Author Topic: The Third Debate  (Read 73583 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2016, 02:15:04 PM »
Seriati, have you looked into what the various election boards in each state are doing to prevent the known ways of election fraud from occurring?

Some, certainly not all.  Some of the measures are laughable.  I've also, by the way, looked at what members of the Democratic party are doing to prevent people from preventing election fraud.  Still not clear how they can manage massive efforts to bus people to the polls, show up at their houses to help them get mail in ballets, but can't find it in their hearts to assist people getting free ids.

Quote
Sure, the machines are hackable, and districts with a single party could add votes, and other ways are possible to rig the election.  But there are two things to remember:

1.  Election boards aren't stupid.  A vast majority of election boards have countermeasures in place to make sure the obvious ways of cheating are caught.

Yes, the vast majority do have such measures.  However, there is no risk that the "vast majority" will be involved in any meaningful election fraud. 

Quote
If you have specific concerns, why don't you check with your local election board and find out if those ways are possible locally?  Or if there is anything you can do to help prevent them?  That way, you would at least help prevent such shenanigans in one precinct.

I think you're operating under the delusion that if fraud occurs, its generally distributed to all polling places.  It's not, nor would it ever be.  There's no real risk of election fraud with respect to a national election in my locality, nor in California, nor in any other place were the results are predetermined. 

To find it you need to focus, like I said, on polling places where it could be meaningful.  We know for a fact that the national machines know where they need to target, where 1000 votes makes a material difference in the electoral college, and where they have the best odds to get away with it.  Hell, we know for a fact that they track demographics to the point where if the wrong person answers a door they change their pitch.

Quote
2.  There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of election boards in the U.S.  I think just about every county has a board to administer the election and count the votes.  So while local elections could be tipped by fraud, it would very difficult to rig every county in a state, or even the outcome of a national election.

Agreed, but only morons would rig an election in that manner.  If that's what you think you need to look out for and protect against, you shouldn't even be posting on this topic, you should be researching it.

Quote
Because it would take operatives in just about every county, if not every precinct or voting place, to pull off most of the schemes I've heard (like filling in names of people who didn't vote to a voter's list).  And the larger the conspiracy, the easier it is to find someone who'll tattle. :)

It would likely take operatives in no more than a few dozen counties (at the high end) to swing a close election.  The more one sided the election the harder it gets to make it work at all, the closer an election gets the higher the danger of getting caught.  But there will always being polling places where one party is in solid control, in states with a fairly even split of voters.  No amount of observers brought in from the outside, will ever catch collusion between poll workers and voters where you don't have to present a valid ID to vote.

And that's after you virtually right off any credible ability  to catch manipulation of mail in votes, and virtually no ability to catch real time voters who vote in multiple jurisdictions.

Quote
There is no 100% guarantee that the election isn't rigged.  But there are enough people working in the election who don't want the election to be rigged that it is very difficult to do so and get away with it, especially with electing a President of the United States.  Anyone who thinks that there is a good reason to be suspicious of the results needs to show exactly why he thinks so.

I don't know that they are rigged, I strongly suspect they are manipulated.  I am certain that there are ballots cast in every election that should never have been allowed.

There is not any significant voter fraud today.

It's this kind of certainty that I find baffling.  There's literally no way that you could prove that, are you just inferring from the lack of evidence that this is a certainty?  Do you think that politicians and prosecutors have proper incentives to ferret out and prosecute voter fraud conducted by their own party?  Do you see the impact that the correlation by party of heavily one side demographics in the electorate and in the politicians and prosecutors associated therewith could have on such a measure?

So just to give you a sense of scale, something like 40 million speeding tickets are issued each year, on something like 200 million licensed drivers, so that's what very roughly 1:5 (of course that's not actually how the distributions works), which makes it sound like speeding tickets are super common and probably catch a lot of speeding.  In fact, it sounds like we're doing a great job catching speeding, until you think about the actual number of driving instances that occur.  If you assume just 4 trips a day (ridiculously low for any working person) then there roughly 288 billion separate trips a year, and a ticket is issued on roughly 0.014% of them.  When you square that with some routes literally having 99% or greater incidence of speeding, what does that statistic really tell you about enforcement?  Even when it's literally shooting fish in a barrel, the odds of getting caught are miniscule. 

How easy would it really be to catch voting fraud, when it's not occurring on an even distribution and the vast vast majority of voters are legitimate?  And what process exactly would you go on the line right now and commit would be likely to catch someone engaged in voter fraud?

Be specific, absent an id requirement, how do you catch warm bodies brought to a polling place to vote people known by colluding poll workers not to be likely to show up?  How do you catch people who manipulate the home bound voters by soliciting mail in votes on their request and voting them or intimidating them on the votes?   How do you catch people voting in multiple jurisdictions (keep in mind even if the registrations are online, they aren't linked and using them to disqualify a voter is a process that uniformly leads to disenfranchisement protests, and in any event the voter check-in process is almost always a physical roll call process at the polling place)? 

Quote
Furthermore, there is clear and compelling evidence that far more Americans have been stripped of their voting rights by impediments put into place by Republicans with the explicit intent of disenfranchising citizens.

Really?  Give me a direct example.  And I'm flat out rejecting as an example the requirement that a citizen present a government id, when literally every state makes voter ids available for free.

Quote
The voter ID laws aim at stopping tens of thousands of legitimate voters from having their Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms;

Bull.  Voter IDs are not aimed at stopping even one legitimate voter.  They are directly aimed at stopping illegitimate voters. 

Quote
...the risk of false votes cast is many thousand times less (and the false votes that have been counted have been equally Democratic and Republican; the deprivation of the right to vote is all done by Republicans on disproportionately Democratic constituencies).

Again bull.  You have no basis for making a claim that it's many thousands of times less.  We've had accounts of illegal immigrants that have voted.  There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.  Its not even particularly common that there are cases where an eligible voter is denied the right to vote, and almost all of them are connected to an error that it is acknowledged by both parties, notwithstanding that every such case gets blown up into a national story (while all cases of voter fraud get downplayed so people can continue to sell the "untruthful hyberbole" that no voter fraud exists).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2016, 02:33:50 PM »
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.

I'd say there was in the Democratic primaries, in places like New York and Arizona.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #52 on: October 24, 2016, 03:25:12 PM »
One fairly exhaustive recent study by the Carnegie-Knight Initiative found the frequency of vote fraud by impersonation to be about 1:15,000,000, or about 0.0000067%.  That's consistent with pretty much all of the studies that I've read.  OTOH, far more ballots cast by legally franchised voters are rejected (2% in Arizona in 2012) for purely technical reasons, and up to 9% of adult voters in Florida have had their voting rights taken away.

Give it up on voter fraud, it ain't a thing.  Instead, voter privileges and access to the ballot needs to be improved by local and state governments.  That's not a Party issue, except that it is because the vast majority of voters who either aren't allowed to vote or whose votes are rejected would vote for Democrats.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2016, 03:47:48 PM »
Note that in the particular sentence I quoted Seriati said "disenfranchised", not "voter fraud."

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2016, 04:08:55 PM »
One fairly exhaustive recent study by the Carnegie-Knight Initiative found the frequency of vote fraud by impersonation to be about 1:15,000,000, or about 0.0000067%.

