business owner in the same Harrisonburg, Va., shopping center where the local GOP campaign headquarters is located spotted Small tossing a bag into the trash, according to a statement Thursday by the Rockingham County Sheriff’s office. The bag was later found to contain eight voter registration forms, it said. The arrest was reported Thursday night by WWBT-TV in Richmond.

... Move Along, Nothing to See Here, No Republican Would Mind if an Obama Relative Bought the Voting Machines for Swing States, and Anyone Who Says Different is a Conspiracy Nut ... (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment)

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

"Late last month, Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis at FreePress.org broke the story of the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital investment team involved in H.I.G. Capital which, in July of 2011, completed a "strategic investment" to take over a fair share of the Austin-based e-voting machine company Hart Intercivic," according to independent journalist Brad Friedman.

But Friedman is not the only one to discover the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines.

Truth out reports: "Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House."

Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.

[rvg]

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

Why isn't this front page news on every network?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They invested a relatively small amount of money in H.I.G capital:


H.I.G. Capital – Private Equity – A $3.5 billion platform focusing on leveraged buyouts, management buyouts and leveraged recapitalizations of established and profitable manufacturing and service companies as well as growth capital investments in less mature companies.

Who owns part of the voter machine company. In no way shape or form is this Tagg Romney "buying voter machines".

This is low grade conspiracy theory stuff.

[Strike For The South]

BUT ROMNEY IS BUISNESS

HE HAS TO PLAY DIRTTY

[Strike For The South]

Its called a conflict of interest. Even a whiff of foul play should be scrutinized.

Shades of Diebold, i swear.

You know who also had a conflict of interest?
The founding fathers
Boom

[Sasaki Kojiro]

BUT ROMNEY IS BUISNESS

HE HAS TO PLAY DIRTTY


47% OF OHIO VOTERS HAVE PENSION FUNDS HANDLED BY THE X.Y.Z CAPITAL FUND

ROMNEY ALSO HAS INVESTMENTS IN THIS FUND, THEREFORE HE CONTROLS THEM

HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF THEIR NAMES

THE NEW YORK TIMES CONFIRMS that romney has investments

[Lemur]

Oh, and the Virginia DA is refusing to prosecute the fella who was caught dumping voter registrations. Lovely stuff.

As for the voting machines, and who sits on the boards of the private companies that manufacture and maintain them, I think this blogger (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9628) summed it up well.

[W]e're reminded of the dangers of the privatization of our once-public electoral system. The company's ties to Romney aren't the only disturbing ones we've seen with similar companies over the years. The fact is, that nobody other than the public should have any sort of control of our elections. The proprietary voting systems now in use in all 50 states, whether owned by Romney associates, a George W. Bush associate (as with Diebold in 2004) or even a company tied to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (as with Sequoia Voting Systems which blatantly lied about that tie to public officials, and the Canadian firm Dominion which purchased Sequoia and also immediately lied about the fact that Intellectual Property of their voting systems used all across the U.S. is still owned by the Venezuelan firm), continue to be a grave threat to American democracy and confidence in U.S. Elections.

[Major Robert Dump]

Please go back to paper voting.

There is no reason not to use paper voting.

I cannot take any argument about costs of paper voting seriously when Senators and Reps have staffs of 25 people, office budgets in the millions, and they sit on their asses all day and manage not to pass any laws. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when we pay an illiterate guy in Afghanistan 7k USD to build some concrete steps from a porch to the sidewalk. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when the fat lady at the Sam Houston dining facility who uses the clicker to do headcount for chow makes $20 an hour.

I mean, of all the things we should be willing to accept a higher cost for, one would think it would be to hold free and fair elections. I seem to recall something in a class once that said that stuff was important.

[Major Robert Dump]

That chick does not make 20/hour... You have to be lying. :-(

She makes 20 an hour.

[Strike For The South]

Please go back to paper voting.

There is no reason not to use paper voting.

I cannot take any argument about costs of paper voting seriously when Senators and Reps have staffs of 25 people, office budgets in the millions, and they sit on their asses all day and manage not to pass any laws. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when we pay an illiterate guy in Afghanistan 7k USD to build some concrete steps from a porch to the sidewalk. I cannot take talks of costs of paper voting seriously when the fat lady at the Sam Houston dining facility who uses the clicker to do headcount for chow makes $20 an hour.

I mean, of all the things we should be willing to accept a higher cost for, one would think it would be to hold free and fair elections. I seem to recall something in a class once that said that stuff was important.

Then Romney would just buy paper, YOU FOOL

[Lemur]

Then Romney would just buy paper, YOU FOOL
Amusing, but you might want to have a serious think about the implications of private companies holding the keys to our voting process. Imagining plausible conflicts of interest will not strain your brain.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, it is a conflict of interest and has the potential to lead to bad things, but MY GUY would never abuse the process.......
MY GUY resigned from the company before they got that golden contract that they did a crummy job contracting.....
MY GUY uses a blind trust, it's blind I swear, so MY GUY would never vote on an issue that affects his pocket book because MY GUY uses a blind trust, yeah....

In the 2nd debate the thing that really grated me was when Romney shot back at Obama over Chinese investments, and Obama's comeback was basically "well you have more than I do and I don't check mine as often as you do."

It's no longer a question of whose hand is in the cookie jar. Now we just argue who has more cookies

[Kralizec]

The first election I voted in (EU parliament) was with a machine. I'm pretty sure that every election since I've voted on paper. Voting computers have been used in other parts of the countries for local elections, but the types that were used in the Netherlands so far were banned alltogether a couple of years ago.

If voting machines are potentially unsafe then they should not be used, period. Besides the fact that they're distrusted by so many people should be reason enough not to want them. Spending a little money and some extra dead trees is not an unreasonable expense for a fair and trusted election.

On a different note - over here you can sit on your couch and still receive the papers required for voting from your home town, assuming of course you're a registered resident. I don't understand why people should have to register themselves in order to vote.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Romney's incredibly slim financial interest is in solely in the voting machine company doing well, so his interest is in the machines being invulnerable to tampering. Investing in a company that has invested in a voting machine company is such an absurd thing to see as sinister. Assuming that conspiracy theory bradblog guy is correct about the financial connection in the first place...


“Not only does Solamere have no direct or indirect interest in this company [Hart Intercivic], Solamere and its partners have no ownership in this company, nor do they have any ownership in nor have made any investments in the fund that invested in the voting machine company,” the spokesman said.

So while Solamere does partner with HIG on investments, none of those investments involve Hart Intercivic. HIG may be simultaneously managing investments with both companies, but the investments are kept separate, as required by law. Put simply, Tagg Romney is not an “investor in a voting machine company.”


MY GUY uses a blind trust, it's blind I swear, so MY GUY would never vote on an issue that affects his pocket book because MY GUY uses a blind trust, yeah....

You really think it's plausible that Romney cares about making more money?

[Montmorency]

Romney's incredibly slim financial interest is in solely in the voting machine company doing well, so his interest is in the machines being invulnerable to tampering.

