Why else make it so hard?
TX Appeals Court Ruling
Trump makes threats
Heritage Voter Fraud Site
Fact Check Voter Fraud Site
NBC Trump Pushes False Claims
Usually I accuse the DEMs of not working hard enough to secure the votes from the moderates and disenfranchised in the purple states. However today's message is if the GOP is scared that people will not vote for them if voting is easy, maybe they should do something different?
Protecting the safety of voters and making it easy to vote should be the goal.
TX Appeals Court Ruling
Trump makes threats
Heritage Voter Fraud Site
Fact Check Voter Fraud Site
NBC Trump Pushes False Claims
Usually I accuse the DEMs of not working hard enough to secure the votes from the moderates and disenfranchised in the purple states. However today's message is if the GOP is scared that people will not vote for them if voting is easy, maybe they should do something different?
Protecting the safety of voters and making it easy to vote should be the goal.
193 comments:
Democrats work hard to get votes. Republicans work hard to prevent people from voting. Who knows who works harder?
I am critical of both siderism, because in my views the parties are not mirror images of each other. They are different not opposites. It's why projection tell you much more about the projector than the projected. But in some ways, the parties are not just mirror images of each other, they are the same. Both parties have basically the same job. getting more votes than the other party. And both parties share the same electorate. So dealing with how people vote is the same, although the difference between the two parties can yield different solutions. Both parties believe that the more people who vote effectively, the worse it is for Republicans, the better it is for Democrats. Each party projects this view on the other, and they are right to do so.
Democrats are much more vulnerable to charge of hypocrisy than Republicans. We almost always fall short of the goals we set for ourselves, and it's not unfair for us to be called on it. But I am so amused by the fact that Trump who votes by mail because it's inconvenient for him to vote in person, thinks other people who find it just as inconvenient to vote in person as he does, should be denied that right because they don't vote the way he wants.
--Hiram
I agree that they are very different in regards to this topic.
It is true that the DEMs want the percent of citizens voting to increase where as the GOP seems fine working to reduce that number.
So, you are perfectly happy with 20% fraudulent voting, 99% of it Democrat?
As always... Source please.
It is strange how paranoid GOPers are about this topic...
First they are worried about at the polls registrations.
Now they are worried about sending ballots to Registered and verified voters... :-)
MN Register
MN Other Ways to Vote
FactCheck Trump Voter Misinformation
By election time Trump's entire base is going to believe he lost due to voter fraud.
Hopefully their protests will not be violent.
Definitely possible...
Thankfully the "battle ground" states are East of here. :-)
So, you are perfectly happy with 20% fraudulent voting, 99% of it Democrat?
People don't vote fraudulently, to any significant extent. The point of making voting more difficult is to reduce voting not reducing fraud.
The fact is, it is incredibly difficult to get legal, eligible voters to vote. More than havlf of Americans who are legal and eligible to vote, don't. That being the case, it is suggested that there are millions of individuals who are will risk very severe legal consequences to turn out to the polls, virtually all of them, the fantasists suggest, to vote for Democrats. If unicorns traveled in such large herds, don't you think someone would notice?
--Hiram
And yet Trump and his pawns apparently see unicorns all around them
John, you challenged me for a source about fraudulent voting. Not this time. You need to prove that my numbers are NOT correct. Prove to me that fraudulent voting does not take place in Minnesota.
Jerry,
Not worth the time... You want to see unicorns, so you see them...
I am most certain that there are:
- voting errors
- voting fraud by people from both parties
However all the data I can find is that it is a negligible miniscule part of the billions of votes made. And Mail in Voting should be even more secure if you are worried about ineligible voters showing up at the polls.
The sad reality is that the GOPers just want it hard for the young and poor to vote. :-(
I can never prove that fraudulent voting doesn't take place. Could it ever be possible to prove such a thing? For you logic fans, here is a syllogism.
It is never possible to prove fraudulent voting doesn't exist.
No election is valid without proof that fraudulent voting did not occur.
Therefore, no election is valid.
How do you like them apples, logic-wise? For myself, I view this reasoning on an attack on the validity of elections. What it does is lay the groundwork for disputing the result of an election one has lost. Retaining the option of disputing the validity of elections was so important to Donald Trump, that he disputed the validity of an election he arguably won.
Getting away from logic for the moment and returning to reality, the fact is, no election ever has been or ever will be perfect. It is a statistical certainty that when 130 million people do something, a very large number of them will screw it up. A choice to require perfection or anything near it as a condition of validity is a choice to do away with validity in elections.
This is an application of what I think of as Hiram's Rule:
When a politician tells you that they are in favor of something contingent on the fulfillment of an impossible precondition, they are, in fact, opposed to it.
--Hiram
Hiram,
That is why I will not even try...
Here is an interesting piece regarding GOP suppression efforts
What frustrate me is that Jerry always claims that he he "pro school voucher for the good of the poor kids", and yet he is happy to try and make it hard for their parent(s) to vote for the good of his party.
