The voting dead - Page 2

Alferd_Packer · 25th July 2012, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by The Mutha

When I see a dog walking into a polling station and picking up a ballot, I'll be concerned... I've seen stories about dogs getting credit cards, but it doesn't mean that the dog can summarily rush out and charge a bunch of treats on his/her credit card.

there was that one husky in Utah that went shoplifting for a rawhide bone. If he had his credit card with him, maybe things would have been different. . . .

Alferd_Packer · 25th July 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Drysdale

It's not so much the dogs, as the dead.

Why is that happening?

People keep deceased family members on their phone bills.

Alferd_Packer · 25th July 2012, 05:21 PM

Why vote the cemetery when you can just change the ratio of votes in the software?

BenBurch · 25th July 2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

Why vote the cemetery when you can just change the ratio of votes in the software?

THAT we can document having happened.

Election fraud happens not infrequently, voter fraud is very rare.

Rolfe · 26th July 2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

FWIW, the thread title isn't accurate. Romney is only alleging that forms are going out to dead people. That happened for a few years after my brother died. We just threw them away, and eventually his name dropped off the list.

I'm still a bit hazy about the status of this "list". Was it the actual current voter registration list that was being used, or was it an old version? (I know the reason I got voter mail for my Mum was that the LibDems were using a very out-of-date list.)

I know that in Britain, registering a death has automatic consequences for other registrations, and one of these is that the person is automatically removed from the electoral register. That is the current one, the one they actually use at actual elections. Nobody can do anything about old copies in the possession of other people.

Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something?

Rolfe.

marplots · 26th July 2012, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something?

Rolfe.

I don't think a bad voter list is the problem. All a correct voter list would do would be to tell you who not to send registration forms to and avoid duplication. The trick is to find addresses for people who are not on the roles and get them registered, with the idea they may vote for your guy/gal.

I would be wasting money sending a form to someone already registered. So, if they die and come off the active voter list, they may be captured on another list as "not registered." In mass mailings, there is a breakpoint where making your list more accurate is more expensive than just accepting some level of error and mailing to people who aren't the target -- or, in this case, pets and the deceased.

The onus is on the recipient of the mail to either ignore it or make a fraudulent registration. Mailing the form out is not illegal, nor even unethical.

In my view, this kerfuffle is equivalent to complaining about public service announcements on TV that encourage voter registration. My dog sees the TV. My kids see it as well. As far as I know, the ghost of my dead mother is watching somewhere. Should I be upset that this population is allowed to view an ad for voter registration when they are not eligible to vote?

Rolfe · 26th July 2012, 05:14 AM

Yes, I thought it was something like that. But then it was suggested there was something slightly more sinister, in that returned forms were to go to a party and not the electoral registration office.

I know that happens here as regards postal voting forms, and it is indeed a loophole for potential and actual fraud.

What they usually do is get everyone in a nursing home or care home signed up to vote, including all the Alzheimer's patients, and then somehow get their hands on the postal vote forms when they arrive. This doesn't sound like quite the same thing though.

Rolef.

BenBurch · 26th July 2012, 05:21 AM

Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue.

So it is not at all surprising, and you'll see this almost daily until the election, for them to take something that means almost nothing and try to make it into some horrific sin that will make Democrats look evil enough to suppress voting enough that their equally-honest faithful voters will be the only ones at the polls.

They are not trying to convince me to vote for them. They are not trying to convince independents to vote for them. They are trying to confuse and disgust Democrats and independents with their lies and so achieve a record-low voter turnout that will allow them to complete their putsch.

Kestrel · 26th July 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm still a bit hazy about the status of this "list". Was it the actual current voter registration list that was being used, or was it an old version? (I know the reason I got voter mail for my Mum was that the LibDems were using a very out-of-date list.)

I know that in Britain, registering a death has automatic consequences for other registrations, and one of these is that the person is automatically removed from the electoral register. That is the current one, the one they actually use at actual elections. Nobody can do anything about old copies in the possession of other people.

Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something?

Rolfe.

I have access to the Democratic party voter database that is updated regularly from the official list from our county. Yes, there are dead people on the list. When we find out that a voter is dead, we mark them as deceased in our database and stop trying to contact that voter.

The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list.