Are you talking about their journalism project that "studied" convictions versus reports of fraud or something else?   Cause that's not a study, and certainly not a "fairly exhaustive study".  Or are you talking about their "study" where they asked election officials to self report on the proven cases of fraud in their jurisdiction?  Again, not a meaningful study.

One thing I am sure of now though is that you just google a topic and throw the first stat that you think supports you in as a response.

But maybe I'm misjudging you, give me the cite to the study you think is on point and I'll even spend the time necessary to see if it actually addresses my questions (since there's no way you'll actually read it and report on any flaws anyway).

Quote
Give it up on voter fraud, it ain't a thing.  Instead, voter privileges and access to the ballot needs to be improved by local and state governments.  That's not a Party issue, except that it is because the vast majority of voters who either aren't allowed to vote or whose votes are rejected would vote for Democrats.

Yeah, not happening, just because you can cite to self serving studies that report on what we already know.   You know, that voter fraud is not caught and prosecuted.  Doesn't say much about whether it occurs.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2016, 05:35:54 PM »
Sorry, I was referring to this comment of Seriati's, which I didn't bother to quote, since the point was obvious:
Quote
I think you're operating under the delusion that if fraud occurs, its generally distributed to all polling places.  It's not, nor would it ever be.

So, imagine that it is not caught.  What would Trump do about it, other than insist it happened?  How long would it take to catch it, in any case?  What would you do about it on November 9?

As for his bold statement:
Quote
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.
It surprises me that he insists that fraud occurs, but has no evidence, while at the same time insisting that there is no effort to disenfranchise eligible (likely Democratic) voters, for which there is ample evidence.

There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.

I'd say there was in the Democratic primaries, in places like New York and Arizona.
Likewise, you seem to be ignoring or perhaps dismissing the systematic disenfranchisement that has been in the news lately aimed at the general election that is targeted specifically at likely Democratic voters.  Are you absolutely sure you don't have a bias against Democrats?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2016, 05:40:13 PM »
Quote
Are you talking about their journalism project that "studied" convictions versus reports of fraud or something else?   Cause that's not a study, and certainly not a "fairly exhaustive study".  Or are you talking about their "study" where they asked election officials to self report on the proven cases of fraud in their jurisdiction?  Again, not a meaningful study.
Well, I thought I said
Quote
"That's consistent with pretty much all of the studies that I've read."
but perhaps I didn't.  Oh wait...

Quote
But maybe I'm misjudging you
I think you just see the world though rose colored glasses.  Try googling "study voter fraud".  You don't have to take the first hit.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 05:46:48 PM by AI Wessex »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2016, 05:54:38 PM »
Quote
I'd say there was in the Democratic primaries, in places like New York and Arizona.
Likewise, you seem to be ignoring or perhaps dismissing the systematic disenfranchisement that has been in the news lately aimed at the general election that is targeted specifically at likely Democratic voters.  Are you absolutely sure you don't have a bias against Democrats?

Uh, you are aware that the Dem primaries involved only Dem candidates, right? So if I mention that certain Dem voters for one candidate seemed to be disenfranchised in favor of those of another Dem candidate, this translates to you as bias against Democrats?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2016, 06:08:59 PM »
Perhaps with Trump bringing the issue to the forefront and making such a huge deal about it there will be much more attention paid to voter fraud which hopefully will make it harder to pull off and make the usual suspects somewhat more wary about attempting it or at least put them to more trouble than normal when they do. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2016, 07:44:36 PM »
Or, more likely, it will bring the crazies out of the corners to go after imagined voter fraud, interfering with the right to vote with (inevitably) Democratic voters, and causing a less-representative government. :(

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2016, 08:58:56 PM »
Quote
Uh, you are aware that the Dem primaries involved only Dem candidates, right? So if I mention that certain Dem voters for one candidate seemed to be disenfranchised in favor of those of another Dem candidate, this translates to you as bias against Democrats?
No, you only mentioned disenfranchisement during the primaries, which was wrong if it occurred as it was described.  I think the systematic disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in the general election is a much bigger problem.  Just thought I'd point that out.

Perhaps with Trump bringing the issue to the forefront and making such a huge deal about it there will be much more attention paid to voter fraud which hopefully will make it harder to pull off and make the usual suspects somewhat more wary about attempting it or at least put them to more trouble than normal when they do. 
Yep, Trump wins again by being such a complete bull*censored*ter.  You do realize that he has invigorated women and women's groups all over the country with his heartless and cruel statements about women who allege that he was sexually aggressive toward them.  I suppose he deserves credit for that, too.  What a big-heart he has.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #61 on: October 24, 2016, 09:11:55 PM »
Quote
Uh, you are aware that the Dem primaries involved only Dem candidates, right? So if I mention that certain Dem voters for one candidate seemed to be disenfranchised in favor of those of another Dem candidate, this translates to you as bias against Democrats?
No, you only mentioned disenfranchisement during the primaries, which was wrong if it occurred as it was described.  I think the systematic disenfranchisement of Democratic voters in the general election is a much bigger problem.  Just thought I'd point that out.

I said I thought there was disenfranchisement in the Democratic primaries. Read my comment again. So again, accusing me of right-wing bias in describing some Democrats disenfranchising other Democrats is quite the head-scratcher.

That being said, I also disagree that the more important issue is the general election. The general is already screwed and there's nothing the voters can do about it any more. The whole problem is that crap candidates can end up being the only option in a general. In this sense the primaries are by far the worse culprit in propping up these lame ducks, and therefore any malfeasance that occurs in the primaries serves to perpetuate this system more so than any other abuse. When confirmed Democrat voters find themselves without any candidate to vote for there is a problem. Sure, by the time of the general they can always vote for a lesser of two evils, but as I mentioned before if that's the situation then it's already too late.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2016, 09:16:56 PM »
Quote
I said I thought there was disenfranchisement in the Democratic primaries. Read my comment again. So again, accusing me of right-wing bias in describing some Democrats disenfranchising other Democrats is quite the head-scratcher.
I totally get that, but as I pointed out I think the systematic disenfranchisement in the general election affects far more states and therefore far more electoral college votes and therefore has more impact on the final outcome.  I can't see much correlation between NY Democratic Party primary effects and Republican state legislative voter enrollment and voting restrictions.

Quote
That being said, I also disagree that the more important issue is the general election. The general is already screwed and there's nothing the voters can do about it any more.
I totally don't understand what this is supposed to mean.  You're suggesting that there is somehow a connection between Hillary prevailing in the NY and AZ primaries and the outcome of the election between her and Trump?  Her being perhaps the lesser of two evils is part of that equation?  That implies that Hillary is in essence an illegitimate candidate, which makes no sense.  She won far more votes and delegates, even excluding those two states and the super-delegates.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2016, 09:26:29 PM »
Come on, Al, you really didn't understand what I was trying to say?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2016, 09:30:50 PM »
Come on, Al, you really didn't understand what I was trying to say?
No.  Try again using smaller words if you have to.  Why is the general election "already screwed" and what is the reason the primary in two states is more important and what is the connection?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2016, 09:38:32 PM »
Come on, Al, you really didn't understand what I was trying to say?
No.  Try again using smaller words if you have to.  Why is the general election "already screwed" and what is the reason the primary in two states is more important and what is the connection?

1) Are you really going to pretend that either side is happy with their 'chosen' candidate?