Of course I am somewhat of a fan of keeping the stupid and irresponsible from voting... But at least I am willing to say it.
Of course, all lawsuits claiming voter suppression have failed in court because not a single potential "suppressed voter" cold be found.
So, John, when are you going to answer my question? Where is your proof that voter fraud does not occur? Not just incidentally, but deliberately and in significant measure?
Jerry,
You must be kidding... There have been so many cases of where "GOP Suppression Techniques" have been found illegal.
As Hiram noted regarding your other request... You are asking us to prove that something does not exist...
Which of course makes no sense...
And you would deny data I provide anyway...
GOP Making it Harder for Folks to Vote :-(
Of course, all lawsuits claiming voter suppression have failed in court because not a single potential "suppressed voter" cold be found.
This sort of thing doesn't make a lot of sense of course, because if measures to suppress voters don't actually suppress voters, what's the point? Republicans aren't really getting their money's worth.
Both parties are in the realm of conventional wisdom here, a bit. Both sides know that if you make something more difficult, the less likely it is to happen. In politics, it's way harder to get a bill passed than it is not to get it passed, but where is the evidence that an unpassed bill was suppressed?
As I have often commented, hypocrisy is a much bigger deal for Democrats than it is for . Republicans. Trump doesn't have to worry about being called a hypocrite just because he criticizes mail voting, while voting by mail himself. But, in any event, just this morning, the Republican spokes person criticized Nevada for mismanaging ballots. The Nevada secretary of state is a Republican, and one reason she might have mismanaged ballots is to discourage trust in elections, one way to suppress voting.
--Hiram
"And you would deny data I provide anyway..." yes, just as you repeatedly and counterfactually deny that voter fraud is taking place, and on sufficient scale to alter outcomes in some elections, if not many. The challenge stands. Force me to deny your evidence.
Hiram, potential voters in Harlem were asked if they would be able to get an ID so they could vote under a proposed NY "voter suppression" aka photo ID law. 95% said they already had one, and everyone else said they knew how to get one. Voter suppression, like "no vote fraud in Minnesota" is a near-sacred Leftist myth.
Let me ask this another way: should fraudulent votes be "suppressed"?
The voter fraud potential I see is is from the Nevada Republican secretary of state who prints up ballots recklessly and who doesn't monitor them at all.
In Manhattan, people have to have ID's because very few New Yorkers drive. Vote is suppressed in other ways in New York through various forms of ballot manipulation.
Voter ID addresses impostor voting. Is there any evidence of that in Minnesota? Have you or anyone you know been unable to vote because someone has voted in your place?
--Hiram
Since discussing voter fraud in general is pointless.
Let's remember that this post is mostly about "mail in" voting and Trump's fear of it, even though he used it himself recently.
So why would anyone be against sending ballots to registered verified voters who request them at their place of residence?
How does the right see this being misused by the DEMs?
Since the GOP had the last big fraud problem, why do they not think any minuscule chicanery won't be offsetting?
One more question...
How do you want to make it easy, free and safe for allowed citizens to vote?
So why would anyone be against sending ballots to registered verified voters who request them at their place of residence?
The concern is that someone else would fill out the ballot. Or that the ballot would go to registered voters. There are lots of ways to engage in election fraud. If we insist on addressing all of them, Given an electorate of 130 million people, we as a nation wouldn't have time for anything else. Sounds to me like an extremely boring Star Trek episode.
How does the right see this being misused by the DEMs?
Both parties are capable of abusing the process. The Nevada secretary of state is a Republican. So was the guy recently convicted of voter fraud in North Carolina.
Since the GOP had the last big fraud problem, why do they not think any minuscule chicanery won't be offsetting?
They aren't concerned with that. They want to make voting more difficult because they believe, as we believe, that it would discourage more Democratic voters, than it would Republican voters. Generally, any effort to count more votes, to discern voter intent, benefits Democrats. It's why Democrats just about always benefit from voter recounts, particularly of absentee ballots. It's what pulled Al Franken ahead of Norm Coleman.
How do you want to make it easy, free and safe for allowed citizens to vote?
More polling places, more voting hours, easier access to ballots. I am always concerned with what I think of as "point of sale" issues. Just as a retailer tries to eliminate barriers between him and your giving him your money, I want to eliminate barriers to voting. Just as with retailers, I am a whole lot less concerned with fraud that increasing volume of activity. ID advocates say often you have to produce your ID to do X, why shouldn't you have to produce your ID to vote. The fact is, it is very rare to have to produce ID to X, and when you are asked, it's not to prove ID. You are asked for ID at the liquor store to verify age, not ID.
--Hiram
The point of voter ID is not to prove eligibility to vote. That's because people can have ID and not be eligible to vote. There is no link between the two. It's not the job of election judges to determine eligibility to vote. Voter ID is supposed to do just what the term says, identify the voter.
--Hiram
I think you are missing something there.
The Voter registration system is to determine eligibility to vote.