BenBurch · 26th July 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

I have access to the Democratic party voter database that is updated regularly from the official list from our county. Yes, there are dead people on the list. When we find out that a voter is dead, we mark them as deceased in our database and stop trying to contact that voter.

The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list.

And it is expensive to do a mailing with return guarantee. You don't do that very often as a result. Most mailings are fire and forget where you never get feedback on the validity of the addresses. However, the board of elections sends out voter registration cards every election year, and they DO check the returns.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th July 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue.

Right. Pretty much for the reasons everyone else lies. You make the case for ballot security.
What would clean elections look like? A few requirements:...
a) Laws would make life unpleasant for people who prevent eligible voters from voting (e.g., the Pa. Black Panthers).
b) Laws would make life unpleasant for ineligible persons who vote (e.g., the 119 % turnout in Madison, Wis.).
c) Laws would make life unpleasant for eligible voters who vote more than once in the same contest (e.g., retirees who vote in New York and Florida, college kids who vote in their college town and their home town).
d) Individual ballots would express unambigously the voters intent (no "butterfly ballots") and be counted accurately (no "hanging chads").
e) Vote totals would be verifiable (no purely electronic voting machines. There must be a paper record).
This list is not complete. Who may run? Who gets to compose initiative wording?

Our topic in this thread has been the tension between (a) and (b). We have an issue similar to alpha and beta error in statistics or the production possibility frontier in economics.

BenBurch · 27th July 2012, 06:58 AM

So, MK, nice to see you back. Where is that election you were going to find for us?

Or was that another conservative lie?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th July 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

So, MK, nice to see you back. Where is that election you were going to find for us? Or was that another conservative lie?

Did a conservative make some promise to allocate my time?

BenBurch · 27th July 2012, 04:13 PM

Unresponsive. You claim to know of a race in the last 40 years where voter fraud changed the outcome. Show us.

Or were you making stuff up?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th July 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

...You claim to know of a race in the last 40 years where voter fraud changed the outcome.

Looks like a retarded lie to me. Can you support this? I asked if people who claim electoral fraud is not a problem would be satisfied documentation of an election in which the total of demonstrably fraudulent ballots was greater than the margin of victory.

Or were you making stuff up?[/quote]

BenBurch · 27th July 2012, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Would you be satisfied with a documented case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory? I seem to recall that that has happened. I'd have to dig for the cites.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Looks like a retarded lie to me. Can you support this? I asked if people who claim electoral fraud is not a problem would be satisfied documentation of an election in which the total of demonstrably fraudulent ballots was greater than the margin of victory.

Or were you making stuff up?

I guess you can retroactively not say that if you like. I'll stop asking because you clearly cannot cite your case.

Trakar · 27th July 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

BTW, why do you Republicans want all sorts of government money spent on a problem you cannot document exists? No Democrat would oppose you if this could be shown to be a concrete problem, but all we have are your paranoia and xenophobia and that doesn't cut it when you want to TAX people to pay for your fantasy.

Hey, "conservidiots," not all "Republicans" follow that path, and there are plenty of conservidiot Democratic politicians as well (unfortunately). I hear they are on the verge of extinction in the coming election, despite the fact that they are likely to be replaced by conservidiot Republicans, I can't say that the prospect doesn't please me. Better to run elections of clear distinctions.

Trakar · 27th July 2012, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

40+ The Kennedy victory, in Illinois, came to be suspect!

"Vote early, and often!"

actually that is 50+

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 27th July 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I guess you can retroactively not say that if you like. I'll stop asking because you clearly cannot cite your case.

Speaking of lies:...Not say what? "Last 40 years"? I did not say that. Neither did I say " voter fraud changed the outcome". I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory.

fuelair · 27th July 2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by The Mutha

When I see a dog walking into a polling station and picking up a ballot, I'll be concerned... I've seen stories about dogs getting credit cards, but it doesn't mean that the dog can summarily rush out and charge a bunch of treats on his/her credit card.