'Romney has no interest in tampering with voting machines because it's not his interest'?


“Not only does Solamere have no direct or indirect interest in this company [Hart Intercivic], Solamere and its partners have no ownership in this company, nor do they have any ownership in nor have made any investments in the fund that invested in the voting machine company,” the spokesman said.

So while Solamere does partner with HIG on investments, none of those investments involve Hart Intercivic. HIG may be simultaneously managing investments with both companies, but the investments are kept separate, as required by law. Put simply, Tagg Romney is not an “investor in a voting machine company.”

Certainly something in need of careful verification.

[Lemur]

Romney's incredibly slim financial interest is in solely in the voting machine company doing well
Yep, nothing suspicious here, so let's get back to the real threat: in-person vote fraud! (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/romney_linked_voting_machine_company_to_count_votes_in_ohio/)

Voting machine provider Hart Intercivic will be counting the votes in various counties in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Colorado and elsewhere throughout the country come Nov. 6 — even though it has extensive corporate ties to the Mitt Romney camp, and even though a study commissioned by the state of Ohio has labeled its voting system a “failure” when it comes to protecting the integrity of elections. [...]

Four of the HIG directors, Tony Tamer, John Bolduc, Douglas Berman and Brian D. Schwartz, are Romney bundlers along with former Bain and HIG manager Brian Shortsleeve, and, according to Opensecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics, HIG Capital has contributed $338,000 to the Romney campaign this year. [...]

The Hart system performed “poorly” because unauthorized individuals could gain access to memory cards and “easily tamper” with core voting data, and Hart scored a “zero” on the 12-step baseline comparison because it “failed to meet any of the 12 basic best practices” necessary to have a secure system. [...]

The Project Everest report asserted that the Hart system “lacks the technical protections necessary to guarantee a trustworthy election under operational conditions.” Ultimately, it concluded with words that may prove haunting come Nov. 6: “The vulnerabilities and features of the system work in concert to provide ‘numerous opportunities to manipulate election outcomes or cast doubt on legitimate election activities … virtually every ballot, vote, election result, and audit log is ‘forgeable or otherwise manipulatable by an attacker with even brief access to the voting systems.’ ”

[Strike For The South]

Amusing, but you might want to have a serious think about the implications of private companies holding the keys to our voting process. Imagining plausible conflicts of interest will not strain your brain.

ok then I will also believe that Bill Ayers controls Obamas presidency from his basement

Ghosts, ghosts everywhere

[Lemur]

ok then I will also believe that Bill Ayers controls Obamas presidency from his basement
You're always funny, Strike, but you're not normally dense.

Read up. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/) Consider the problems inherent in handing the keys to elections to private companies. Really, this ain't rocket science, nor is it tinfoil hat land.

People are scummy and will quickly seize any advantage. This is not a Republican or a Democrat thing, it's a human nature thing. You simply do not leave the cookie jar unguarded.

[Strike For The South]

You're always funny, Strike, but you're not normally dense.

Read up. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/30/technology/election_diebold/) Consider the problems inherent in handing the keys to elections to private companies. Really, this ain't rocket science, nor is it tinfoil hat land.

People are scummy and will quickly seize any advantage. This is not a Republican or a Democrat thing, it's a human nature thing. You simply do not leave the cookie jar unguarded.

The more troubling thing to me is that this system failed the saftey tests and everyone seems apathetic.

I'm not interested in playing six degrees of Romney, the man has money everywhere and could be tied to every major company in America if you looked hard enough. Hell my emaciated 401k probably has investments I would find morally iffy. Romney doesn't know what investments his investments make, nor his son.

But for a moment, let's assume this is true. There is enough democratic power in Ohio to at least call for an investigation on the merits of these crappy machines. So why not? If they are failing election tests, coupled with their supposed handlers, why is this story still on the fringes?

[Lemur]

If they are failing election tests, coupled with their supposed handlers, why is this story still on the fringes?
I don't know that Salon, CNN Money, and Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/paper-prophets-why-e-voting-is-on-the-decline-in-the-united-states/) are what you'd call "fringe." And apparently many states lack the money to switch away from the private companies. For now.

Ernest Zirkle was puzzled. The resident of Fairfield Township in Cumberland County, NJ, ran for a seat on his local Democratic Executive Committee on June 7, 2011. The official results showed him earning only nine votes, compared to 34 votes for the winning candidate.

But at least 28 people told Zirkle they voted for him. So he and his wife—who also ran for an open seat and lost—challenged the result in court. Eventually, a county election official admitted the result was due to a programming error. A security expert from Princeton was called in to examine the machines and make sure no foul play had occurred. Unfortunately, when he examined the equipment on August 17, 2011, he found someone deleted key files the previous day, making it impossible to investigate the cause of the malfunction. A new election was held on September 27, and the Zirkles won. [...]

In 2008, 16 voters in West Virginia "reported vote flipping on the state's touchscreen direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. All reported that when they selected Obama, the machine switched their vote to McCain." That same year in seven Texas counties that collectively used voting machines from three different vendors, voters selected the straight-ticket Democratic option only to have their votes changed to straight-ticket Republican.

The errors don't stop there. A similar problem was reported in Craven County, North Carolina, in 2010. A technical glitch in Butler County, Ohio, caused 200 votes to go uncounted in 2008. In Pennington County, South Dakota, in 2009, a computer responsible for tabulating the vote totals from multiple individual voting machines malfunctioned. It added thousands of imaginary votes to the total. (Luckily, the mistake was caught after election officials noticed that the total was inconsistent with the figures reported by individual machines.)

Joe Hall, an e-voting expert at the Center for Democracy and Technology, tells us these kinds of glitches are unsurprising given the decentralized way the United States organizes its elections.

[Major Robert Dump]

I went to vote early today, but got the polling machine mixed up with a Red Box, and when I tried to vote for Obama I ended up getting some Tyler Perry movie about a fat grandma

[Lemur]

This demonstrates why in-person voting fraud is maybe the stupidest idea ever (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/) (and why no self-respecting criminal enterprise would use it at scale)

Investigators today arrested a Southern Nevada woman suspected of trying to vote twice this week at two different polling locations.

Roxanne Rubin was taken into custody as she arrived for work at the Riviera hotel-casino, investigators said. Rubin, 56, is a registered Republican who lives in Henderson, according to the Clark County Registrar.

Rubin allegedly cast a vote Monday at the Anthem Community Center in Henderson. Later that day, she tried to vote a second time at an early voting location on Eastern Avenue, investigators said.

When Rubin arrived at the second location, a poll worker conducted a routine database check and found Rubin had already voted. When confronted by the poll worker, Rubin denied having voted and claimed the database used by the poll worker was wrong. [...]

Rubin was booked into the Clark County Detention Center on one felony count of voting twice in the same election.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't get this:


As if databases are always right. And why are the feds involved, this is obviously a local matter. And why is this a felony? Who was at all harmed??