The ID is to ensure the correct person is given the ballot.
Just as the US Mail is responsible for getting the ballot to the correct house.
The Voter registration system is to determine eligibility to vote.
You don't have to be eligible to vote to receive an ID. Elections judges don't have the power to determine the eligibility of someone to vote, and I don't think anyone wants them to have that power. Their task is ministerial only.
The ID is to ensure the correct person is given the ballot.
The problem is that impostor voting isn't a problem. Ask the election judges. The point of voter ID is to put up a barrier to voting.
--Hiram
As a grassroots political DFL political activist, when thinking about why one would commit voter fraud, I as myself why would I want to? What would I gain? Consider the difference between the two parties. Broadly speaking, Republicans exist to provide huge tax cuts to be paid for by exerting downward pressure on health care and retirement costs on the rest of us. For individual Republicans, the election of Republicans means millions and even billions of dollars in wealth appreciation. For me, it means I will pay a couple of thousand dollars more for health care. Which of us has the more powerful motive to cheat? Which of has has the ready cash to pay for a program of cheating?
You know, if I got caught committing election fraud, I would go to jail. But do you really think a rich Republican caught engaging in an election fraud scheme would go to jail. Let me assure you he would not, both because the scheme would be shrouded by enough ambiguity to make prosecution impossible, and because the people who make those decisions are under their control.
--Hiram
Hiram,
"The Problem" is whatever people choose to make it.
Jerry,
Any answers to my questions?
"The Problem" is whatever people choose to make it.
What Republicans choose to make the problem is that too many Democrats find it too easy to vote.
--Hiram
"...too many Democrats find it too easy to vote." Or, is it that too many Democrats who do not actually exist are still voting? That voter FRAUD is too easy?
"So why would anyone be against sending ballots to registered verified voters who request them at their place of residence?"
Not sure why you insist on answering a question with a question, especially one that you have essentially already been asked and refused to answer. But, that said, I am not against, in any way, the current system of absentee ballots. Why mess with it, unless it is to enable fraud on a massive scale? One must ask "Qui bono?"
Unfortunately we will likely be in the middle of a second wave of COVID next fall, so the current system will not be safe...
So again...
How do you want to make it easy, free and safe for allowed citizens to vote?
And the amusing thing is that many GOP states are doing the same things that Michigan is... but Trump and the GOP forget to mention that.
It would be remarkably difficult to commit fraud on any sort of significant scale. It would be hugely expensive and it would be virtually impossible to conceal. It's much more effective to make voting more difficult for people who are likely to vote for the other guy. That would certainly be the tactic I would choose, if that were my goal. The tactic I do choose is to make voting easier for people who vote my way. Believe me, the effect of that can be tremendous. It'w voter de-suppression, if you will.
--Hiram
How do you want to make it easy, free and safe for allowed citizens to vote?
There are lots of ways to do it. Open more polling places. You note people who want to reduce voting close polling places. Keep the polls open longer. Have them open over election weekend. instead of just one day. You notice in voters suppressing states polls aren't open as long. Physically, at the polling places, have more booths available. In vote suppressing states, there are always images of long lines at the polling places. I don't think I have ever stood in a line to vote in Minnesota, certainly not in recent decades.
For those who are genuinely concerned with voter security, why not do things that would actually improve it like tightening up the registration process. But measures there are never suggested except when they have a tendency to reduce voting by the people to be discouraged. You see that a lot in vote suppressing states too.
We could spend a lot more in time effort not to mention voting than we do.With elections coming every two years, we really consume ourselves in election security to the exclusion of anything else. But really, apart from everything else, is counting and verifying ballots really how we want to spend our lives? Don't we want to at some point, move on from elections, and spend some time shopping?
--Hiram
The easy way to increase "turnout" (in which Minnesota often leads), would be to simply print up as many ballots as possible and mail them out willy-nilly. A lot of them would get returned and I guarantee the Democrats would win everything, according to the ballots.
Here's a question: since there is supposedly no voter fraud in Minnesota, why the DFL opposition to Voter ID? Why won't the Secretary of State release the public voting rolls? Why must the Secretary of State be sued to clean up the voter rolls and remove the dead people? There are so many ways to cheat already, why should we add another?
Jerry,
How do you want to make it easy, free and safe for allowed citizens to vote?
Verify that they are allowed citizens who are who they say they are. Permit verified absentee ballots for those unable to physically vote on election day, and prohibit "ballot harvesting" in nursing homes and senior facilities. Eliminate early voting, and same day registration or at minimum require provisional ballots. Require by law that any precinct reporting more votes than eligible voters receive a binding audit and recount. Reduce vouching to no more than 3 people.
Though your ideas are good...
I think you have missed the definition of "easy, free and safe"...
How do you want to help:
- the elderly to vote?
- keep people from standing near each other during COVID wave 2?
- helping the mobile populations to vote (ie students, homeless, etc)?