I currently have valid voter registrations cards from three different districts. If I wanted to really mess with the system, I'd run around on election day and vote in all three. But I don't do that because I know I'm only supposed to vote once and I'm sure there's some penalty if I was to get caught voting multiple times. You know, that thing called human decency, which people on one side seem to think isn't possible for people on the other side to have.

true - the voter regisration trick shows/proves the republickers lack it entirely. Most wouldn't know decency if it was tied up and thrown out on their front porches.

fuelair · 27th July 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Drysdale

It's not so much the dogs, as the dead.

Why is that happening?

Fed 'em datura and the one I always forget......

balrog666 · 27th July 2012, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

40+ The Kennedy victory, in Illinois (and Texas), came to be suspect!

"Vote early, and often!"

FIFY.

Also, 2000, where ManBearPig sycophants did everything possible to steal it in Florida until Diana Ross and the Supremes shut them down 7-2.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th July 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

1. It wouldn't cost much if Democrats and the US DOJ spent less time building roadblocks. ...

Providing those free picture IDs to tens of thousands of people cost the taxpayers money. Obtaining copies of birth certificates or what ever other documents the voter needs to get the ID, plus the cost of getting to the DMV which includes taking time off work for some also adds up in individual costs.

JoeTheJuggler · 28th July 2012, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list.

My brother died in 1980, so what we experienced (we got election reminders from the Board of Elections for him for at least 2 years) might not happen any more.

BenBurch · 28th July 2012, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Speaking of lies:...Not say what? "Last 40 years"? I did not say that. Neither did I say " voter fraud changed the outcome". I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory.

I asked you to provide one in that time frame.

Clearly, you are totally incapable of doing so.

Which means you want public money to be spent on a nonexistent problem.

Which make you a total hypocrite from a public spending policy point of view.

JoeTheJuggler · 28th July 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory.

And a few of us said yes, we would be persuaded by such a case if it were well documented and not just an allegation based on anecdotes.

Have you provided one yet?

Beerina · 28th July 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue.

And thus does the legitimacy of any word out of your mouth become suspect.

Have a nice day.

Shalamar · 28th July 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

And thus does the legitimacy of any word out of your mouth become suspect.

Just like Videogames.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 28th July 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Providing those free picture IDs to tens of thousands of people cost the taxpayers money. Obtaining copies of birth certificates or what ever other documents the voter needs to get the ID, plus the cost of getting to the DMV which includes taking time off work for some also adds up in individual costs.

Hawaii requires photo ID to vote, and has for as long as I've been voting (since 1968). If the process is clumsy, it's because government workers make it so. The DMV is a notoriously slow government bureaucracy, I agree. I stood in line for two and a half hours while between one and five clerks processed the 45 or so people in line in front of me. Then they told me that they would not accept one of the proofs of social security number that their wall posters said they would accept. Government creates this problem.

The evidence required for a State ID, which differs from a driver's license, proof of residence, birth certificate, social security number, is the same as that which advocates for same-day registration would accept from prospective voters who appear at the polling place. In a strange recursive loop, the Honolulu City and County Office of Voter Registration is across King Street from the State office that provides State IDs. The State accepts proof of voter registration as proof of residence and the city accepted my old driver's license, which lists my current address, and history of voting at that address as proof of current registration at that address.

I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here?

JoeTheJuggler · 28th July 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here?

Because our society has weighed legitimate public interests such as public safety against the rights being infringed. [ETA: And FWIW, I don't think in some of those cases there is any right being infringed. I know of no right to enter a Federal building or commercial airliner anonymously.]

In the case of the voter ID laws, the issue is that there seems to be no legitimate public interest being served much less one that would outweigh the possibility of disenfranchising some people. (Again, my own position is that these laws could be crafted so as not to disenfranchise anyone, but I'd still complain that they're politically motivated and not serving any actual public interest.)

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 28th July 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I asked you to provide one in that time frame.

Clearly, you are totally incapable of doing so.

Which means you want public money to be spent on a nonexistent problem.

Which make you a total hypocrite from a public spending policy point of view.

Interesting chain of inference. No wonder you're a socialist. You might consider that other people don't respond to the incentive schedules you construct. It's a common failing of socialists to ignore this.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th July 2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

My brother died in 1980, so what we experienced (we got election reminders from the Board of Elections for him for at least 2 years) might not happen any more.