2) Two states can swing a primary. In this case perhaps they did not, but that's irrelevant. In principle they could in a very close primary, and in such a case cause a lesser candidate to be the candidate for the generals. My point is that the wrong candidate winning the primary is worse than the wrong candidate winning the general. The latter causes grief for four years; the former denies to people having a chance to prevent that grief in the first place. From the perspective of many Americans no matter who wins this election it will be four years of grief. There is no longer a way for such people to cast a vote and feed good about it. That's what I mean by "already screwed." If a good candidate gets to the general at least the people have a chance to vote for that candidate. If that candidate is stopped at the level of the primaries then there is never a chance (unless they run as an independent).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2016, 10:12:19 PM »
Or, more likely, it will bring the crazies out of the corners to go after imagined voter fraud, interfering with the right to vote with (inevitably) Democratic voters, and causing a less-representative government. :(

I don't really care if it is imagined or not. I just know it is horribly insecure. And that concerns me.

For example, in my home state, in regards to Registered voters:
http://www.idahovotes.gov/voter_id.shtml

Quote
Forms of photo identification may be any one of the following:
-An Idaho driver’s license or Idaho photo identification card.
-A U.S. passport or Federal photo identification card.
-A tribal photo identification card.
-A current student photo ID, issued by an Idaho high school or post secondary education institution.

Because everybody knows that College Student ID's are hard to forge, as the machines that make them are tightly controlled equipment. But if that isn't secure enough for you:

Quote
If a voter is not able to show an acceptable ID, the voter will be given the option to sign the Personal Identification Affidavit.

On the Affidavit, the voter swears to his/her identity under penalty of perjury, a felony under Idaho Code § 34-1114.
After signing the Affidavit, the voter will be issued a ballot to be tabulated with all other ballots.

So at least if they find out that person isn't who they said they were, they'll be able to track them and prosecute them under state law.... How exactly? No security camera footage is being saved at most locations, AFAIK, they're not photgraphing or fingerprinting the person, although they might luck into a usable fingerprint being on the affidavit. But that's only assuming they find out that person wasn't who they said they were, if they voted in place of another person who opted not to vote, chances are very good their vote would never get flagged in first place, beyond there being an affidavit attached to it. Assuming they didn't just use a fake student ID and bluff their way through.

But now let us look at "first time voters" now this gets a little more involved, but hey in this wonderful age of Technology, Photoshop is a thing that exists, and people know how to use it, and most poll workers probably wouldn't know how to detect it.

Quote
You may register at the polls on election day by providing proof of residence. All documents used in providing proof of residence shall be accompanied with a photo I.D. Only the following documents showing the registrant's current address in the precinct are authorized for use in registering to vote and providing proof of residency:

-a valid Idaho driver's license issued through the department of transportation
-a valid Idaho identification card issued through the department of transportation
-any document which contains a valid address in the precinct together with a picture identification card
-Students may also use a current valid student identification card from a post secondary educational institution in Idaho accompanied with a current student fee statement that contains the student's valid address in the precinct together with a picture identification card.

Because once again, billing documents are impossible to forge with available consumer technologies. Student ID's are "impossible" to forge. Student fee statements from post-secondary education institutions are difficult to forge as well. That copies of these "identifying documents" aren't retained by the precincts, and that the type of identification used also isn't recorded by the voting registrar is likewise completely irrelevant, right?

That people working "voter registration drives" also would be in prime positions to note what and where valid addresses in a given precinct are, and which ones are potentially either vacant, or likely to see "frequent turnover"(apartment buildings) likewise , or even house "likely" or "unlikely" voters respectively also does completely nothing to increase the ability of a person to commit voter fraud. Either by impersonation, or total fabrication of a fictitious person.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 10:17:41 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2016, 10:25:51 PM »
But then, Idaho also is one of the (Republican) states that has enacted at least some form of Voter ID law in past few years. Used to be that you could just show up with a copy of a utility bill addressed to your house and use that as Identification.

But we're still in the "non-strict" category for Voter ID, alongside Alabama, Texas, and Florida, and it still has holes at that. And boy, does Texas in particular seem to be (deservedly) getting hammered for theirs. It isn't the law itself that is the problem, so much as the other things they did at the same time. Tightening the Identification requirements, then shutting down many of the places where people could obtain said ID's, in many cases placing them several hours of direct travel away, makes it more than a bit difficult for someone without their own transportation to go obtain it. At least Identification issuance in Idaho is managed by the counties, even if the final ID comes from the state iself via mail.

...man discussing Idaho and Identification in the same sentence can get confusing fast when you try to abbreviate one or the other.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2016, 10:33:33 PM by TheDeamon »

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #68 on: October 25, 2016, 01:54:38 AM »
Seriati, read your quote below and then my contrary evidence.

Quote
Bull.  Voter IDs are not aimed at stopping even one legitimate voter.  They are directly aimed at stopping illegitimate voters. 

Here's a direct quote from a staff aide to a Republican State Legislator in Wisconsin

Quote
I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power.

The article below has multiple links to clips, including a Republican political consultant for Mr. Romney and others calling voter ID laws — and generating long lines at polling places — part of his party's tool kit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html?_r=0

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #69 on: October 25, 2016, 02:57:59 AM »
That there are "bad actors" in the game isn't surprising. But that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater either. What I understand as having been going on in Texas specifically reeks of rotten dealings, and does warrant pursuit.

However, that doesn't mean that many, or even most of the people backing voter ID have voter suppression or disenfranchisement as an agenda item. Voter ID is the only way to ensure the proper integrity of the voting process when it comes to ensuring only eligible voters vote. (And that they only vote their vote)

The status quo for voter Identification is just begging for someone to exploit it. I'm a bigger fan of closing the barn door before the animals escape rather than after they're gone.

There is a middle ground here, positive Voter ID should be a must have top priority for anyone interested in honest and fair elections. Which puts the discussion into the realm of "How can we make this happen?" Rather than generating excuses for why we shouldn't. And Greg, you're making excuses.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #70 on: October 25, 2016, 08:23:37 AM »
Come on, Al, you really didn't understand what I was trying to say?
No.  Try again using smaller words if you have to.  Why is the general election "already screwed" and what is the reason the primary in two states is more important and what is the connection?

1) Are you really going to pretend that either side is happy with their 'chosen' candidate?
I'm not sure the Dems would have been happy with Sanders, either, for reasons we've discussed several times already.

Quote
2) Two states can swing a primary. In this case perhaps they did not, but that's irrelevant.
???  I think you're saying that even if Hillary rigged the AZ and NY primaries it didn't affect the outcome of the nomination process.  But even if it didn't it's irrelevant to your point, which I'm again struggling to grasp.  Hypothetically, it could have, but hypothetically lots of things could have made a difference.  The only reason they didn't is because they didn't happen.

Quote
In principle they could in a very close primary, and in such a case cause a lesser candidate to be the candidate for the generals. My point is that the wrong candidate winning the primary is worse than the wrong candidate winning the general. The latter causes grief for four years; the former denies to people having a chance to prevent that grief in the first place. From the perspective of many Americans no matter who wins this election it will be four years of grief. There is no longer a way for such people to cast a vote and feed good about it. That's what I mean by "already screwed." If a good candidate gets to the general at least the people have a chance to vote for that candidate. If that candidate is stopped at the level of the primaries then there is never a chance (unless they run as an independent).
OK, I think I get it.  You still think that if Sanders was the Dem candidate that voters wouldn't be "screwed".  That feeling reflects your strong bias and antipathy against Hillary rather than facts in evidence.  IMO, Bernie would have had less chance against Trump than Hillary.  "Feel the Bern" would have become "Feel the flush of humiliation".  But that's just me, and I don't intend to back up that "opinion" with any facts, since he's not the candidate and therefore there are no facts to bring forward.  But I'll offer that hypothetically you're right, but in reality...