Not at all. I've simply not accepted YOUR definition of "easy, free and safe." To me, the best thing you can do for voting is to NOT permit those ineligible (or worse) to contradict (aka suppress) the votes of those who legally voted.
Oh, and don't worry about COVID. We've always allowed any reason for absentee voting, and our new election rules require masks, distancing, shields, etc. in an overabundance of caution.
So the only "easy, free and safe" way in your mind is to do things is the way we always have?
Even it puts our election volunteers, many of whom are elderly, at risk of catching a virus and possibly dying?
A reminder, the risk of catching goes up dramatically if:
- people talk directly at you
- you are inside
- you are exposed to a large group of people
It seems to me that this exactly what are election volunteers do all day on voting day.
So let's see if you can think outside your box and try again... Or is your real goal to keep people scared and away from voting?
Jerry
I think you have missed the definition of "easy, free and safe"...
How do you want to help:
- the elderly to vote?
- keep people from standing near each other during COVID wave 2?
- helping the mobile populations to vote (ie students, homeless, etc)?
Wisconsin voting test
Apparently it also reduces costs paid by us tax payers
why the DFL opposition to Voter ID?
We think it hurts turnout. It's the same reason Republicans favor voter ID, incidentally.
--Hiram
Just to repeat, Voter ID is not about eligibility to vote. Having a valid Id is not proof of voter eligibility. And if you think about it, you really wouldn't want election judges to be judges of voter eligibility. That is way beyond their competence.
--Hiram
And not all voter ID is the same
John, you are conflating two, maybe three issues. You want the vote to be "easy, free and safe." Safe you are defining as not risking COVID. Already strong measures are in place for that, and there is always absentee voting for the high risk groups. Those scared by the media hype can simply do that. I just don't want DFL operatives walking through nursing homes saying "sign here" or even "mark this box." It happens.
Voting has always been "free" in that it costs nothing. If you want to exercise it you have to either register and vote absentee, register beforehand (online, even) and vote in person, or register same day and vote in person. If I wanted to make it more difficult to cheat I would require everyone (except absentees, obviously) to register 30 days prior to election day and eliminate same day.
Voting should NEVER be "easy." When half of those surveyed cannot name either of their US Senators, why do we permit them to vote for that office? Maybe if it took MORE effort, we might get a more-informed result. Parties and candidates work hard to increase turnout by trying to "inform" the electorate. Why should the government try to make that work unnecessary?
Found online:
"A Johns Hopkins University survey reveals that one-third of Americans can't name their governor and 80 percent can't name their state legislator."
"--Less than half of Americans can name their Representative, yet 65% believe their Representative is overpaid.
--Just two-thirds of Americans who voted last November believe they had the opportunity to elect a U.S. Representative when they voted.
--Self-described conservatives are more likely than liberals or moderates to know their Representative’s name and/or party affiliation.
--Twenty-three percent of Americans who voted for a Representative last November cannot name their current Representative. Self-described liberals are more likely than conservatives or moderates to have voted “blind” in this manner."
"More than three-fourths of millennials cannot name one of their home state’s senators, according to a new poll."
"While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one."
I have come to the conclusion that you really read nothing that is written or linked to here...
"Even it puts our election volunteers, many of whom are elderly, at risk of catching a virus and possibly dying?
A reminder, the risk of catching goes up dramatically if:
- people talk directly at you
- you are inside
- you are exposed to a large group of people
It seems to me that this exactly what are election volunteers do all day on voting day."
Please remember that "knowledge" is NOT a pre-requisite of voting whether it should be or not.
And of course getting an ID comes with a cost in time and effort. And the cost is much higher for those who move often.
Now we live in a world of wonderful new technologies and you still want people standing in line?
And please remember that same day registration ballots are held apart until their status is deemed valid.
Yes there are at lot of volunteers who help the old and infirm to vote...
Do you really think it should be otherwise?
If it is such an easy way to get fraudulent votes, I am sure the GOP would be doing it also.
Voting should NEVER be "easy." When half of those surveyed cannot name either of their US Senators, why do we permit them to vote for that office?
Wow. Talk about giving away the game.
This is really it. The measures Republicans propose are intended to reduce voting by the wrong people. For me, I have serious doubts about people who would vote for a guy for president who thinks Obama was born in Kenya. Republicans love little more the rest of us how intelligent and moral they are, something they pretty much waived the right to do, at least without being laughed at, by putting Donald Trump in the White House.
The fact is, the vast majority of Americans have, at the very best, only a rudimentary understanding of politics. They don't know who their elected officials are. They don't know what the Constitution says. They don't know what the Declaration of Independence says. They don't know the difference between the two. Hardly anyone I have ever met understands how marginal tax rates work, and that includes politicians and medical doctors. But I will tell you this, despite a lack of knowledge of the details, most Americans have a feel for the big things which I trust. Something I remind and comfort with myself often, as bad as things get with Donald Trump , the American people did the right thing and voted for Hillary Clinton. That fact alone justifies a great deal of confidence, if not the political system they are afflicted with.