I occasionally get mail for my dad who never lived here and died in 1989. People who sell mailing lists make money by the name and have no motivation to clean the lists up. I bought a list once 20 yrs ago when I started my business. 10% bad names/addresses is a pretty standard claim IIRC.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 28th July 2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I asked you to provide one in that time frame.

Something occurred to me as I considered this "request".
The time limit (last 40 years) puts the demonstrated government-sponsored voter suppression, between 1865 and 1965, by Southern Democratic State and county administrations outside the time limits. Search "Battle of Athens". The crooks who tried to rig the election were Democratic officals. The first victm of the violence that the Democrats loosed was a black man. Systematic voter suppression (e.g., through poll taxes and rigged literacy tests), by Southern Democrats led to the current Federal statutes and policy of Federal oversight that Attorney General Holder's Justice Department cites as his authority to interfere with local strengthening of voter ID requirements. Here's Wikipedia on the Congressional vote for the 1965 Voting Rights Act:

Quote:

Senate: 77–19
Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85
Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

Conference Report:

Senate: 79–18
Democrats: 49–17 (four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr., Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough).
Republicans: 30–1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in favor.)

House: 328–74
Democrats: 217–54
Republicans: 111–20

Skeptic Ginger · 28th July 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Hawaii requires photo ID to vote, and has for as long as I've been voting (since 1968). If the process is clumsy, it's because government workers make it so.

This is a non sequitur. The issue is new costs, not the fact any state already requires ID. And you said the voter law challenges, not the inefficiency of the DMV, was the reason for excessive taxpayer costs.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

The DMV is a notoriously slow government bureaucracy, I agree. I stood in line for two and a half hours while between one and five clerks processed the 45 or so people in line in front of me. Then they told me that they would not accept one of the proofs of social security number that their wall posters said they would accept. Government creates this problem.

Of course the fact you stood in line for >2 hours could be due to underfunding. Budget cuts could be the reason for the wait even if the staff weren't as efficient as you would have liked to see.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here?

Because it is a different issue.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th July 2012, 12:59 PM

Just to be clear here, showing voter ID at the polls is not where one's legitimacy to vote is determined. That is done through the process of registering. All voter ID does is prove you are the person who is registered.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th July 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Something occurred to me as I considered this "request".
The time limit (last 40 years) puts the demonstrated government-sponsored voter suppression, between 1865 and 1965, by Southern Democratic State and county administrations outside the time limits. Search "Battle of Athens". The crooks who tried to rig the election were Democratic officals. The first victm of the violence that the Democrats loosed was a black man. Systematic voter suppression (e.g., through poll taxes and rigged literacy tests), by Southern Democrats led to the current Federal statutes and policy of Federal oversight that Attorney General Holder's Justice Department cites as his authority to interfere with local strengthening of voter ID requirements. Here's Wikipedia on the Congressional vote for the 1965 Voting Rights Act:

It's pretty much well known that a large block of white racists in the South defected to the Republic Party when the Democratic Party adopted the civil rights platforms.

Your tu quoque is a fail.

And it isn't relevant. We don't want the Democratic Party to suppress the vote either.

NightStar76 · 28th July 2012, 01:28 PM

At this point, since electoral rules were drastically different prior to the 20th century, no evidence from the 19th century matters, leaving aside statute of limitations or whatever. Thus, if the only evidence you have is for the 19th century, your claims may be safely disregarded in their entirety.

Wangler · 28th July 2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Because you cannot document a single election in the last 40 years where the outcome was changed in any way by dead people or dogs voting.

It seems like you wish to ignore any potential voter problems unti after an election's outcome is affected.

What is so bad about preventing that from happening?

I think that asking for a "documented case" is a red herring.

If we can be proactive without disenfranchising voters, why not be proactive?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 28th July 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's pretty much well known that a large block of white racists in the South defected to the Republic Party when the Democratic Party adopted the civil rights platforms.

Your tu quoque is a fail.

And it isn't relevant. We don't want the Democratic Party to suppress the vote either.

Your objections are irelevant to the issue. Vote fraud is a real problem.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick · 28th July 2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by NightStar76

At this point, since electoral rules were drastically different prior to the 20th century, no evidence from the 19th century matters, leaving aside statute of limitations or whatever. Thus, if the only evidence you have is for the 19th century, your claims may be safely disregarded in their entirety.

a) The US Congress evidently did not think so in 1965.
b) The battle of Athens (google it), (Ga.) was post WWII.