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #71 on: October 25, 2016, 10:20:53 AM »
I'm not sure the Dems would have been happy with Sanders, either, for reasons we've discussed several times already.

I think you might be merging two different issues into one. If you're saying that Sanders supporters would not be pleased in the event he were to lose, then that might be true but it doesn't pertain to my comment. If you're saying they wouldn't even be pleased for him to be the candidate, that would seem to be an inherently self-contradictory statement. Of course they would be happy with that. Nearly half of the Democratic voters strongly wanted him as candidate, and it's unclear to what extent the rest would have been pleased/displeased/lukewarm with him winning. Contrariwise, I think a case could be made that nearly all Bernie supporters were displeased to have Clinton as the candidate, and as has been argued many times (which is of course not proof) it's not even clear how fervent most Clinton supporters are to vote for her.

If you were to assign a value of support for a candidate from 1 to 10, and the primary vote had been a number for each candidate, rather than a vote for one and not the other, I would suggest that in the total tally Bernie would have handily won. This is a counterfactual guess, of course, but honestly I like to think in these terms because in general I view "one vote, one candidate" as being probably the worst of all possible voting systems imaginable for many reasons.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #72 on: October 25, 2016, 10:23:53 AM »
Maybe all of this voter I.D. stuff really is as irrelevant as the Hillary supporters are saying.

http://www.infowars.com/report-votes-switched-from-trump-to-hillary-in-texas/

“Gary and I went to early vote today,” wrote Lisa Houlette on Facebook. “I voted a straight Republican ticket and as I scrolled to submit my ballot I noticed that the Republican straight ticket was highlighted, however, the Clinton/Kaine box was also highlighted!”

“I tried to go back and change and could not get it to work. I asked for help from one of the workers and she couldn’t get it to go back either. It took a second election person to get the machine to where I could correct the vote to a straight ticket,” she added.

Meanwhile, in Arlington, Texas, another voter reported a similar experience.

“I had a family member that voted this morning and she voted straight Republican,” wrote Shandy Clark. “She checked before she submitted and the vote had changed to Clinton! She reported it and made sure her vote was changed back. They commented that It had been happening.”

Social media forums are also ablaze with concerns about votes being switched.

“Multiple reports on my Facebook, Periscope, Snapchat, and Twitter from my friends in Texas, and all of them had their vote switched to Clinton automatically,” one post on The Donald Reddit is headlined.

The reports are alarming, especially given the fact that the media, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and even President Obama himself have all attempted to dismiss Donald Trump’s concerns about vote rigging as a baseless conspiracy theory.

A good person to ask about reports of vote rigging in Texas would be Texas Director of Elections Keith Ingram, but given that he ran away from our reporters – that might prove to be difficult."

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

Who needs voter I.D. when you can just have the voting machine switch a Trump vote to one for Hillary?

Since there was a recent court ruling that you can photograph your ballot people should go in there and videotape their ballot in progress. It seems like for anything to be believed nowadays you need video of it happening. This seems like more than just a random glitch. If it is then it sure is an interesting coincidence that is just happens to switch Trump votes to Hillary. That's some serious election rigging proving that Trump was right to be concerned.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #73 on: October 25, 2016, 10:27:37 AM »
First, where we could potentially agree. I would approve of a national registry in which every citizen had a verifiable form of information, as long as the government made an effort even more extensive than a census to ensure everyone could get such a card, etc. But unless there is an extraordinary effort to provide such identification to everyone, there would be unjustifiable bias. Also note that a national registry would address the leading cause of the tiny quantity of false voting that exists, which is where a person still remains registered in their old state even after they have moved to a new one (none of the Republican Voter IDs targeted this form of false voting).

Quote
However, that doesn't mean that many, or even most of the people backing voter ID have voter suppression or disenfranchisement as an agenda item. Voter ID is the only way to ensure the proper integrity of the voting process when it comes to ensuring only eligible voters vote. (And that they only vote their vote)

In the Bush Administration, the White House ordered Republican State's Attorneys to find evidence of voter fraud. None of them could find any, but the White House didn't like that answer, and so they ordered them to manufacture evidence of voter fraud. They still could not find any, and so a group of Republican-appointed States Attorneys were fired by the White House. When caught, the Attorney General and 8 other senior members of the Justice Department resigned. 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #74 on: October 25, 2016, 10:38:15 AM »
Let's say for a moment we got serious about getting an ID to every qualified voter.
Oh... Look at all the people we just found with warrants for their arrest...
Look at all the people in the country illegally we just found...

Guess we'll ignore all that.  Nobody in the government would want that info nor take action based upon having it...  What I'm getting at is you have to rely on at least SOME level of personal motivation to participate.  Trying to get around that is going to come off as more sinister than you may realize.  (Then again, I think we probably SHOULD know these things...  But be careful what you wish for.)

As much as I am baffled by people not choosing to vote, I don't think we need to go out and slap ID's or ballots into people's hands.  If you don't care enough to do what it takes to be registered, I don't think the system needs your input.

What we do need are conveniently located polling places.  Locations properly staffed and with enough equipment to get people in and out in a timely manner.  A freaking national holiday so we don't have to come in late or leave early or just miss voting all together because we can't afford to miss work.

Should we make ID's easier to get?  Sure, but in MOST areas they honestly aren't hard to come by.  If there are states / counties where a SoS office is so far away that you can't take one day out of the year to get there and get an ID that lasts several years... Then fix that issue in those locations.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #75 on: October 25, 2016, 11:23:06 AM »
Quote
Are you talking about their journalism project that "studied" convictions versus reports of fraud or something else?   Cause that's not a study, and certainly not a "fairly exhaustive study".  Or are you talking about their "study" where they asked election officials to self report on the proven cases of fraud in their jurisdiction?  Again, not a meaningful study.
Well, I thought I said
Quote
"That's consistent with pretty much all of the studies that I've read."
but perhaps I didn't.  Oh wait...

Quote
But maybe I'm misjudging you
I think you just see the world though rose colored glasses.  Try googling "study voter fraud".  You don't have to take the first hit.

My offer was to help you understand what you're reading, since you don't seem to understand what a study entails.  How about this, just describe the methodology of the study you read that what support the claim you said it made.  There isn't a study with a methodology that actually supports that conclusion, there are just "studies" with poor methodology selected specifically to reach that conclusion.

Me looking for more information on Google isn't going to help with you inability to comprehend the problems with studies that seem to support what you want to hear.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #76 on: October 25, 2016, 11:26:26 AM »
In the Bush Administration, the White House ordered Republican State's Attorneys to find evidence of voter fraud. None of them could find any, but the White House didn't like that answer, and so they ordered them to manufacture evidence of voter fraud. They still could not find any, and so a group of Republican-appointed States Attorneys were fired by the White House. When caught, the Attorney General and 8 other senior members of the Justice Department resigned.