And...

I really am amazed that someone would be so stupid as to try to vote twice in this fashion given that Nevada does check identity for just this reason.

In California, however, it is trivial to vote multiple times. All that is needed is for someone go to a polling place, give the name of a valid voter in that precinct, and then sign the roll. No ID is required, and if asked for the request can be refused. The poll worker MUST let you vote.

Given that there is usually about 40% of the population who do not show up, there are good odds you can pick a name from the rolls and get away with this.

Note that the issue of citizenship or being registered doesn't even come into play.

[CrossLOPER]

49.99
I admire your commitment to the cause.

[Greyblades]

I admire your commitment to the cause.

Again, Who the heck pays for porn anymore?

[Lemur]

I wish the voting machines would just hurry up and tell us who won. (http://harpers.org/archive/2012/11/how-to-rig-an-election/?single=1)

Diebold, then one of the primary manufacturers of voting machines, had left the 40,000 files that made up its Global Election Management System (GEMS) on a publicly accessible website, entirely unprotected. Diebold was never able to explain how its proprietary tabulation program ended up in such an exposed position. Harris downloaded the files, and programmers worldwide pounced, probing the code for weaknesses. [...]

GEMS turned out to be a vote rigger’s dream. According to Harris’s analysis, it could be hacked, remotely or on-site, using any off-the-shelf version of Microsoft Access, and password protection was missing for supervisor functions. Not only could multiple users gain access to the system after only one had logged in, but unencrypted audit logs allowed any trace of vote rigging to be wiped from the record.

The public unmasking of GEMS by an average citizen (who was not a programmer herself) served as a belated wake-up call to the world’s leading computer-security experts, who finally turned their attention to America’s most widely used voting systems. Damning reports have since been issued by researchers from Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Rice, and Stanford Universities, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Government Accountability Office (none of them institutions hospitable to “tinfoil hat” conspiracy theorists).

[Tellos Athenaios]

Microsoft Access?? :shocked: :jawdrop: :fainting:



Never was the phrase "nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" more appropriate.

[drone]

Don't forget, Diebold makes ATMs, so they should know how to secure these machines properly.

[Tellos Athenaios]

ATMs are not really the pinnacle of security. At least software tends to be off the shelf components (i.e. Windows du jour, plus connection with the bank's DB) and stuff never gets patched, plus runs outdated standards. For instance a late 90's ATM almost certainly uses outdated crypto.

[Lemur]

Yeah, and then there's the issue of screen calibration. Which should be a no-brainer. But when you combine corrupt businesses with incompetent local election officials ... why, nothing can go wrong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

Now, as geeks, we can all look at that and say, "Screen calibration. Duh." But for the seventy-year-old in the booth? Gah. Double-gah. Triple-gah.

As I said to Strike elsewhere, we need to re-work electronic voting from the mother-loving ground up. Or toss it in the rubbish bin for a while. Something. Anything. The flaws, incompetence, and vulnerabilities in e-voting as currently implemented are intolerable.

[Lemur]

And damn those dirty Democrats for trying to tamper with the ... uh ... nevermind ... (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/06/oregon-election-worker-fired-for-altering-ballots-to-republican-straight-ticket/)

An election worker in Oregon is facing a criminal investigation for allegedly altering multiple ballots to benefit Republican candidates.

In a press release on Monday, Clackamas County spokesperson Tim Heider said that 55-year-old Deanna Swenson had been “relieved of duty immediately after the alleged ballot tampering was discovered.”

Swenson, who was registered as a Republican, was accused of filling in a Republican straight ticket on ballots where voters did not specify a choice. [...]

“At this point, it is unclear how many ballots the employee at issue had access to, or what will be done with those ballots,” the sheriff’s office said on Monday.

At a Monday emergency meeting, officials in Clackamas County announced that the altered ballots would not be counted. Since ballots were anonymous, disenfranchised voters would not be given a chance to re-cast their votes.

[drone]

Yeah, and then there's the issue of screen calibration. Which should be a no-brainer. But when you combine corrupt businesses with incompetent local election officials ... why, nothing can go wrong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

Now, as geeks, we can all look at that and say, "Screen calibration. Duh." But for the seventy-year-old in the booth? Gah. Double-gah. Triple-gah.
A true geek would have pushed Jill Stein, to see if Obama gets checked. If yes, calibration issue, if no, nefarious software.

[Lemur]

Well thank goodness there are Tea Party groups ready to monitor elections and keep things ... uh ... nevermind ... (http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/11/05/true-the-vote-forged-signatures-to-get-observers-at-ohio-polls/)

Yesterday we reported that True the Vote was attempting to place observers at precincts in Central Ohio, focusing on African American districts. We also noted that there might be some problems with the forms they submitted to the Franklin County Board of Elections (FCBOE).

The FCBOE met today and determined that True the Vote had likely falsified the forms submitted for general election observers. The new observer forms, filed over the past few days by True the Vote representative (and Hilliard Tea Party Member) Jan Loar, used candidate signatures copied from a previous set of forms filed in early October

All but one (Scott Rupert, an independent for U.S. Senate) of the six candidates whose names appeared on the original form had withdrawn permission to use their signatures prior to the submission of today’s forms. During the BOE meeting Candidate Terri Jamison spoke up to say her name was “forged” on the latest round of forms.

The form for appointing observers reads ‘election falsification is a 5th degree felony’.

[Lemur]

As I have posted elsewhere, now is the time to talk seriously about voter ID and reforming/abolishing e-voting. Now. Not leading up to a national election.

If anyone in power makes an honest gesture toward vote reform now, I will be impressed.

Before? Not so much.

[Lemur]

An apt graphic:

https://i.imgur.com/v6m70.gif

[Papewaio]

So vote with your money seems to be the way to go.

[lars573]

Makes me so glad that when I vote it's on a piece of paper, that by law I'm required to put into the box myself.

[Lemur]

Florida, online absentee ballot requests, a primary election: What could possibly go wrong? (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/18/17314818-cyberattack-on-florida-election-is-first-known-case-in-us-experts-say?lite)

An attempt to illegally obtain absentee ballots in Florida last year is the first known case in the U.S. of a cyberattack against an online election system, according to computer scientists and lawyers working to safeguard voting security.

The case involved more than 2,500 “phantom requests” for absentee ballots, apparently sent to the Miami-Dade County elections website using a computer program, according to a grand jury report on problems in the Aug. 14 primary election. It is not clear whether the bogus requests were an attempt to influence a specific race, test the system or simply interfere with the voting. Because of the enormous number of requests – and the fact that most were sent from a small number of computer IP addresses in Ireland, England, India and other overseas locations – software used by the county flagged them and elections workers rejected them.

Computer experts say the case exposes the danger of putting states’ voting systems online – whether that’s allowing voters to register or actually vote. [...]