25th July 2012, 05:16 PM	#41
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,222	Originally Posted by The Mutha When I see a dog walking into a polling station and picking up a ballot, I'll be concerned... I've seen stories about dogs getting credit cards, but it doesn't mean that the dog can summarily rush out and charge a bunch of treats on his/her credit card. there was that one husky in Utah that went shoplifting for a rawhide bone. If he had his credit card with him, maybe things would have been different. . . .
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

25th July 2012, 05:17 PM	#42
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,222	Originally Posted by Drysdale It's not so much the dogs, as the dead. Why is that happening? People keep deceased family members on their phone bills.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

25th July 2012, 05:21 PM	#43
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,222	Why vote the cemetery when you can just change the ratio of votes in the software?
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

25th July 2012, 05:33 PM	#44
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer Why vote the cemetery when you can just change the ratio of votes in the software? THAT we can document having happened. Election fraud happens not infrequently, voter fraud is very rare.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th July 2012, 02:05 AM	#45
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler FWIW, the thread title isn't accurate. Romney is only alleging that forms are going out to dead people. That happened for a few years after my brother died. We just threw them away, and eventually his name dropped off the list. I'm still a bit hazy about the status of this "list". Was it the actual current voter registration list that was being used, or was it an old version? (I know the reason I got voter mail for my Mum was that the LibDems were using a very out-of-date list.) I know that in Britain, registering a death has automatic consequences for other registrations, and one of these is that the person is automatically removed from the electoral register. That is the current one, the one they actually use at actual elections. Nobody can do anything about old copies in the possession of other people. Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

26th July 2012, 02:37 AM	#46
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Originally Posted by Rolfe Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something? Rolfe. I don't think a bad voter list is the problem. All a correct voter list would do would be to tell you who not to send registration forms to and avoid duplication. The trick is to find addresses for people who are not on the roles and get them registered, with the idea they may vote for your guy/gal. I would be wasting money sending a form to someone already registered. So, if they die and come off the active voter list, they may be captured on another list as "not registered." In mass mailings, there is a breakpoint where making your list more accurate is more expensive than just accepting some level of error and mailing to people who aren't the target -- or, in this case, pets and the deceased. The onus is on the recipient of the mail to either ignore it or make a fraudulent registration. Mailing the form out is not illegal, nor even unethical. In my view, this kerfuffle is equivalent to complaining about public service announcements on TV that encourage voter registration. My dog sees the TV. My kids see it as well. As far as I know, the ghost of my dead mother is watching somewhere. Should I be upset that this population is allowed to view an ad for voter registration when they are not eligible to vote?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Last edited by marplots; 26th July 2012 at 02:39 AM.

26th July 2012, 05:14 AM	#47
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Yes, I thought it was something like that. But then it was suggested there was something slightly more sinister, in that returned forms were to go to a party and not the electoral registration office. I know that happens here as regards postal voting forms, and it is indeed a loophole for potential and actual fraud. What they usually do is get everyone in a nursing home or care home signed up to vote, including all the Alzheimer's patients, and then somehow get their hands on the postal vote forms when they arrive. This doesn't sound like quite the same thing though. Rolef.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

26th July 2012, 05:21 AM	#48
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue. So it is not at all surprising, and you'll see this almost daily until the election, for them to take something that means almost nothing and try to make it into some horrific sin that will make Democrats look evil enough to suppress voting enough that their equally-honest faithful voters will be the only ones at the polls. They are not trying to convince me to vote for them. They are not trying to convince independents to vote for them. They are trying to confuse and disgust Democrats and independents with their lies and so achieve a record-low voter turnout that will allow them to complete their putsch.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th July 2012, 07:51 AM	#49
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Rolfe I'm still a bit hazy about the status of this "list". Was it the actual current voter registration list that was being used, or was it an old version? (I know the reason I got voter mail for my Mum was that the LibDems were using a very out-of-date list.) I know that in Britain, registering a death has automatic consequences for other registrations, and one of these is that the person is automatically removed from the electoral register. That is the current one, the one they actually use at actual elections. Nobody can do anything about old copies in the possession of other people. Does this not happen in the USA? Would such automatic updating of lists be considered an invasion of privacy or something? Rolfe. I have access to the Democratic party voter database that is updated regularly from the official list from our county. Yes, there are dead people on the list. When we find out that a voter is dead, we mark them as deceased in our database and stop trying to contact that voter. The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list.