Did you even bother to read what I posted earlier in regards to defeating the non-strict voter Identification law in Idaho? Most voter fraud that happens, if it happens, would only be likely to be detected if you fully canvassed every person who voted in a given precinct and asked them if they voted. This gets into methodology, and I doubt any State's Attorney went that far. They probably looked instead for the voting dead, the disenfranchised felon who voted, non-existent addresses, and the nearly impossible to detect in many cases, the notorious illegal immigrant voter.

I mean think about it. How is an investigator going by a voter registration register be able to determine the citizenship status of that voter? IIRC, most of those registers are only a name and address with nothing more. Well, the illegal lives at a valid address, and as many here will correctly assert, inability to present proof of citizenship on request(and without a warrant) does not mean a person isn't a citizen, it just means they either don't have the proof with them, or chose not to do so at the time.

The non-voting felon is comparatively easy to check as most states track them to some degree(as they're still serving out a court sentence), so they'd only need a name & address match between the two to investigate further and determine if they're the same person. Invalid addresses are likewise comparatively "easy" to find as well as the voting dead.

But that illegal immigrant? Assuming he isn't voting under a stolen identity in the first place, you would then have find out details about their birth(not present in the register), and then check that against the relevant state or agency databases. Simple name matching doesn't help either, as even comparatively rare names show up multiple times in large populations. So just because John Paul Smith shows up voting in 5 counties in Florida doesn't mean John voted 5 times, there may very well actually be 5 John Paul Smith's in Florida.

In short, it isn't viable to go through and perform a "basic background check" on voters months or years after the fact when voter Identification practices are so lax in the first place. Particularly when you know the vast majority of those checks are going to come back clean. You're talking about using a lot of resources that could be better used elsewhere. Much cheaper and easier to do the work up front in the first place, which means you positively identify the voter rather than hand-wave your way through it.

Or I guess we could frame this another way: Shoplifting. Most shoplifters don't get caught during any given attempt at it. Just because shoplifters aren't being caught in numbers sufficient to account for the amount of goods that went missing doesn't mean those goods weren't shoplifted.

Why then should a lack of people getting caught exploiting a highly exploitable system be taken as "proof" that the system is NOT being exploited?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 11:28:37 AM by TheDeamon »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #77 on: October 25, 2016, 11:29:05 AM »
I said I thought there was disenfranchisement in the Democratic primaries. Read my comment again. So again, accusing me of right-wing bias in describing some Democrats disenfranchising other Democrats is quite the head-scratcher.

Have you read any follow up on these accounts?  It looked, like from what I read, that the while there are once again initial and grand sweeping claims of deliberate disenfranchisement, the actuality was that virtually everyone excluded was excluded consistent with the law.  The biggest problem Bernie supporters had, wasn't that they were unfairly disenfranchised in the primary, it was that they hadn't properly registered as Democrats for a closed primary. 

Just curious if you actually followed the cases all the way through, because my thesis specifically was that these claims are widely reported and almost always end with a general agreement that the specific rules were correctly applied (doesn't necessarily mean the rules were fair, but even that is often the case).

Quote
The general is already screwed and there's nothing the voters can do about it any more. The whole problem is that crap candidates can end up being the only option in a general. In this sense the primaries are by far the worse culprit in propping up these lame ducks, and therefore any malfeasance that occurs in the primaries serves to perpetuate this system more so than any other abuse. When confirmed Democrat voters find themselves without any candidate to vote for there is a problem. Sure, by the time of the general they can always vote for a lesser of two evils, but as I mentioned before if that's the situation then it's already too late.

I actively hate our primary system.  My preferred candidate is almost always "out of the race" by the time the local primary comes around.  Wish we'd force them all onto one day, or no more than two days (and force rotate them, no more of this New Hampshire crap).  It'd be much better to have a national primary run off, followed by a national primary final than this crappy system.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #78 on: October 25, 2016, 11:46:04 AM »
Just curious if you actually followed the cases all the way through, because my thesis specifically was that these claims are widely reported and almost always end with a general agreement that the specific rules were correctly applied (doesn't necessarily mean the rules were fair, but even that is often the case).

I'm sure in some cases it was over-reported, but I'm not convinced that's all it was. I personally know several people in NYC who at least claim they registered correctly and were still given the run-around by the system. It sounded like they were faced with a bureaucratic nightmare, where they didn't merely have to register but had to jump through hoops on top of it. But to be fair I didn't closely vet their claims and so it remains hearsay.

Another issue which doesn't pertain to registration issues were the much-reduced voting locations (I believe it was in AZ) that had gigantic lines and where many people were turned away in the end due to time elapsing. It's not 100% clear that this resulted in one candidate gaining some advantage over the other, but it certainly is a case of systemic disenfranchisement where the physical limitations of the infrastructure denied people the right to vote. I would call this situation ambiguously deliberate in the sense that after years of elections it should have been 100% predictable that this would happen.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #79 on: October 25, 2016, 11:48:43 AM »
Quote
The general is already screwed and there's nothing the voters can do about it any more. The whole problem is that crap candidates can end up being the only option in a general. In this sense the primaries are by far the worse culprit in propping up these lame ducks, and therefore any malfeasance that occurs in the primaries serves to perpetuate this system more so than any other abuse. When confirmed Democrat voters find themselves without any candidate to vote for there is a problem. Sure, by the time of the general they can always vote for a lesser of two evils, but as I mentioned before if that's the situation then it's already too late.

I actively hate our primary system.  My preferred candidate is almost always "out of the race" by the time the local primary comes around.  Wish we'd force them all onto one day, or no more than two days (and force rotate them, no more of this New Hampshire crap).  It'd be much better to have a national primary run off, followed by a national primary final than this crappy system.

I am increasingly becoming a fan of the instant runoff approach toward handling any race with more than 2 candidates. I think this would be a huge help in the primaries in particular, at least for any state that goes "winner takes all."

If instant runoff was employed by the Republicans this cycle, I doubt Trump would be their nominee right now.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #80 on: October 25, 2016, 11:50:42 AM »
Seriati, read your quote below and then my contrary evidence.

Quote
Bull.  Voter IDs are not aimed at stopping even one legitimate voter.  They are directly aimed at stopping illegitimate voters. 

Here's a direct quote from a staff aide to a Republican State Legislator in Wisconsin

Quote
I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power.

The legal term for that is hearsay.  I put zero weight on what an aide to a state legislator says in any event, and even less on his "reports" about what other people said in a closed session after he left his job.  Dear lord, if this is evidence in your world, how did you argue against Hillary going to jail in good conscience?

In any event, it's stupid.  I guarantee that some Republicans want voter ID laws for nefarious purposes, just like some Democrats would be ecstatic if an election was rigged in their favor.  What does that have to do with why a law is drafted by the majority?  You realize voter id laws are supported by some Democrats as well?  That there are Democrats who are anti-illegal immigration and that are concerned about voter fraud?

There are literally millions of Republicans out there and some of them are stone cold stupid.  You can always pull a quote that says whatever the hell you want to find from some where.  There are Democrats who will expressly talk with glee about the long term prospects for building a permanent majority with the citizen children of illegal immigrants.