The primary election in Miami-Dade County in August 2012 involved state and local races along with U.S. Senate and congressional contests (see a sample ballot here). The Miami Herald, which first reported the irregularities, said the fraudulent requests for ballots targeted Democratic voters in the 26th Congressional District and Republicans in Florida House districts 103 and 112. None of the races’ outcomes could have been altered by that number of phantom ballots, the Herald said.

Overseas “anonymizers” -- proxy servers that make Internet activity untraceable -- kept the originating computers’ location secret and prevented law enforcement from figuring out who was responsible, according to the grand jury report, issued in December. The state attorney’s office closed the case in January without identifying a suspect.

[HoreTore]

Is there any good reason at all for a single election to be done in a zillion different ways?

Why on earth isn't the US election process standardized yet? How is that so hard to do?

[Lemur]

Virginia man pleads guilty to forging Newt Gingrich primary signatures (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/virginia_man_pleads_guilty_to_forging_newt_gingrich_primary_signatures/)

A Virginia man pleaded guilty to charges that he forged primary campaign ballots for Newt Gingrich during the 2012 Republican primary, to ensure that Gingrich got on the state’s ballot.

WVIR-TV (http://www.nbc29.com/story/22627644/bassett-man-pleads-guilty-to-voter-fraud-forgery) reports:

In December of 2011 Newt Gingrich needed 10,000 signatures to get his name on the Virginia presidential primary ballot. Adam Ward, 28, collected more than 11,000 signatures according to prosecutors. More than 4,000 signatures could not be verified by investigators.

Tuesday night, Ward pleaded guilty to 36 counts of voter fraud and perjury in Augusta Circuit Court.

[Papewaio]

Shouldn't that be 7k charges.

I know this sounds weird to some but in a republic or a democracy surely vote fraud should be treated equivalent of perjury.

Perjury is lying to one branch of government. Voter fraud is lying to another. Why the soft touch?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The saddest thing about the whole thing is that no rational man would have done such a thing unless he genuinely thought that Newt Gingrich had a legitimate chance of being president in the first place.

[drone]

The saddest thing about the whole thing is that no rational man would have done such a thing unless he genuinely thought that Newt Gingrich had a legitimate chance of being president in the first place.

"Rational" and "Gingrich supporter" do not belong in the same sentence.

[rvg]

Why on earth isn't the US election process standardized yet? How is that so hard to do?

Doesn't need to be. It's adequately functional as is.

[Sir Moody]

Doesn't need to be. It's adequately functional as is.

define "adequately functional" as it seems to me you have a number of massive flaws which potentially could be (and probably are) being exploited...

[rvg]

"adequately functional" as in people get elected and nobody has any reason to suspect foul play.

[Sir Moody]

"adequately functional" as in people get elected and nobody has any reason to suspect foul play.

except for the articles linked to in this thread?

did my sarcasm detector fail?

[rvg]

except for the articles linked to in this thread?

did my sarcasm detector fail?

Can you point to a specific article describing a case of the misrepresentation of the popular election results?

[Papewaio]

Foul play happens in all areas of life. To assume that the electoral system is never abused would have to be a large assumption.

I know that Australia has issues and safeguards and still has dodgy deals been done.

I'm pretty sure the UK has had a few Rotten Boroughs in years gone pass.

I remember reading here about machines punching holes in the wrong spot, disputes about the number of votes going to various candidates.

I'm sure there is some politician who has gotten to power in a modern democracy by unethical means.

[rvg]

Foul play happens in all areas of life. To assume that the electoral system is never abused would have to be a large assumption.
There's no logical reason to assume otherwise in the absence of evidence pointing in the other direction.



I'm sure there is some politician who has gotten to power in a modern democracy by unethical means.
Can you pinpoint a specific US politician though?

Forging elections is difficult because of the everpresent opinion polls and exit polls. Those tend to be pretty accurate. There's absolutely no reason to question the outcome of any election result that conforms to the opinion polls and exit polls.

[rvg]

Actually, Kennedy is one of the more suspect presidents in our history. Ironically, the second-most suspect is the guy he beat. Then of course there's Bush Jr. but you can't call it rigged if the Supreme Court does it in plain sight can you?
Bush won fair and square. If a bunch of old Jewish Florida retirees can't tell a difference between Al Gore and Pat Buchanan on the ballot, that's not Bush's fault.


As for Opinion Polls, not accurate at all RVG. Just ask Romney's campaign.
All opinion polls except for rasmussen predicted Obama's victory. So yeah, they're pretty damn accurate.

[Lemur]

Opinion Polls, not accurate at all RVG. Just ask Romney's campaign.
Two thoughts:

1. The polling for the 2012 election was as clear as day. The problem with Romney's campaign (and the conservative media complex) was that they deliberately chose to ignore the polls, claiming they were biased by librul biasy stuff. Hence the hilariously wrong Unskewed Polls (http://www.unskewedpolls.com/) site, which was actually taken seriously. (Not to mention various pundits who would declare at length (http://www.dickmorris.com/prediction-dick-morris-tv-special-election-alert/) why all of the polls were wrong, and Mittens would win.)

2. Polling is not a good way to detect election fraud, unless it is exit polling (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Election_verification_exit_poll).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bush won fair and square.

Not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Despite what the actual results were, it ultimately came down to SCOTUS, not the people, to decide who won. Granted, there have been much sketchier ways in which a president has been elected....

[rvg]

Not exactly a fair representation of the situation. Despite what the actual results were, it ultimately came down to SCOTUS, not the people, to decide who won. Granted, there have been much sketchier ways in which a president has been elected....

No, Bush won because he got extra 500 votes in Florida. That's what got him elected, not the Supreme Court. SCOTUS merely stopped the recount.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, Bush won because he got extra 500 votes in Florida. That's what got him elected, not the Supreme Court. SCOTUS merely stopped the recount.

As far as we know, Bush had 500 extra votes since the recount was stopped. I'm not saying the world would have been better under Gore, but ultimately the due process was declared over by SCOTUS, and hence the decision was made by 9 people.

[Beskar]

No, Bush won because he got extra 500 votes in Florida. That's what got him elected, not the Supreme Court. SCOTUS merely stopped the recount.

No, Bush won because of Fox news announcing he won before the counts were even finished, so people were celebrating before the actual results. Then there was the whole butterfly ballot scandal, the overvotes/undervotes, and a bunch of various factors. The actual real result would have to involve completely redoing the vote from scratch. The difference was completely within the margin of error. Single misrecordings could have sent the vote in different directions.

[rvg]

No, Bush won because of Fox news announcing he won before the counts were even finished, so people were celebrating before the actual results. Then there was the whole butterfly ballot scandal, the overvotes/undervotes, and a bunch of various factors. The actual real result would have to involve completely redoing the vote from scratch. The difference was completely within the margin of error. Single misrecordings could have sent the vote in different directions.

Speculation is speculatory...
Dubya won Florida and with it the presidency. The rest is history.

[Ironside]

No, Bush won because he got extra 500 votes in Florida. That's what got him elected, not the Supreme Court. SCOTUS merely stopped the recount.