--Hiram
"I have come to the conclusion that you really read nothing that is written or linked to here...
'Even it puts our election volunteers, many of whom are elderly, at risk of catching a virus and possibly dying?'"
And you simply do not try to understand what you are told. I received my election judge instructions last week, and it includes masks, shields, sanitization protocols and social distancing at the polling places. And absentee voting is available to anybody still concerned about the risk. I think it is an overabundance of caution, since the latest scientific estimates are that the virus will die off by September. Voting IS "safe," unless you are threatened by Black Panthers.
"And please remember that same day registration ballots are held apart until their status is deemed valid."
Are you kidding? Do you know what a "provisional ballot" is? Hint: Minnesota does NOT use them.
"If it is such an easy way to get fraudulent votes, I am sure the GOP would be doing it also." Yet we do not. In many cases we are simply denied access to these facilities entirely.
I stand corrected regarding provisional ballots.
What other checks would you want during same day registrations"
"Nick Harper of the League of Women Voters of Minnesota said same-day registrants must offer additional evidence, such as a utility bill, to prove they live in the precinct where they vote. Many who register on Election Day do so to revive a dormant voter registration or to update their name or address."
Dying out and safe... You are so funny. Please remember that masks mostly help the wearer to not contaminate others. So do you support that voters must wear masks to vote?
Denied access... You do keep me smiling... Like there are not "conservative" old folks homes. My guess is that there are not enough "pro-voting" Republicans to volunteer.
Jerry,
You kind of blew off this stuff
Please remember that "knowledge" is NOT a pre-requisite of voting whether it should be or not.
And of course getting an ID comes with a cost in time and effort. And the cost is much higher for those who move often.
Now we live in a world of wonderful new technologies and you still want people standing in line?
Jerry,
Have you been believing what Trump says again?
I don't know what Trump says on the subject (I looked at your link) but I think he is suggesting that this virus is like every other in its family-- seasonal. Studies have shown the virus thrives in a specific band of temperature and humidity corresponding to winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Scientists tracking the actual infection and death rates show that most of the world is on the down slope.
We live in a wonderful world of new technologies, where SPAM is 90% of mail, spoofing and phishing are common, and identity theft a major business, along with fighting it. And you want to trust that porous system to deliver clear and trustworthy results? What about the Russians?
The "cost" of an ID is trivial-- everybody already has one and the few that do not (remember, challenges to the law have failed for lack of someone with "standing").
What other checks during same day? Two, at least. One, are you a student who already voted absentee from their home? Two, is your ID from one of the 15 states that give licenses to illegal immigrants? Both are legal in this state.
I hope you are correct, but most experts disagree.
The reason most of the world is on the down slope is because they lock down... However most folks are planning on an increase in the number of cases as people start associating closely again.
The cost of an ID is not trivial if you move often. It is trivial for folks like us who have been living in the same place for decades.
Even Trump has given up on it going away this Summer. Though Eric still believes miracles
So you are thinking the illegal residents will risk their lifestyle to vote illegally?
And students also? Where do you come up with these concerns?
is your ID from one of the 15 states that give licenses to illegal immigrants?
Why "illegal" immigrant? It's no less or no more illegal for legal immigrants as it is illegal immigrants to vote as well, and all states issue driver licenses to legal immigrants.
And how can it be constitutional to place a condition on a right. An individual issued a perfectly valid ID has no power at all over to whom else that state might issue an ID.
Voting is about voting, not immigration policy.
--Hiram
Hiram, you are being obtuse again. LEGAL citizens have the right to vote. A drivers license serves as proof of citizenship, unless it does not, as in those states which issue them to non-citizens. However, in Minnesota, the law requires these licenses be accepted as proof of citizenship. So why should an illegal immigrant NOT vote? Especially since it is legal, and certain people (ahem) encourage it?
As for my "concern" about students voting twice, READ THE LAW. It is mandated by law they be able to do so, and nobody checks after the fact to verify if it does or does not happen. You cannot find what you do not look for, and thus the "no voter fraud found in MN" hogwash continues.
John, let us by all means trust the "experts." Minnesota now has 70,000 deaths, right? Oh, I'm sorry, because thanks to all of these draconian lockdowns, we only have 50,000, right? /sarc off/ Any reasonable study shows that states with lockdowns versus those without have no discernible difference, except for other factors which no doubt predominate.
And simple math from numerous expert analysts shows the world is indeed "over the hump" as summer approaches. Even your lone "expert" says that may be the case; others are positive of it. Sure, you can find outliers, especially when you include statistics like counting gunshot victims as deaths caused by Covid. Don't expect that to go away by summer, and I expect the hype to continue as long as there is political advantage to it. Some predict that we will have a magic vaccine by Nov. 3, thanks to which all concern for Covid will disappear.
Let's remember how this conversation started:
"Let's remember that this post is mostly about "mail in" voting and Trump's fear of it, even though he used it himself recently. So why would anyone be against sending ballots to registered verified voters who request them at their place of residence?"