Your claim based on this quote is nothing more than multiple fallacies stacked on each other.  You have an anecdotal fallacy (obvious, when you pull quotes from people we've never heard to make a general claim), you have an argument from fallacy (that some people want a voter id law for a bad purpose, means voter id laws have only bad purposes), which is an affirming a disjunct fallacy (as you seem to believe that if someone believes voter ID laws are for this purpose, then no other reasons for it could be true for the majority), an appeal to false authority (as if some random aides or consultants statements are dispositive as to reasons).  Could go on all day on this.

Fact is, just because something may have an effect (disenfranchisement) does not mean that this is the major goal.  In fact, its almost certainly the case that it would not have this effect long term, particularly not if people take measures to ensure compliance is easily accomplished, like say making free ids available?  Giving people years to get them before an election?  Heck, I'd accept allowing provisional voting subject to proving identity after the fact.  All of which make the claimed risk of disenfranchisement a flat lie, there is no reason that a Voter ID law should disenfranchise any legitimate voter.  Explain how it would do so?

Now, can you answer my first challenge?  Without a voter ID rule how do you catch the sources of potential fraud I identified?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 11:56:17 AM by Seriati »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #81 on: October 25, 2016, 12:07:14 PM »
Now, can you answer my first challenge?  Without a voter ID rule how do you catch the sources of potential fraud I identified?

Or that I pointed out. :)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #82 on: October 25, 2016, 12:25:02 PM »
Quote
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.

From the Wikipedia entry on felony disenfranchisement:
Quote
As of 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement.[8] Approximately 13% of the United States' population is African American, yet African Americans make up 38% of the American prison population.[2] Slightly more than 15% of the United States population is Hispanic, while 20% of the prison population is Hispanic.[2] People who are felons are disproportionately people of color.[1][2] In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color as "they are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and subsequently denied the right to vote".[1] Research has shown that as much as 10% of the population in some minority communities in the United States are unable to vote as a result of felony disenfranchisement.[1]

A 2003 study found that states with high non-white prison populations were more likely than others to pass felon disenfranchisement laws, even after controlling for numerous other factors, which supports the racial threat hypothesis.[9]

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African-American voters. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African-American voters.[5]

I suppose you could pull out the "no true Scotsman" argument, but clearly ~6 million disenfranchised voters is orders of magnitude larger than any likely number of fraudulent, in-person votes.  That's aside from the hundreds of thousands who would be disenfranchised (only as a side affect, and quite innocently, of course) by enforcing voter ID laws.

I keep waiting, but nobody has ever successfully explained how an organized conspiracy to fraudulently vote in-person on a large enough scale to affect even hundreds of ballots could be kept secret, or how a non-conspiracy, non-organized group of unaffiliated voters could do the same and primarily benefit only a single party or candidate.  Is only one party's supporters smart enough and criminal enough to pull it off?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #83 on: October 25, 2016, 12:30:30 PM »
Quote
My offer was to help you understand what you're reading, since you don't seem to understand what a study entails.  How about this, just describe the methodology of the study you read that what support the claim you said it made.  There isn't a study with a methodology that actually supports that conclusion, there are just "studies" with poor methodology selected specifically to reach that conclusion.
Why do you think I'm going to go deep into the bowels of different studies in order to get your approval of their methodologies?  Since you *already* know the methodologies are flawed, it should take almost no effort for you to detail those flaws for my and others' edification.

Quote
I'm sure in some cases it was over-reported, but I'm not convinced that's all it was. I personally know several people in NYC who at least claim they registered correctly and were still given the run-around by the system. It sounded like they were faced with a bureaucratic nightmare, where they didn't merely have to register but had to jump through hoops on top of it. But to be fair I didn't closely vet their claims and so it remains hearsay.
Can you explain how bureaucratic disenfranchisement would target just Bernie's supporters, since you don't know who they're going to vote for ahead of time?

Quote
I keep waiting, but nobody has ever successfully explained how an organized conspiracy to fraudulently vote in-person on a large enough scale to affect even hundreds of ballots could be kept secret, or how a non-conspiracy, non-organized group of unaffiliated voters could do the same and primarily benefit only a single party or candidate.  Is only one party's supporters smart enough and criminal enough to pull it off?
Ah, I can explain that.  Since you can't prove it's happening but it seems obvious that it is, there is therefore a massively coordinated conspiracy that takes votes away from your candidate and/or assigns them to the candidate you don't want to win.

Cherry has offered a few cases in heavily Republican Texas where local voting precincts are switching votes to the candidate he opposes.  It never seems to happen in the other direction.  Since he only has heard anecdotally about a few cases but they are popping up in *his* inbox, he can assume that they must therefore be just the tip of the iceberg.

Another meme that is floating around Republican antiBama circles is that he was so disinterested in doing his job as President that he played more rounds of golf than any president in history before him.  But if you tell those people that Eisenhower played three times as many rounds as Obama, they'll point out to you that it's an unfair comparison.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #84 on: October 25, 2016, 12:47:32 PM »
I keep waiting, but nobody has ever successfully explained how an organized conspiracy to fraudulently vote in-person on a large enough scale to affect even hundreds of ballots could be kept secret, or how a non-conspiracy, non-organized group of unaffiliated voters could do the same and primarily benefit only a single party or candidate.  Is only one party's supporters smart enough and criminal enough to pull it off?

Well, as the statute of limitations is up as far as I'm aware for election antics in 2000. I could say I'm aware of (ostensibly pro-Bush) balloting antics which would certainly qualify as fraudulent, given the votes were cast after election day. But then, I'm only aware of it second hand, didn't see it happen myself(but knew people who claimed to be involved).  And likewise have no idea if those ballots actually did get counted in all that went on over there.

As to the how, well, IIRC, Florida only required the ballot to be postmarked on election day, rather than received by it. And when the person doing the postmarking is in on what's going on... Well, lets just say that while that count couldn't get the high in the instance I heard about. If it repeated in enough other locations, it's entirely possible that more than a thousand Florida residents who happened to be overseas in November of 2000 may have actually voted on either November 8th or 9th, even though election day was on the 7th.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 12:54:08 PM by TheDeamon »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #85 on: October 25, 2016, 12:49:01 PM »
I suppose you could pull out the "no true Scotsman" argument, but clearly ~6 million disenfranchised voters is orders of magnitude larger than any likely number of fraudulent, in-person votes.  That's aside from the hundreds of thousands who would be disenfranchised (only as a side affect, and quite innocently, of course) by enforcing voter ID laws.

Honestly, not sure what you want on this one.  That's a policy position intentionally and knowingly adopted with legitimate reasons related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.  Unless, you're arguing that there is no conceivable reason that a convicted felon would be excluded from the exercise of voting for the direction of the country other than as an attempt at some kind of one sided political machinations?

The argument here is about the reason behind a Voter ID law, with some honestly believing it has no purpose but to try and disenfranchise one parties voters, and others stating specifically the purpose they believe it serves.  These are not terribly like events.

Why not argue about the "disenfranchisement" of minor children or illegal immigrants?

Quote
I keep waiting, but nobody has ever successfully explained how an organized conspiracy to fraudulently vote in-person on a large enough scale to affect even hundreds of ballots could be kept secret, or how a non-conspiracy, non-organized group of unaffiliated voters could do the same and primarily benefit only a single party or candidate.  Is only one party's supporters smart enough and criminal enough to pull it off?