No, he won by 2000 votes, no 300, no 900, no 500. To be fair, the 300->900 was oversea votes, so that wasn't caused by a recount.


Speculation is speculatory...
Dubya won Florida and with it the presidency. The rest is history.

Let's put it this way. Was the winning margin small enough that some fiddling could change the result?

[rvg]

Let's put it this way. Was the winning margin small enough that some fiddling could change the result?

Certainly. But there is no evidence of any fiddling whatsoever, aside from tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.



No, he won by 2000 votes, no 300, no 900, no 500. To be fair, the 300->900 was oversea votes, so that wasn't caused by a recount.

The margin was about 500 votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000).

[Beskar]

Certainly. But there is no evidence of any fiddling whatsoever

It was within the Margin of Error. Simply honest mistakes would have been enough to skew it in either direction. Don't need any tinfoil theories.

Though there was a big issue with the butterfly ballots employed and it is known that the margin of error of those were very significant, and a source I read too long ago for my internet history was suggesting something like 500 votes meant for Bush were incorrectly done, and 3000ish for Gore (the numbers might have been bigger..)

[rvg]

It was within the Margin of Error. Simply honest mistakes would have been enough to skew it in either direction. Don't need any tinfoil theories...

That very well may be, but once again, we need specific examples of mistakes leading to miscounts. Example: the initial result in Florida gave Bush his victory. After a month of recounts the numbers were still in Bush's favor. The SCotUS did the sensible thing and stopped that exercise in futility in order for the winner to emerge and for America to have her president-elect. It was the right thing to do, it was the legal thing to do.

[Beskar]

That very well may be, but once again, we need specific examples of mistakes leading to miscounts. Example: the initial result in Florida gave Bush his victory. After a month of recounts the numbers were still in Bush's favor. The SCotUS did the sensible thing and stopped that exercise in futility in order for the winner to emerge and for America to have her president-elect. It was the right thing to do, it was the legal thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, it was probably the best decision to do at the time. There are multiple complications which could have arisen from alternative scenarios. However, the main point of contention is this statement "Bush won fair and square". That implies there are zero issues or problems which did not present themselves. However, issues did present themselves in the Florida election and this had major impact on the final result. I haven't said "Gore should have been president", I am more questioning the legitimacy of the event.

[rvg]

...the main point of contention is this statement "Bush won fair and square". That implies there are zero issues or problems which did not present themselves.
I disagree. It does not imply lack of issues, it merely implies lack of foul play.



I haven't said "Gore should have been president", I am more questioning the legitimacy of the event.
What would make you question its legitimacy? Yes, it was a close election, but so what? A very close result in an of itself does not imply any problems with the process. It amplifies certain issues that usually do not matter, but beyond that there's nothing wrong with it. There will always be people who can't properly fill out a ballot or what have you. Those ballots were invalidated and rightfully so.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What would make you question its legitimacy? Yes, it was a close election, but so what? A very close result in an of itself does not imply any problems with the process. It amplifies certain issues that usually do not matter, but beyond that there's nothing wrong with it. There will always be people who can't properly fill out a ballot or what have you. Those ballots were invalidated and rightfully so.

A close election of that kind of magnitude inherently carries with it suspicion. The United States is no stranger to rigged elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Tweed) and ultimately you had what is culturally viewed as a public election ending by a court decision.

Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.

[rvg]

A close election of that kind of magnitude inherently carries with it suspicion. The United States is no stranger to rigged elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Tweed) and ultimately you had what is culturally viewed as a public election ending by a court decision.
Boss Tweed? Seriously, that's your example? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
/Tribesman mode off
It's a bit dated.



Why do you go to such extremes to toss aside common sense and plead ignorance on the controversy of what has been and will undoubtedly continue to be called one of the most controversial decisions made by the court.
Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Boss Tweed? Seriously, that's your example? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
/Tribesman mode off
It's a bit dated.

Yeah....I don't know whether you should be the first person I ignore on the org or not. You always seem to derail a conversation from the substance of the matter by either brushing off someone entirely or by diving into trivialities. Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote. Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.




Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

Star Trek: TNG S3 Ep.10 The Defector

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000996/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): I don't know, Data, my gut tells me we ought to be listening to what this guy's trying to tell us.
Lt. Commander Data (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000653/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Your gut?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000996/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): It's just a... a feeling, you know, an instinct. Intuition.
Lt. Commander Data (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000653/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): But those qualities would interfere with rational judgment, would they not?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000996/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): You're right, sometimes they do.
Lt. Commander Data (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000653/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Then... why not rely strictly on the facts?
Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000996/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Because you just can't rely on the plain and simple facts. Sometimes they lie.

[rvg]

Yeah....I don't know whether you should be the first person I ignore on the org or not. You always seem to derail a conversation from the substance of the matter by either brushing off someone entirely or by diving into trivialities.
False. I do not brush off anyone. Those whose opinion I do not value are on my ignore list, and I never engage in any conversation with them. Let's just say that your example of shady US electoral practices wasn't great. It's 140ish years old, well over its expiration date as far as relevant evidence is concerned.


Obvious to anybody coming into this conversation on a fair level is that the reference is to cement the point that the US is far from the shining example of one man, one vote.
You say that citing evidence from the 19th century.


Quite frankly, whats even more obvious (except to you) is that such manipulation is to be expected when we are talking about elections concerning the most powerful positions on the planet.
There is a world of difference between the possibility of something happening and it actually happening. You say that such manipulations are probable based solely on the fact that they are possible. That's just not good enough.

[Ironside]

Certainly. But there is no evidence of any fiddling whatsoever, aside from tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

The margin was about 500 votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000).

And before the recounts started, there was 1784 votes in favour of Bush. And if you red the bottom parts of your link, you'll see that Gore could've won depending on the standard of counting. Let me put it this way, Bush's victory was within the margin of error for an election and that's a problem, even if you do have a fair win.

What you do want is to get a system, where there's one standard, so that a recount does give the same result and not an official 1200 vote difference. You also want a system where you can follow the recount, rather than "this machine with substandard encryption says so".

1-2% systematic difference only done during close elections and you can do it for decades before you'll see a clear tilt in the margin of error for the polls.

[Lemur]

Repeating myself, but I don't think there is a lot to take away from Bush v. Gore. The margin of victory was always going to be smaller than the margin of error. It was just a sad, unfortunate episode. Our system is not well-designed for close national elections.

[rvg]

And before the recounts started, there was 1784 votes in favour of Bush. And if you red the bottom parts of your link, you'll see that Gore could've won depending on the standard of counting.
Could've, bu didn't.


Let me put it this way, Bush's victory was within the margin of error for an election and that's a problem, even if you do have a fair win.
How is a fair win a problem?


What you do want is to get a system, where there's one standard, so that a recount does give the same result and not an official 1200 vote difference. You also want a system where you can follow the recount, rather than "this machine with substandard encryption says so".
Floridians can apportion their electoral votes whichever way their heart desires. If they want to use "this machine with substandard encryption", then more power to them. Florida gets her say in the presidential election regardless of the method, as long as the method is indicative of the will of the Floridians (and it is).