26th July 2012, 09:38 AM	#50
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Kestrel I have access to the Democratic party voter database that is updated regularly from the official list from our county. Yes, there are dead people on the list. When we find out that a voter is dead, we mark them as deceased in our database and stop trying to contact that voter. The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list. And it is expensive to do a mailing with return guarantee. You don't do that very often as a result. Most mailings are fire and forget where you never get feedback on the validity of the addresses. However, the board of elections sends out voter registration cards every election year, and they DO check the returns.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th July 2012, 06:31 AM	#51
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue. Right. Pretty much for the reasons everyone else lies. You make the case for ballot security. What would clean elections look like? A few requirements:... a) Laws would make life unpleasant for people who prevent eligible voters from voting (e.g., the Pa. Black Panthers). b) Laws would make life unpleasant for ineligible persons who vote (e.g., the 119 % turnout in Madison, Wis.). c) Laws would make life unpleasant for eligible voters who vote more than once in the same contest (e.g., retirees who vote in New York and Florida, college kids who vote in their college town and their home town). d) Individual ballots would express unambigously the voters intent (no "butterfly ballots") and be counted accurately (no "hanging chads"). e) Vote totals would be verifiable (no purely electronic voting machines. There must be a paper record). This list is not complete. Who may run? Who gets to compose initiative wording? Our topic in this thread has been the tension between (a) and (b). We have an issue similar to alpha and beta error in statistics or the production possibility frontier in economics.

27th July 2012, 06:58 AM	#52
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	So, MK, nice to see you back. Where is that election you were going to find for us? Or was that another conservative lie?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th July 2012, 03:35 PM	#53
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch So, MK, nice to see you back. Where is that election you were going to find for us? Or was that another conservative lie? Did a conservative make some promise to allocate my time?

27th July 2012, 04:13 PM	#54
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Unresponsive. You claim to know of a race in the last 40 years where voter fraud changed the outcome. Show us. Or were you making stuff up?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th July 2012, 04:36 PM	#55
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch ...You claim to know of a race in the last 40 years where voter fraud changed the outcome. Looks like a retarded lie to me. Can you support this? I asked if people who claim electoral fraud is not a problem would be satisfied documentation of an election in which the total of demonstrably fraudulent ballots was greater than the margin of victory. Or were you making stuff up?[/quote]

27th July 2012, 04:45 PM	#56
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick Would you be satisfied with a documented case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory? I seem to recall that that has happened. I'd have to dig for the cites. Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick Looks like a retarded lie to me. Can you support this? I asked if people who claim electoral fraud is not a problem would be satisfied documentation of an election in which the total of demonstrably fraudulent ballots was greater than the margin of victory. Or were you making stuff up? I guess you can retroactively not say that if you like. I'll stop asking because you clearly cannot cite your case.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

27th July 2012, 04:50 PM	#57
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,929	Originally Posted by BenBurch BTW, why do you Republicans want all sorts of government money spent on a problem you cannot document exists? No Democrat would oppose you if this could be shown to be a concrete problem, but all we have are your paranoia and xenophobia and that doesn't cut it when you want to TAX people to pay for your fantasy. Hey, "conservidiots," not all "Republicans" follow that path, and there are plenty of conservidiot Democratic politicians as well (unfortunately). I hear they are on the verge of extinction in the coming election, despite the fact that they are likely to be replaced by conservidiot Republicans, I can't say that the prospect doesn't please me. Better to run elections of clear distinctions.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,929	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

27th July 2012, 04:51 PM	#58
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,929	Originally Posted by Dog Town 40+ The Kennedy victory, in Illinois, came to be suspect! "Vote early, and often!" actually that is 50+
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,929	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

27th July 2012, 05:10 PM	#59
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch I guess you can retroactively not say that if you like. I'll stop asking because you clearly cannot cite your case. Speaking of lies:...Not say what? "Last 40 years"? I did not say that. Neither did I say " voter fraud changed the outcome". I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory.
	Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 27th July 2012 at 05:11 PM.