Here are a few questions: Why are Democrats, and only Democrats, pushing this so hard? Are they proposing vast new safeguards to insure election integrity, to go along with this? Do they have any care for those many areas where there are many more registered voters on the rolls than they have vote-eligible residents?
Oh, and your question (I believe we already cleared that up) confuses the proposed massive mail-in balloting with absentee voting. Not the same in the least. The former is wide open for fraud on a massive scale and being proposed by ONLY highly partisan Democrats. The latter is accepted by almost every Republican, and it is what Trump did.
Jerry,
We will have to agree to disagree about COVID deaths and forecasts...
That death curve seems to still be going up to me...
And remember this disturbing map.
As for why the DEMs are doing it? It is occurring in DEM and GOP states, unfortunately that does not fit your perception of reality so you ignore it.
"Weeks before President Donald Trump lashed out at Michigan leaders for backing a plan to send absentee ballot applications to all registered voters, West Virginia did exactly what Trump is now condemning.
So did Nebraska. And Iowa. And Georgia. And several other states.
Trump, who has railed against vote-by-mail for weeks, took his assault a step further Wednesday, threatening to withhold federal funds from Michigan if it "illegally" sends absentee ballot applications to the state's citizens before its primary Aug. 4 and the election Nov. 3. He blasted Nevada on Twitter, calling its plan to send absentee ballots to all registered voters before its primary June 9 a "great Voter Fraud scenario."
But mailing absentee ballot request forms to all voters has been widely used in other states, helmed by Republicans and Democrats alike, in recent weeks. It has become a more pressing issue before state primaries, 17 of which were delayed from this spring because of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Most secretaries of state said they made the proactive move to send applications not only to educate voters about the option but to encourage them to vote by mail to avoid the health risks of voters flocking to polling sites and standing in long lines on election night."
I'm amused that you think that barring "illegal" immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses means that they won't drive.
And by amused I mean "not surprised that your hatred of 'those people' has blinded you to reality".
Moose
I love many of "those people" but that doesn't mean they should have their crimes ignored, or enjoy the privileges of citizenship.
And sending applications to known voters is a whole different thing than sending /ballots/ to everybody.
Who was sending applications to "everyone"?
Nobody,yet. But if these Democrats get their way that is exactly what will happen. You're defending their nefarious schemes as if it was the status quo. How odd.
So let's make sure I understand...
Nobody is doing what you and Trump are accusing them of...
Many GOP states are doing the same things the DEM states are doing...
And you think they are the problem? :-)
Let me clarify. At least in MN, we send absentee ballot applications (not ballots) to anybody that asks. The application is processed for eligibility before the ballot is accepted. What is being proposed, on the other hand, is to send BALLOTS to every registered voter, and in some places there are more registered voters than eligible voters. Where will all of those ballots actually go? See the problem?
Source please...
"What is being proposed, on the other hand, is to send BALLOTS to every registered voter, and in some places there are more registered voters than eligible voters."
a subtle distinction, affecting 1/3 of eligible voters!
It does seem that they will need to further scrub their rolls... But it seems very rational.
"A review of Newsom’s executive order shows only registered voters would receive vote-by-mail ballots, not “anyone living in the state,” as Trump claimed.
“Each county elections officials shall transmit vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 General Election to all voters who are, as of the last day on which vote-by-mail ballots may be transmitted to voters in connection with that election, registered to vote in that election. As set forth in this paragraph, every Californian who is eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election shall receive a vote-by-mail ballot.”
The Secretary of State’s website outlines criteria for registering to vote in California.
You must be:
A United States citizen and a resident of California,
18 years old or older on Election Day,
Not currently in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony
Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court
This criteria reinforces the fact that not just “anyone” would receive a ballot.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for evidence supporting Trump’s statement.
Newsom rejected the president’s assertion that voting by mail leads to fraud when asked about it during a press conference on Tuesday. The governor also cited several studies that have examined the practice and found an extremely low rate of fraud, including a 5-year effort by the Bush administration that turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. "
The question is not if "vote by mail" is bad, it makes sense and should happen.
The question is can States develop the systems and checks they need to in 6 months.
NO. is the answer. Notice the language "every registered voter." That includes dead people, people who have moved, people whose mailboxes will be raided, people who do not exist, "motor voters" who are illegals (in CA they can register when getting their DL), and people registered in more than one precinct (common). In some jurisdictions there are more registered voters than eligible voters. Where would those ballots go?
Again, you are conflating the common practice of absentee voting, which is subject to limited fraud, with the unlimited fraud of mailing out ballots willy-nilly.
There are states that have robust mail in systems.
I am not sure why you are against these?
By the way, if someone is dead, has moved, etc the post office will return to sender.
No problem...
Again, you confuse the normal absentee voter process with simply mailing out ballots willy-nilly, which is what is objectionable.
