Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator85jd, Aug 12, 2013.
How much fraud have they found?
How much fraud do they need to find?
Well given that, as I described above, there was a pretty sophisticated system for verifying voter eligibility and catching duplicate registrations, and then pulling and not counting the vote if it couldn't be verified, in place in North Carolina demonstrating some evidence that said sophisticated system for avoiding double votes or bad registrations through same-day registration wasn't working would seem like a pretty good baseline.
Haven't seen that done yet though, and purporting to "fix" a problem that you already have complex steps in place to prevent - and no evidence that the problem actually exists in spite of the system in place - is fairly transparent.
I don't know, maybe more than none? You have to look at the incredible emphasis Republicans have put on finding voter fraud for almost a decade now. Primarily, it seems, to rationalize all these law changes.
Bush fired US attorneys over their inability to find rampant fraud. Republican officials announced hundreds of dead voters voting in South Carolina. The state spent a ton of time checking it out. False. Republican officials announced lots of illegal votes in Colorado. At least one county checked and zero were illegal.
Given all the false alarms Republicans keep sending out about fraud, that if there were some real cases caused by same day registration, they'd have found it. God knows, they're trying hard enough.
Exactly. Let's find some fraud.
Ohio Poll Worker.
I know I have probably seen more ridiculous positions staked out on this board then the "there has to be proof of actual fraud before we can justify closing an avenue of obvious potential fraud", but I really can't remember what they were. It is intellectually indistinguishable from --
A) no sense in locking the door at night, until there is proof someone has walked in that didn't belong there.
B) no sense in fixing a hole in the roof until there is proof rain will get in.
Could probably run off dozens of similar constructions, but it still wouldn't matter. Nobody can defend that irrational gibberish, but nobody appears interested in trying for that matter.
Well if that is so important to you, you ready to severely cut back on absentee voting (where the highest levels of demonstrable fraud are found, but republicans won't dare touch)?
Because to continue your analogy, you've installed a bank vault door on your front door and are sitting there watching it with your Smith and Wesson (despite the fact that it was already protected by an alarm that, as best as you can tell, has never failed), while leaving your back door sitting wide open with a "come on in, take what you want" sign beside it.
Come on, is that the best you can do when I show you the specific sections of the law that already prevented the exact problem you proffered justified getting rid of same day registration?
I expected better from you at least. You can do it, admit that duplicate registrations were already prevented by the fairly sophisticated system NC had in place and, at least for that element, you haven't articulated anything that repealing it does other than make it harder to vote.
Well, no, the best I could do would be a post directed at your comments at all, which that one wasn't. Just sort of throwing my hands up at the entirety here. With registration and early voting, I guess my question would be "what limit"? Why doesn't early voting just aggregate from Election1+a day until Election2, and we roll the primary process into it? Why is two weeks just but a week unjust when the entire premise is outside the conceptual scope of an election "day"? Same day registration... maybe if I was convinced that government was capable of the low hanging infrastructure fruit of having a database to check against in real time with reliable data, but what intelligent person would trust that that is the case? Especially with rabid opposition to any and every attempt in any jurisdiction to clean up the voter rolls of ineligible voters?
And the ID argument stands alone as being one that there simply is no rational thought on more than one side of, especially if you solve the dubious complaint that people who are somehow going through life without photo ID absolutely can't afford it. And when one can empirically debunk that ID requirements yield disenfranchisement among minorities or anyone else.
So, yeah, the whole thing is just to shrug in exasperation.
So why can't people who believe voting is important register in advance? You're stalling because there's not good reason why they can't.
you haven't come up with a reason to change it. just "no reason they can't ..."
There's no reason that we don't require voters to wear green in order to vote. I mean, if it's important to vote, surely everyone has a green shirt. So why not make it the law?
Examples of Voter fraud convictions;
which of those would be prevented by the laws North Carolina passed?
So we're cutting back severely on absentee ballots when?
So in other words, you cannot articulate a good reason why people who believe voting is important can't register in advance.
You would think that those who want to change laws would need a rationale as to why it should be done, not necessarily the opposition.
Especially if the change erases long standing precedent.
It's been stated ad nauseum in this thread. Nobody's willing to state why people who believe voting is important can't register in advance.
Who says they can't? However, I believe we should encourage maximum participation which includes getting people out to vote on voting day. What is wrong with that so long as they have proper identification? If we can validate through computer systems that they haven't already voted and they have proper ID, let them vote. It's as simple as that.
A status quo of vulnerability only serves the interests of those hoping to benefit it. That is and has been the 800lb gorilla throughout. Every raised objection to showing ID and various other provisions like NC and other states want can be adressed by other means, but nobody stops complaining, so all that remains is the reason they aren't willing to say -- they want it vulnerable.
By the way, is anybody seriously opposed to NC removing a pro-idiocy check box to do a straight ticket vote without being arsed to actually vote the straight ticket manually?