How do you catch, 3 poll workers at a polling station who were planted there specifically to approve people they know are not legitimate voters to vote?  All they have to do is maintain control of the physical lists through the end of the day and there's literally no way to catch them.  Without 100% voter attendance they would always be able to check off another name in the unlikely event that an actual voter shows for a ballot they already marked as cast, and that's assuming they didn't get fraudulent names on the list in the first place.  That's assuming of course that the poll workers don't just start completing ballots themselves and marking them off.

There's no reason to think that both parties couldn't participate in voter fraud.   It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #86 on: October 25, 2016, 12:54:55 PM »
Quote
My offer was to help you understand what you're reading, since you don't seem to understand what a study entails.  How about this, just describe the methodology of the study you read that what support the claim you said it made.  There isn't a study with a methodology that actually supports that conclusion, there are just "studies" with poor methodology selected specifically to reach that conclusion.
Why do you think I'm going to go deep into the bowels of different studies in order to get your approval of their methodologies?  Since you *already* know the methodologies are flawed, it should take almost no effort for you to detail those flaws for my and others' edification.

I don't think you are, I don't think you ever actually look at anything other than whether it appears to agree with you.

Simple words.  How can I refute the studies you find convincing if you can't identify which they are?

Quote
Can you explain how bureaucratic disenfranchisement would target just Bernie's supporters, since you don't know who they're going to vote for ahead of time?

There's no way to fine craft the targeting person by person.  However, all campaigns have fine crafted their information on voter tendencies by the tiniest of Demographic Differences.  Hillary's campaign would have zero difficulty identifying groups that are more likely to be Bernie supporters.

In any event, this one was obvious, people switching their registrations to Democrats for the first time and seeking to vote, are very unlikely to have been doing so to support the long term party candidate, rather than the upstart.  Forcing any new registrations/flips out would benefit Hillary on the whole, even if it harmed specific voters that wanted to vote for her.

Quote
Ah, I can explain that.  Since you can't prove it's happening but it seems obvious that it is, there is therefore a massively coordinated conspiracy that takes votes away from your candidate and/or assigns them to the candidate you don't want to win.

Keep on keeping on with your argument from ignorance!  Listed multiple ways a fraud could occur, showed there is no meaningful effort to catch them, AND challenged you to describe an effective method that catching it could occur.

crickets, AI, crickets on your actual arguments.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #87 on: October 25, 2016, 12:56:57 PM »
How do you catch, 3 poll workers at a polling station who were planted there specifically to approve people they know are not legitimate voters to vote?  All they have to do is maintain control of the physical lists through the end of the day and there's literally no way to catch them.  Without 100% voter attendance they would always be able to check off another name in the unlikely event that an actual voter shows for a ballot they already marked as cast, and that's assuming they didn't get fraudulent names on the list in the first place.  That's assuming of course that the poll workers don't just start completing ballots themselves and marking them off.

Which doesn't even get into the matter that even many of the states with Voter ID will allow people to vote without Identification.... If vouched for a by Poll Worker.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #88 on: October 25, 2016, 01:08:54 PM »
Quote
It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale.
I may regret asking, but why do you believe this?  What "Democrat" traits leads to this conclusion?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #89 on: October 25, 2016, 01:14:26 PM »
Quote
It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale.
I may regret asking, but why do you believe this?  What "Democrat" traits leads to this conclusion?

Have you read Rules for Radicals or just looked at summaries of its contents? Plenty of Democrat operatives were more than passingly familiar with that book long before Conservatives became widely aware of it c/o Obama "the Community Organizer"

It should also be noted that, IIRC, Hillary Clinton has her own ties to that book, and knew its author personally.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #90 on: October 25, 2016, 01:22:11 PM »
Quote
That's a policy position intentionally and knowingly adopted with legitimate reasons related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.
Sure, just like voter ID laws could defended as a policy position related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.  It doesn't really address the issue that it is also a policy position that disproportionately affects populations that do not support the people pushing those policies. Conveniently.
Quote
It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale.
You could only state this with a straight face if you completely ignore what has happened politically in the USA over the past year.

Didn't you hear?  Character doesn't matter anymore.  Just ask the evangelical Christians...


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #91 on: October 25, 2016, 01:55:27 PM »
Quote
That's a policy position intentionally and knowingly adopted with legitimate reasons related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.
Sure, just like voter ID laws could defended as a policy position related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.

Except now you're talking nonsense.   Voter ID doesn't leave any citizen disqualified.  Felon's don't get to vote as policy choice.  Voter IDs are provided for free to those that otherwise can't afford them, and no one is disqualified.

If you want to pretend a dog is a cat and then call me a cat hater, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you.  But just because you think you can construe two things to look similar because they're both mammals doesn't make them the same species.

Quote
It doesn't really address the issue that it is also a policy position that disproportionately affects populations that do not support the people pushing those policies. Conveniently.

Convenient or not, the deliberate steps taken to mitigate the impact make a lie of the idea that this inherently disenfranchises people.

Quote
Quote
It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale.
You could only state this with a straight face if you completely ignore what has happened politically in the USA over the past year.

No, I just think you're drawing false moral equivalences.  Are Republicans hypocrites?   Sure, so are Democrats. 

Not sure what that has to do with my opinion that Democrats believe the ends justify the means.  It's not like, we haven't heard, on this very board from several of you guys such "clearly principled" arguments, as "Obama has to exceed his constitutional authority on immigration because the Republicans in Congress refuse to do their jobs."  Pretty much every single argument you guys have made for expanded use of executive authority is an Ends justify the Means argument.  Libya, which the left supports for some reason, ends justifies the means when you backed the President not getting Congressional approval.  How about backing the Presidents "something just like a treaty but not a treaty" in Iran just to avoid Senate oversight and approval? 

I'm really hard pressed to see how anyone, could claim that the Democrats don't believe in the ends justifying the means.  Is your dispute that you think Republicans do it more?

Quote
Didn't you hear?  Character doesn't matter anymore.  Just ask the evangelical Christians...

Not sure what you want them to say.  I already told you, voters who prize ethics don't have a candidate in this election.  Is it your view that "evangelical Christians" shouldn't support the candidate that comes closer to their views?  That they should not do the same thing most of us are doing, and vote for a candidate because the other is worse?  Or are you conflating millions of voter decisions with what you think their "leaders" (which aren't actually leaders) may have said or done?

In any event, I thought supporting Cruz was even lower when they did that.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #92 on: October 25, 2016, 02:07:58 PM »
Quote
"Obama has to exceed his constitutional authority on immigration because the Republicans in Congress refuse to do their jobs." 
You've seen this?  I expect you will not find defenders suggesting he "exceeded" it.  Maybe stretched it a bit.  But how is that not at the same time an example of the end (Make sure Obama didn't get a second term) a justification for the means of (obstruct everything possible)? 

I think several of us actually noted our concern that, while we liked Obama "sticking it to a do-nothing congress" that it was setting a dangerous precedent of executive power that will eventually be turned the other direction.

As to the "Rules for Radical" I'm not familiar.  I find it interesting that an instruction book is needed or evidence for painting a whole party as more prone to rationalizing ends justify the means mentality.

The only evidence I see that the Republican party is less likely to adopt this tactic is that they themselves outlined what needed to change to solidify their relevance and insure more victories moving forward... Then opted to ignore all of their own advice.  That's a pretty strong argument of rejecting the means even if you desperately want the end.  ;)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #93 on: October 25, 2016, 03:11:20 PM »
Quote
"Obama has to exceed his constitutional authority on immigration because the Republicans in Congress refuse to do their jobs." 
You've seen this?