1-2% systematic difference only done during close elections and you can do it for decades before you'll see a clear tilt in the margin of error for the polls.
It's not a big deal, unless the result is consistently slanted one way or the other.

[Ironside]

Could've, bu didn't.

And that means that it was decided by the court of law afterwards, since the preset rules weren't accurate enough.


How is a fair win a problem?

You were very close to something like this: Bush, Gore, Bush, Gore, Gore, Bush. Good luck talking about fair elections after that.


Floridians can apportion their electoral votes whichever way their heart desires. If they want to use "this machine with substandard encryption", then more power to them. Florida gets her say in the presidential election regardless of the method, as long as the method is indicative of the will of the Floridians (and it is).

It's not a big deal, unless the result is consistently slanted one way or the other.

That was my point. You can have consistent slanting by only having a few key persons involved and cover it up due to lack of transparency. The only way to detect it would be to dectect that chance isn't chance anymore.

[Husar]

Because I like to base my viewpoints on evidence. Solid, concrete evidence. Not hearsay, not gut feelings. Evidence.

False. I do not brush off anyone. Those whose opinion I do not value are on my ignore list, and I never engage in any conversation with them.

Have you never thought about all the evidence you might be missing out on?
I don't think a rational, fact-based world view goes well with selecting the facts you want to read or hear about.
If you select the facts you're exposed to according to your own opinion then you may not be influenced by a lot of opinions but only by your own. While I can understand that you value your own opinion, it's nowhere near as factual as your statement about a reliance on facts suggests because the facts are apparently hand-picked.

As for the Bush v. Gore, maybe a new election would've helped. Or, ahem, not using FPTP. ~;)

[drone]

As much as I despised the Bush (43) administration, the complaints over the Florida results are just sour grapes. Gore was the Veep for one of the more popular presidents in modern times, with the economy pumping right along, and he couldn't even win his home* state. If he takes Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered. The Dems just blew the election.

* I've said before, that in reality DC is his home. Which was a huge problem with his chances, one the Dems should have taken into account during the primary campaign.

[Fisherking]

There's an awful lot to take away from Bush v. Gore. Our system was unable to let the people speak, even with all the little amendments and additions over the last 200 years to try and emulate direct democracy. The people lost, and the Court went with the reactionary option because, honestly, did you think they wouldn't? Huge lessons to take away from Bush v. Gore. When they write the history books, they'll point to that election on the timeline and say "Right there. That's where it went sideways."

I don’t know how you can say that. Our elections have been going sideways for a long time.

We know there was vote fraud in the 1960 election. It is highly likely that there was enough to make a difference in most elections since then.

We know an awful lot of registered voters don’t vote yet in many states we find voter turnout over 100% and you think it is the people?

The Florida election was much like a Washington State election, some how the more times you count the votes, the more the Democrats seem to gain. It is not that Republicans don’t try it, they just are not very good at it.

It is also a problem in registering people ineligible to vote. Something the Democrats are very apt at. That is not counting the dead, who are always said to vote Democrat.

My self, I think the best way to represent the people’s views is to call up a sample of the population like we do for jury duty, but I am sure that would be manipulated too.

[Lemur]

the complaints over the Florida results are just sour grapes.
Depends on the complaint, doesn't it? If you say, "Bush v. Gore illustrates how poorly we are set up for super-close national elections," well, that seems legit.


It is also a problem in registering people ineligible to vote. Something the Democrats are very apt at.
Indeed, look at all of the damn dirty Democrats cited in this thread, attempting to vote twice (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/), purging the rolls of legitimate voters (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161145248/many-texans-bereaved-over-dead-voter-purge), illegally disposing of voter registrations (http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556980-gop-registration-worker-charged-with-voter-fraud), altering ballots (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/06/oregon-election-worker-fired-for-altering-ballots-to-republican-straight-ticket/), signing fake names in primaries (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/06/oregon-election-worker-fired-for-altering-ballots-to-republican-straight-ticket/) ...


... oh, wait ...

[Fisherking]

So, as I said, the Dems are good at it and the Repubs a’int.

[Lemur]

Well, as I have said, I suspect both parties would sell toddlers into slavery if they thought it would help them win and they could get away with it.

That said ... the Repubs seem to be more obsessed with vote fraud, and they seem to get caught more. This indicates more of a "him who smelt it dealt it" sorta thing.

[Fisherking]

One could say that, except that is the Democrats who actively pass legislation to make it easier for fraudulent votes to be cast.

The whole process needs to be redone. Vote security needs to be taken seriously not winked or snickered at.

Why is it illegal to check voters ID or to purge rolls? Why dose 100% plus voter turn out not void a precincts results rather than just go into the count? Why are we using voting machines which give us no clue as to the legality of the vote cast or even if the votes cast were not tampered with.

Go back to paper ballots in ink with a human tally that is verifiable.

[Lemur]

One could say that, except that is the Democrats who actively pass legislation to make it easier for fraudulent votes to be cast.
You do not give the impression of having read anything in this thread.

The most common and documented avenues for vote fraud are mail-in ballots. The most prosecuted cases are for ... mail in ballots. If you can point to where either the Dems or the Repubs have done jack squat about this, either to protect the franchise or enable bad people to do bad things, put up a source, please. Oh, and there's some reasonable suspicion that there has been a level of hanky-panky with electronic vote tallies, especially the ones where there is no paper trail. This should be surprising to people missing most of their brains, and housecats. Again, show me where the Dems or Repubs are doing anything to address paperless, insecure e-voting on any level.

But I suppose you're imagining large busloads of illegals, lesbians, hippies, and brown people being taken to polls and bribed to vote with the promise of free abortions. Sound about right?

[Fisherking]

Yes, unverified mail in ballots are some of the main tools in vote fraud.

I do have a problem with bringing in non citizens to vote and a complete lack of verification of eligibility in the registration process.

So why do you stoop to attempting to imply racial bigotry or some class prejudice in your end statement.

I think that was rather small and mean spirited of you.

Are you really so narrow minded that you think those who disagree with your mind set must have something wrong with them?

[Lemur]

Yes, unverified mail in ballots are some of the main tools in vote fraud.
Well, if we're going to live in an "evidence" based universe, they appear to be the primary tool for vote fraud. Which makes your next sentence a bit of a doozy ...


I do have a problem with bringing in non citizens to vote and a complete lack of verification of eligibility in the registration process.
And here you go off the rails. Read the thread. Look at the number of in-person vote fraud cases alleged. Note how incredibly rare in-person vote fraud is. Think like an enterprising criminal for two consecutive seconds, and consider how you would go about stuffing a ballot box. I know you heard an angry white guy ranting about this on Fox News, but seriously, think for yourself for a moment.