And no, the USPS is not nearly so reliable. We fortunately have a good relationship with the neighbors in the next block; we are always trading mail that was misdelivered. And if the Secretary of State refuses to clean the voter rolls of dead people, people who have moved, people who do not exist, etc. then how can you expect those ballots to go to "the right people"? And who stands guard over all those returned ballots and makes certain they go unmarked? We can't even do that NOW.
And about that other matter:
death rate falling
I have talked about how conventional wisdom shared by all sides is that easier voting encourages higher turnout, and that higher turnout benefits Democrats. Well, conventional wisdom is always conventional, it isn't always right. Here is an article in the Washington Post suggesting that absentee voting benefits Republicans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-might-have-won-three-states-2016-solely-strength-republican-absentee-voting/
I have also noted with concern the result of a recent congressional election in California where a Republican won easily in a Democratic leaning district, where there was mail voting.
It's not just Republicans who are paranoid. I have long believed that absentee ballots are the largest source of election fraud. That's because I think a lot of snow birds vote back home using absentee ballots while also voting in person in Florida or wherever. And I think those folks vote Republican in both places.
--Hiram
Interesting theory, Hiram. I have long believed that it was senior citizens HERE who were being "ballot harvested" through Democrats working the absentee ballot system. And I know for FACT that MN law allows college students to vote twice-- once by absentee and once by same-day registration. Do any of them do it?
Hiram is RIGHT! And this article makes the essential distinction
Hiram is right
The challenge then as I mentioned somewhere is to make the mail in system more robust, not to throw it out with the bath water.
Making people show up in person during a 13 hour window, stand in line and risk contagion is not the answer.
So what are better answers?
- a robust mail in system?
- allow voting a city offices over a 2 week period?
- other?
You overlook the fact we HAVE an absentee ballot process, flawed as it may be, AND we have early voting, as flawed as THAT is. There are no legal restrictions on who may use these alternatives. So turn the question around. Why do you want to introduce a massive new avenue for vote fraud when it is clearly unnecessary? Would our efforts be better spent trying to improve voter integrity in the system(s) we already have?
And most of these states are just making registered voters that they can use the absentee ballot without a reason.
And early voting is great.
Unfortunately many states do not have these options and they want them.
And unfortunately the GOP folks in those states are against giving it to them. :-(
Gee, it's almost as if you think the GOP wants to suppress voting.
Is it remotely possible, in your mind, that the GOP wants to suppress only FRAUDULENT voting?
Unfortunately no...
GOP Strategist files
Closing polling places, Exact Match IDs, etc
It seems that many in the GOP are out to win, even if it means making voting really hard for many citizens.
It seems to YOU. My /experience/ is just the opposite, that Democrats want to make it really easy to CHEAT. And are quite successful at it.
Oh, and thanks for the "sources." Wow, to learn that at least one political party tries to gain political advantage through redistricting, and that a "journalist" thinks Republicans are trying to suppress votes. Who could have imagined it?
Sorry but closing polling places, requiring exact matched on ID's, limiting voting hours, etc have nothing to do with stopping cheating and everything to do with limiting access.
Wrong. The only people limited are those who have the potential to cheat. NOT stopping them enables cheating. And that seems to be just fine with you; it certainly is with Democrats. Why else would they want this massive distribution of ballots to people on rolls that THEY never clean up? Why do they countersue when Secretaries of State are sued to force them to clean the voting rolls according to law?
I am happy keeping the DEMs honest.
Maybe they just want to keep their voters safe and increase voter turnout, 2 good things I would think. Again, if the voter does not live there the ballot will come back to the state. Unless you think the postal service is in on this conspiracy.
Are you okay doing the same with the GOPers?
- more voting locations
- longer durations for voting
- no excuse needed absentee voting
- minimized gerrymandering
- etc?
Oops. Forgot this link
What we have with "GOPers" is all of those things, already. Nobody wants to end absentee voting, despite the known possibility for fraud of various stripes. Election judges already work 16-hour days; are you trying to kill us?
Now, are YOU willing to:
-force Democrat Secretaries of State to follow the law and clean up voter rolls?
-follow the law and check for double voting?
-correct the law that encourages double voting by college students?
-fix the legal loophole created by SOS Simon that encourages voting by illegal immigrants?
-end the practice of "ballot harvesting" in senior centers, nursing homes, etc.?
-REQUIRE same day registrants receive only provisional ballots, not cast until their identity is verified and checked against duplicate voting? (Right now, if you move, you can legally cast a ballot at your old place AND at your new place).
-reduce the number of vouched voters per voter to 2 or 3 from 8 (used to be 15)
-Require the SOS to flag every felon on the rolls
-Require the SOS to release publicly available voter info to voter integrity groups.
-require a photo ID that everybody already has or can be provided no charge.
Once again, the essential distinction, from your cite: "Other states like New York have opted to send ballot applications to all voters, letting anyone who requests a mail-in ballot receive one."
And even that can be fraudulent.