Of course not.  They don't spell it out for you.  Should have used ' ' instead of " " sorry about that.  If they wrote it that way they'd have to admit they were wrong.  Instead they just say He had to act because they won't.  And reference to their continued inaction (as if that's not a legitimate policy choice option).

Quote
But how is that not at the same time an example of the end (Make sure Obama didn't get a second term) a justification for the means of (obstruct everything possible)?

First of all, I have repeatedly disputed that there was anything unique about that "plan".  The only real difference I can identify is that Obama was incapable of building bridges with any member of the opposition that caused the "plan" to fail as it has for previous Presidents.  I suspect whether you believe its because of an unheard of level of denial of self interest by Republicans offered deals to switch sides, or as I do, because this President couldn't compromise if his life depended on it is probably more a measure of which party you're registered than anything else.  But I'm flat out rejecting anyone treating as fact that Obama faced something unprecedented without contributing to that result.

But second, nothing about that is actually an illegal or improper means.  You do understand that the usual construction of the term "ends justifies the means" is that a good end justifies an illegal, improper or immoral means, using a legitimate means to achieve your goals is not the exact opposite of the concept, but it's in no way an ends justifies the means strategy.  Unless you can point to something about their opposition that was somehow illegal?  Frankly, their opposition to his policies was in the best interests of themselves and their constituents so it's hard to see how it wouldn't be their duty to have proceeded that way.

Quote
I think several of us actually noted our concern that, while we liked Obama "sticking it to a do-nothing congress" that it was setting a dangerous precedent of executive power that will eventually be turned the other direction.

And?  Was he justified or not?  Why do you think it was a "dangerous precedent" if it was a proper means? 

Quote
The only evidence I see that the Republican party is less likely to adopt this tactic is that they themselves outlined what needed to change to solidify their relevance and insure more victories moving forward... Then opted to ignore all of their own advice.  That's a pretty strong argument of rejecting the means even if you desperately want the end.  ;)

There's by the way plenty of evidence that Republicans hold their politicians responsible for moral failings that Democrats ignore, even to the extent of pulling down or refusing to support politicians with a chance to win.  There's also a massive disparity between the parties in who engages in civil disobedience (which is rebranded way to say ends justifies the means) rather than working with the system.  It's one sided which party expressly supports a living constitution rather than one where the process has to be followed.  It's largely one sided as to which party favors judicial fiat over convincing voters to vote for a change - and as to which party actively seeks to expressly use the courts to overturn ballot initiatives and even state constitutional amendments.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2016, 03:15:31 PM »
Quote
Except now you're talking nonsense.   Voter ID doesn't leave any citizen disqualified.  Felon's don't get to vote as policy choice.  Voter IDs are provided for free to those that otherwise can't afford them, and no one is disqualified.
Except now you are talking nonsense: voter ID laws are being defined at the state level, some of which are proposing existing types of ID as being valid for voter identification purposes.  IDs that not just cost money to acquire themselves, but also which require time to acquire during working hours, and the ability,in many cases, to travel and miss work (go back to the whole discussion on disenfranchisement and Republican state governments limiting voters abilities to access to the point of access for such IDs.)

Sure, voters who cannot afford to miss work as a matter of pure finances or in many cases as a condition of maintaining their employment have a choice - they could acquire the ID and risk forfeiting their jobs... that's a choice.  But then, felons also had the choice not to commit a felony.  The choices of both sets of people define their ability to vote, based on the laws that have the effect of disenfranchising them.

The question in both cases, though, is what does each law do to benefit society, and at what cost?  The question has been answered multiple times, so there's not much point in rehashing the very real costs to very real people, and the very limited benefits to society as a whole (if any).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #95 on: October 25, 2016, 03:51:24 PM »
If you use "end's justify the means" strictly as relates to illegal actions, I'll withdraw that example.  I don't use it that way as a rule.

Quote
And?  Was he justified or not?  Why do you think it was a "dangerous precedent" if it was a proper means? 
I think he WAS justified.  Just as I think congress WAS justified in being obstructionist.  I think both showed a flagrant disregard to how a government is suppose to function.  I think both stretch the rules of governance to avoid working together.  I find it "dangerous" because it may establish a new normal any time a single party doesn't hold both.  I think it does a grave disservice to the nation if they branches are working to thwart each other (within the law) rather than try to run the country as best they can for the people in it.

Quote
There's also a massive disparity between the parties in who engages in civil disobedience (which is re-branded way to say ends justifies the means) rather than working with the system.
I'm probably on the sympathetic end of the Democrat spectrum to this argument.  However I'm young enough to be reaping the benefits of some of that "civil disobedience" that was used when "working with the system" had failed utterly.  In some ways, the system STILL fails to address issues.  I'm skeptical of situations where civil disobedience is now a legitimate tactic.  Particularly where active participation in the institutions or organizations being criticized is entirely open to those railing against their wrong doing.  I can't however dismiss it entirely. 

As for it favoring Democrats, or rather progressives, I think that only makes sense.  Now if we see civil disobedience from conservatives, when "the system" is now seen as unfair to them, has yet to be seen I suppose.  Unless you count some fringe cases that grabbed quite a bit of air and print time just a bit ago.

The constitutional / judicial views is almost a topic all its own.  Think I'll avoid that for now.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 03:54:24 PM by D.W. »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #96 on: October 25, 2016, 04:01:34 PM »
Quote
Simple words.  How can I refute the studies you find convincing if you can't identify which they are?
Nice deflection, Jiminy.  I cited a report that you deprecated because it wasn't a real study and allegedly used inferior methodology.  Can't you explain why?  I thought you would ignore my request, so I gave you a google search so you could see a sample of reports that more or less all agree that actual vote fraud is negligible.  You're pleading ignorance (which I think is accurate) in order to avoid looking at them and commenting, but that's ok; you've rarely been willing to find actual evidence for your positions. 

But let's invert it. Instead of inundating us all with hypothetical ways ballot fraud *could* happen, why don't you cite some clear reports that show that it *did* happen and that it changed the outcome of the election where it occurred.  Let's ignore JFK/1960, since we've all evolved since then.  For all the relish of the Wikileaks readers about the hacks into all sorts of Democratic public and private servers, I have yet to see any hacked emails talking about how the Party or Hillary's campaign rigged the AZ or NY primaries.  Why is that?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #97 on: October 25, 2016, 04:56:22 PM »
Clearly, AI, Assange was setting a trap for you - now that you brought it up, out will come the Arizona and New York emails...

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #98 on: October 25, 2016, 08:02:24 PM »
We'll need to make sure they aren't edited.  I'm kind of curious what Biden was referring to when he talked about a quid pro quo with Russian hacking.  I hope it is revealed before election day; maybe it will be a picture of Putin on the underside of the horse.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Third Debate
« Reply #99 on: October 25, 2016, 11:48:29 PM »
"You've seen this?  I expect you will not find defenders suggesting he "exceeded" it.  Maybe stretched it a bit."

Didn't the Supreme Court unanimously determine that Obama exceeded his Constitutional authority in the NLRB case by saying he had the power to declare when Congress was in session and out of session?