So why do you stoop to attempting to imply racial bigotry or some class prejudice in your end statement.
Because short of hating the "other," and perhaps repeating what you heard on Rush, I can't imagine why you would make willfully ignorant points that ignore the preponderance of evidence.


Are you really so narrow minded that you think those who disagree with your mind set must have something wrong with them?
I'm fine with disagreement, as you well know. But in the information age, ignorance is a deliberate choice. And if you persist in mendaciously equating the documented and on-record series of vote fraud cases brought against Repubs (and Repub operators) with this nebulous Dem machine that buses people in and "passes laws that make vote fraud possible" (a sentence begging for some back-up if ever I met one) then I'm going to call you out.

Note that I do not suspect either the Repubs or the Dems of acting in good faith. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but either group would kill adorable puppies and offer their bloody hearts to Satan if they thought it would help them win.

But—and this is important—the Dems strategy lies in making it easier for folks to vote in-person, while the Repubs rely on voter suppression. This is a seriously important distinction, and there's plenty of examples to back it up. And—this is SUPER important—neither has made any move at all to address mail-in ballots. So what does this tell us?

That neither group gives a bleeding monkey rectum about vote fraud. It's all kabuki theater. And by repeating the Fox News points, without bothering to source or back up anything at all, or respond to a single in-thread idea, you open your argument up for ridicule.

[Fisherking]

You are off the chart over the top Lemur. Your assumptions are grossly wrong.

My news is much more filtered than that. Rush is not on in Europe but we do have news. Don’t have Fox news either. If it makes it through the spam filters here, I can usually figure there is at least some basis in fact. The only English language news stations we get are CNN International and MSNBC, so I assure you I am not subject to any right wing propaganda, just the left wing verity.

Most of the mail in ballot fraud are not even mailed in…just filled out by corrupt poll workers who are supposed to oversee the process.

But voter turnout drives in prisons and refugee communities is what I have a problem with.

Of course my Google is not the same as yours so there may be some things missed on one end or the other. The web is somewhat unequal in that regard.

I have no problem with making it easier to vote to a point. Once they go so far as to make even ID requirements an issue it has gone beyond that.

And yes both parties are corrupt and I don’t go any easier on the Rs than the Ds. The Rs just tend to be more incompetent on so many levels that they are often laughable and not a real threat.

[Lemur]

But voter turnout drives in prisons and refugee communities is what I have a problem with.
Needs citation, as the wiki folks say. The biggest issue with prisoners, from what I have read, is that they are systematically denied the franchise after they've served their time. Which strikes this Lemur as a terrible idea. In theory, we want to re-integrate as many of them as possible back into society. Doing things like making it impossible for them to vote and/or get meaningful jobs is wildly counter-productive.


I have no problem with making it easier to vote to a point. Once they go so far as to make even ID requirements an issue it has gone beyond that.
Then address the poll tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)) issue that has been raised repeatedly in-thread.

[Fisherking]

Poll tax has only one function, to discourage voting. There should be no taxes or fees when exercising ones rights.

Its origins was racially motivated just as were the literacy tests.


As to prisoners;
Many states remove their rights permanently if convicted of a felony. I am not saying it is right, only the law. And one often circumvented.

Personally I would agree that their right should be reinstated once they have served their time, if it is actually a corrections process. But they use even flimsier excuses to deprive people of their second amendment rights, don’t they? But I guess that is another thread.

[Lemur]

Poll tax has only one function, to discourage voting. There should be no taxes or fees when exercising ones rights.
Okay, but the most common form of ID in the USA (the driver's license) can cost as much as $80 (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/Get-ready-to-pay-more-for-driver-s-licenses-3897067.php), depending on state.

Most states do not make the alternative State ID free. Those that do, for impoverished residents, often do not tell anyone about the free ID option, or systematically lie about it at the DMV offices (http://youtu.be/x0G01zbHGM8).

Requiring an ID for in-person voting is a fine idea ... if you iron out the hi-jinks that turn it into a poll tax.

-edit-

And as I keep repeating, this is a great deal of heat and noise over an aspect of vote fraud that is demonstrably miniscule. Nobody in their right mind is trying to sway elections with fraudulent in-person voting. The people who tried to prove how easy in-person vote fraud was in 2012 are now on their way to prison (http://www.kpho.com/story/19990620/woman-arrested-for-attempting-to-vote-twice).

Mail-in ballots and paperless vote machines are the two clear, obvious, logical, and documented ways to stuff a ballot box. All of this attention to in-person vote fraud is ... I dunno, man, "stupid" is the word that comes to mind. It's as though your car is on fire and all you can worry about is re-organizing your glove box to make it tidy.


Many states remove their rights permanently if convicted of a felony. I am not saying it is right, only the law. And one often circumvented.
Needs citation, friend. Again, the most commonly documented problem with purging felons from the rolls (in states such as Florida) is not that the prisoners wind up voting anyway. Can you guess what the actual problem is? I will give you a shiny nickel if you can name it before clicking on this link (http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jun/05/bill-nelson/bill-nelson-compares-rick-scotts-voter-purge-2000-/).

[Fisherking]

So, your argument is the cost of ID?

Is there anyone without some means of identification? Some places used to arrest you for that.

Who cares how they set the standard but if it is required then it can be conditional that the state provides it free. Everything requires your SSN, it is de facto ID.

Mail-in ballots are most often used in recounts so far as fraud goes. And I was not defending blanket roll purges. If some one is to be removed they should be notified of the circumstance and contact information to address the issue.

My problem was with volunteers knowingly registering people not eligible. Most examples I could give are antidotal but I witnessed them, not third hand reports.

My last stateside residence was Washington State, and believe me there is no such thing as a fair election held there. It has been an issue there for most of my life, and that is a long, long time. They hardly even bother to hid it.

[Lemur]

So, your argument is the cost of ID?
Yes, I have a problem with the cost of ID. Correct. If you require a particular kind of ID, and you charge for that particular ID, you are instituting a de facto poll tax. If Grandma X (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/) does not have the right kind of ID, lives on some pittance for her retirement, and either through mobility restriction or cost cannot obtain the required ID, she cannot vote. Because of a poll tax. This is a problem.


Is there anyone without some means of identification? Some places used to arrest you for that.
The USA is scattershot and disunified in terms of what constitutes a legitimate ID. A Social Security card is not valid ID in any state that I know of. Almost every initiative to require ID at the polls specifies a driver's license or state ID (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx); many of the initiatives specifically ban university or college IDs (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69465.html) because ... well ... look at how them young whippersnappers vote.


your SSN, it is de facto ID.
Incorrect. Most forms of ID require a SSN and a birth certificate, as well as other identifying papers such as utility bills.


Mail-in ballots are most often used in recounts so far as fraud goes.
Not sure what you are saying here.


If some one is to be removed they should be notified of the circumstance and contact information to address the issue.
And if as in the case of Florida, thousands are notified at the polls, what do you recommend?