27th July 2012, 05:18 PM	#60
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by The Mutha When I see a dog walking into a polling station and picking up a ballot, I'll be concerned... I've seen stories about dogs getting credit cards, but it doesn't mean that the dog can summarily rush out and charge a bunch of treats on his/her credit card. I currently have valid voter registrations cards from three different districts. If I wanted to really mess with the system, I'd run around on election day and vote in all three. But I don't do that because I know I'm only supposed to vote once and I'm sure there's some penalty if I was to get caught voting multiple times. You know, that thing called human decency, which people on one side seem to think isn't possible for people on the other side to have. true - the voter regisration trick shows/proves the republickers lack it entirely. Most wouldn't know decency if it was tied up and thrown out on their front porches.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

27th July 2012, 05:19 PM	#61
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Drysdale It's not so much the dogs, as the dead. Why is that happening? Fed 'em datura and the one I always forget......
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

27th July 2012, 06:46 PM	#62
balrog666 Eigenmode: Cynic Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,530	Originally Posted by Dog Town 40+ The Kennedy victory, in Illinois (and Texas), came to be suspect! "Vote early, and often!" FIFY. Also, 2000, where ManBearPig sycophants did everything possible to steal it in Florida until Diana Ross and the Supremes shut them down 7-2.
	__________________ A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain Diversity--When all colors and creeds believe exactly as liberals want them to. Or Else! -Coyote Last edited by balrog666; 27th July 2012 at 06:46 PM. Reason: for the hell of it

28th July 2012, 10:28 AM	#63
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick 1. It wouldn't cost much if Democrats and the US DOJ spent less time building roadblocks. ... Providing those free picture IDs to tens of thousands of people cost the taxpayers money. Obtaining copies of birth certificates or what ever other documents the voter needs to get the ID, plus the cost of getting to the DMV which includes taking time off work for some also adds up in individual costs.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th July 2012, 12:06 PM	#64
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by Kestrel The process of removing deceased voters from the official lists seems to take months but it does happen. We don't find people that died years ago on the active list. My brother died in 1980, so what we experienced (we got election reminders from the Board of Elections for him for at least 2 years) might not happen any more.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

28th July 2012, 12:08 PM	#65
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,219	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick Speaking of lies:...Not say what? "Last 40 years"? I did not say that. Neither did I say " voter fraud changed the outcome". I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory. I asked you to provide one in that time frame. Clearly, you are totally incapable of doing so. Which means you want public money to be spent on a nonexistent problem. Which make you a total hypocrite from a public spending policy point of view.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

28th July 2012, 12:10 PM	#66
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick I asked if people who say fraud is not a problem would be satisfied with a case of an election in which the number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin of victory. And a few of us said yes, we would be persuaded by such a case if it were well documented and not just an allegation based on anecdotes. Have you provided one yet?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

28th July 2012, 12:12 PM	#67
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by BenBurch Rolfe - The Republican Right in this country is fundamentally dishonest. They lie for advantage, they lie to cover their sins, they lie to escape taxes, and they lie just because the sky is blue. And thus does the legitimacy of any word out of your mouth become suspect. Have a nice day.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

28th July 2012, 12:13 PM	#68
Shalamar Dark Lord of the JREF Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Super Star Destroyer Executor Posts: 2,397	Originally Posted by Beerina And thus does the legitimacy of any word out of your mouth become suspect. Just like Videogames.
	__________________ "The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

28th July 2012, 12:26 PM	#69
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Providing those free picture IDs to tens of thousands of people cost the taxpayers money. Obtaining copies of birth certificates or what ever other documents the voter needs to get the ID, plus the cost of getting to the DMV which includes taking time off work for some also adds up in individual costs. Hawaii requires photo ID to vote, and has for as long as I've been voting (since 1968). If the process is clumsy, it's because government workers make it so. The DMV is a notoriously slow government bureaucracy, I agree. I stood in line for two and a half hours while between one and five clerks processed the 45 or so people in line in front of me. Then they told me that they would not accept one of the proofs of social security number that their wall posters said they would accept. Government creates this problem. The evidence required for a State ID, which differs from a driver's license, proof of residence, birth certificate, social security number, is the same as that which advocates for same-day registration would accept from prospective voters who appear at the polling place. In a strange recursive loop, the Honolulu City and County Office of Voter Registration is across King Street from the State office that provides State IDs. The State accepts proof of voter registration as proof of residence and the city accepted my old driver's license, which lists my current address, and history of voting at that address as proof of current registration at that address. I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here?
	Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 28th July 2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: spelling typo.