My problem was with volunteers knowingly registering people not eligible. Most examples I could give are antidotal but I witnessed them, not third hand reports.
If your examples are personal, there's no way to debate them. No idea how extensive your experience is, how many examples you have seen, what the larger repercussions were, etc. I do know, however, that the examples of fake voter registrations that have been brought up in public have almost always involved minimum-wage or volunteer workers submitting obviously falsified voter registrations for people such as Mickey Mouse. They get thrown out almost immediately, and have no impact on the actual election.

[Papewaio]

So I could as a tourist turn up at a polling booth, put on my best attempt at an 'Mercian accent and vote for whoever I wanted and no one would be the wiser?

So you have a police state that monitors all your Internet activities if they are 51% foreign. But you can't even organize a neutral electoral commission.

I'm glad the worlds only superpower and leaders of the freeworld are sell so well organized and working on their priorities.

I suppose I better get a plane ticket to the US, hire a vehicle and travel state to state voting against incumbents.

[Lemur]

So I could as a tourist turn up at a polling booth, put on my best attempt at an 'Mercian accent and vote for whoever I wanted and no one would be the wiser?
Nope, wouldn't work, not even slightly (http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/voters/registration-voting).

Our system does have some checks and balances, believe it or not.

-edit-

And if it needs saying again, those who have a simplistic idea of how easy in-person vote fraud is to commit—and tried to prove it—are on their way to jail.

[Major Robert Dump]

So apparently the State Department has been funding and pushing a program for government funded voter IDs in Kenya. Of course the knee jerk Drudgetards completely miss the big picture and use a misleading headline, and simply focus on the fact that it is voter ID supported by the WH, and not on the fact that it is FREE IDs and is a fairly simple idea that was never (as far as I recall) suggested by either party (but was suggested by Mr Lemur). So yeah, kind of comical how this just played out.

I cannot wait to necro this thread in 2015 when we go through all this garbage again because neither party wants to fix the issue, they simply want to prolong it for political capital

[Ironside]

Nope, wouldn't work, not even slightly (http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/voters/registration-voting).

Our system does have some checks and balances, believe it or not.


I'm curious, why aren't the data crossreferenced with the IRS or whatever organisations that knows where you live, because otherwise you'll never get any mail? Here you'll get registered by default as long as you have a post adress. Homeless people got it a bit harder, but that's it.

I get patchwork feeling instead of streamlined organisations.

[Papewaio]

Don't worry it's an illusion to avoid the feeling of Big Brother. It's all cross referenced in the back end.

Given bank account details. So just get an RV, go state to state. Open a local bank account. Put in enough cash for a couple nights. Come back in 3 months, get a print out of the bank account. One grey nomad is now a grey ghost voter.

Is there an electoral roll to cross your name off at the polling station?

[Lemur]

18 Months Later, S.C. Law Enforcement Closes Case on ‘Zombie Voters,’ Finds No Fraud (http://www.free-times.com/blogs/18-months-later-sc-law-enforcement-closes-case-on-zombie-voters-finds-no)

For a while last year, you couldn’t turn on Fox News without seeing S.C. GOP Attorney General Alan Wilson saying things like, “We know for a fact that there are deceased people whose identities are being used in elections in South Carolina.”

Attorney General Alan Wilson was unavailable for comment, but his spokesman, J. Mark Powell, passed along a statement.

“The initial claims reported to the Attorney General’s Office were alarming," Powell said. "They were not vague allegations, but contained specific information. The state’s chief prosecutor cannot stand by when presented with such a situation. So SLED was asked to investigate this matter. We appreciate SLED’s hard work in preparing this report.” [...]

Well, SLED has completed its work – and found nothing nefarious.

State Elections Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire says there was a time when the agency would get daily calls from members of the public who believed people in this state were casting fraudulent ballots in the name of dead people.

“It hurt the public confidence in South Carolina elections,” he says. He's glad SLED's report confirmed what the elections agency always believed: there was no fraud, merely clerical errors and genuine mistakes.

[Lemur]

Clearly a state-issued photo ID is no good for voting—at least when it involves young people (http://www.memphisflyer.com/TheBruceVBlog/archives/2014/01/21/tn-gop-votes-down-student-ids-for-voting)

Remember, this is all about preventing in-person voting fraud. No, really.

Senator Jim Kyle proposed legislation that would allow students at universities and colleges in Tennessee to use their student photo IDs to vote. The GOP legislators said, "Nah. Can't have students voting, er, no, we mean, VOTER FRAUD, VOTER FRAUD." [...]

Republican lawmakers on Tuesday batted down a proposal by state Sen. Jim Kyle to allow college ID for voter identification, similar to other states such as Arkansas and Mississippi.

“Other states have successfully allowed college ID as proof of identification without inviting voter fraud,” Sen. Kyle said. “Tennessee allows other forms of state-issued ID, such as state employee identification cards, but today the Republican majority singled out the identification every college student has as invalid for voting."

The legislation, SB 1082, would have allowed college students to use state-issued photo identification from institutions of higher learning as evidence of identification for voting. State law currently requires photo ID at the ballot box. Sen. Kyle's proposal was defeated Tuesday in the State and Local committee on a 7-2 party-line vote.

[Major Robert Dump]

Lemurs link makes me sad. America is so sad.

[Lemur]

Well, things that cannot continue don't.

I remember in the '90s, when Carnivore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)) was leaked, thinking, "None of my fellow citizens give a damn about invasive government surveillance." Seriously. Barely anybody mentioned it in the news, much less in a social or professional context. It was depressing.

And so it continued for two decades. Evidence of governmental overreach was all over the damn place, but nobody seemed to care.

And then, through some amazing confluence of the Snowden leaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)) and Obama Derangement Syndrome (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/2008s-obama-derangement-syndrome-looks-ridiculous-in-hindsight/), it became an issue. People are talking about it. Politicians are posturing about it. Suddenly it's a hot topic.

So ... the clumsy, obvious stabs at voter suppression are depressing, yeah. The attempt to paper it over by screaming VOTE FRAUD doesn't pass even the briefest, most lazy examination.

And nobody seems to care.

Just wait 20 years or so. These things have a way of coming around.

We Americans do the right thing, after we've tried every possible alternative.

[a completely inoffensive name]

After a year and a half, this title still makes me laugh. It's a shame the content within it is so damn depressing.

[Major Robert Dump]

I still don't see what's so bad about voter IDs if everyone has access to free IDs. We are, afterall, I think the only first world country with such lax rules. But the way both sides frame their arguments makes it clear no one is interested in a real "fix" because if the issue is fixed then no one can use it for political capital down the road.

Oh.... and it takes attention away from voting machines, which are so effed up that it's amazing a country that props itself up on "democracy" actually tries to find the cheapest approach to what is supposed to be the most sacred institution. I mean, really, we can't afford human tally counters, etc? We can afford all this other retarded crap, but not a fool-proof voting process, which voting machines do not provide and for that matter probably aren't any cheaper anyway (when you consider corporate tax breaks, maintenance, and all the other crony crap that goes on in awarding the machine contracts.