28th July 2012, 12:33 PM	#70
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here? Because our society has weighed legitimate public interests such as public safety against the rights being infringed. [ETA: And FWIW, I don't think in some of those cases there is any right being infringed. I know of no right to enter a Federal building or commercial airliner anonymously.] In the case of the voter ID laws, the issue is that there seems to be no legitimate public interest being served much less one that would outweigh the possibility of disenfranchising some people. (Again, my own position is that these laws could be crafted so as not to disenfranchise anyone, but I'd still complain that they're politically motivated and not serving any actual public interest.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 28th July 2012 at 12:36 PM.

28th July 2012, 12:33 PM	#71
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch I asked you to provide one in that time frame. Clearly, you are totally incapable of doing so. Which means you want public money to be spent on a nonexistent problem. Which make you a total hypocrite from a public spending policy point of view. Interesting chain of inference. No wonder you're a socialist. You might consider that other people don't respond to the incentive schedules you construct. It's a common failing of socialists to ignore this.

28th July 2012, 12:45 PM	#72
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler My brother died in 1980, so what we experienced (we got election reminders from the Board of Elections for him for at least 2 years) might not happen any more. I occasionally get mail for my dad who never lived here and died in 1989. People who sell mailing lists make money by the name and have no motivation to clean the lists up. I bought a list once 20 yrs ago when I started my business. 10% bad names/addresses is a pretty standard claim IIRC.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th July 2012, 12:57 PM	#73
Malcolm Kirkpatrick Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,137	Originally Posted by BenBurch I asked you to provide one in that time frame. Something occurred to me as I considered this "request". The time limit (last 40 years) puts the demonstrated government-sponsored voter suppression, between 1865 and 1965, by Southern Democratic State and county administrations outside the time limits. Search "Battle of Athens". The crooks who tried to rig the election were Democratic officals. The first victm of the violence that the Democrats loosed was a black man. Systematic voter suppression (e.g., through poll taxes and rigged literacy tests), by Southern Democrats led to the current Federal statutes and policy of Federal oversight that Attorney General Holder's Justice Department cites as his authority to interfere with local strengthening of voter ID requirements. Here's Wikipedia on the Congressional vote for the 1965 Voting Rights Act: Quote: Senate: 77–19 Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%) Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%) House: 333–85 Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%) Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%) Conference Report: Senate: 79–18 Democrats: 49–17 (four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr., Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough). Republicans: 30–1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in favor.) House: 328–74 Democrats: 217–54 Republicans: 111–20

28th July 2012, 12:58 PM	#74
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick Hawaii requires photo ID to vote, and has for as long as I've been voting (since 1968). If the process is clumsy, it's because government workers make it so. This is a non sequitur. The issue is new costs, not the fact any state already requires ID. And you said the voter law challenges, not the inefficiency of the DMV, was the reason for excessive taxpayer costs. Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick The DMV is a notoriously slow government bureaucracy, I agree. I stood in line for two and a half hours while between one and five clerks processed the 45 or so people in line in front of me. Then they told me that they would not accept one of the proofs of social security number that their wall posters said they would accept. Government creates this problem. Of course the fact you stood in line for >2 hours could be due to underfunding. Budget cuts could be the reason for the wait even if the staff weren't as efficient as you would have liked to see. Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick I had to give the city as full set of prints as well as provide other ID and proof of residence to get a permit to acquire firearms (the Hawaii government is obsessive/compulsive about that) Everyone has to present valid photo ID to enter the Federal building or to board a commercial airliner. Why no outcry about suppression of rights here? Because it is a different issue.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th July 2012, 12:59 PM	#75
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,628	Just to be clear here, showing voter ID at the polls is not where one's legitimacy to vote is determined. That is done through the process of registering. All voter ID does is prove you are the person who is registered.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)