As for the GOP, unfortunately no we don't...
As for DEMs, I am fine with clean voter rolls as long as someone has the money ear marked to do so.
Helping the elderly to vote seems a good idea.
Photo ID requirements are often excessive.
I disagree with "vouching" in general.
And yet Trump was complaining about Michigan, who only wanted to send out absentee applications like the other GOP states did.
He is the king of making mountains out of mole hills. :-( And you folks jump to his whistle.
"helping"??? Suppose these helpers are strong DFL partisans, as is generally the case?
And Trump is not wrong-- perhaps why so many agree with him. And the same reason Democrats DISAGREE with him, because he is "over the target." Again, there is a difference between sending absentee ballot applications to those who request them versus sending one to EVERYBODY. Only thing worse would be sending a BALLOT to everybody. How about we do all that cleanup I want, before we add another possible avenue for massive voter fraud?
As I told you... Get the GOP folks helping the elderly...
Or do you think the elderly have lost the right to be heard.
Of course Trump is wrong, he has no data to back up his statement.
Of course Trump is right. As usual, it's simple common sense, something far too uncommon on the Left.
The GOP has TRIED to "help the elderly." Often we are simply refused admittance.
As usual... Lot's of opinion and no proof.
And as usual, you will not accept as proof that which I know as fact, from my own personal experience.
Unfortunately the perspectives of one person based on their personal experiences is not much to go on given the breadth, width and sensitivity of the topic...
If a different election volunteer said that everything was great except the it is too hard for some people to vote...
Would you take that as fact, even though your perceptions differ?
Remember our good friend Confirmation Bias...
Your perceptions are colored one way and theirs are colored differently.
Neither of you are lying, but you both may be incorrect.
True, but that mythical other person isn't here, is she? And wouldn't we have to compare viewpoints and experiences to settle on "truth"? You might be surprised to find out that we actually agree on much, if she has honesty and real experience rather than simple cant.
But you dismiss my "opinions" out of hand, because of your highly biased viewpoint and little else. Not the way to find truth.
I dismiss your "opinions" because you provide nothing to back them up.
Nothing more or less.
I see. My opinions don't count, but yours are Gospel? Who is this "different election volunteer" that backs up your opinion?
For that matter, why must I "back up" my opinion at all (already backed up by ample personal experience), when it should be up to you to prove me wrong? Not sure how you would even do that, because why would I believe you rather than my own lyin' eyes?
You can post "sources" telling me I am wrong, but why do I believe them when many of them simply contain flat-out lies, or opinion without fact, or irrelevancies?
It is your choice if you study the reports, data, etc or if you stick with your pre-conceived notions...
I just follow the data...
What "data" can you possibly follow that would make irrelevant the fact of multiple fraud convictions, explicit fraud-permitting election judge instructions, multiple lawsuits against the Secretary of State (most successful), and black-letter law PERMITTING multiple voting, among other things? My "pre-conceived notions" are based on solid knowledge, most of it available to anybody that looks, rather than covering their eyes and singing "la-la-la" at the top of their voice.
Using a bazooka on a fly is pointless.
Hundreds of millions of votes in the US each year and you worry about a bit of minuscule noise that you can not even show to us. And that is likely off setting since the individuals in each party are all flawed humans.
Getting people to vote is much more important if you truly belief in a America's democracy.
9.4% more voters Now that is success.
Interesting to note that it is Donald Trump, by trying to register in a state in which he did not live so he could vote absentee is the guy who committed voter fraud. Indeed, it's the kind of voter fraud, I suspect gets committed a lot. It should also be noted that Voter ID would not and did not stop this fraud. No one doubts who Donald Trump is.
--Hiram
It is an interesting story, not sure where a President resides...
Given the amount of time we tax payers pay for his travelling, maybe he spends the most time in Florida. :-(
One More Link
Al Franken won by 300 votes, after being behind by 600 votes. Tom Emmer fell short of being our Governor by 4000 votes, which is ONE vote per precinct. We know for FACT that in that race, 27,000 same-day registrants could not be verified, but their votes were already counted. You still think fraud or "improper voting" doesn't matter?
And why would you want to add a whole new layer of potential fraud/improper voting to what we already have as a significant problem? Suppose of each million votes, 0.1% are "improperly cast." That would mean 1000 votes per million voters. Are you willing to swear the voter rolls are 99.9% correct? Are you willing to have YOUR valid ballot cancelled out by someone who is not entitled to vote at all?
The best way to minimize the impact of improper voting is to get more legal people voting.
If perfection is NOT attainable, which it is not. Then the best thing we can do raise the number of votes legally cast and counted.
Not reduce that number by throwing up hurdles.
As for Emmer for Gov, the GOP found no significant issues.
And this one
"What forced Emmer to concede was a unanimous ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court Tuesday that said local officials had successfully completed a recount process called reconciliation, which compares the number of votes cast against the number of voters registered at each precinct. The 9,000-vote difference was much greater than the Coleman-Franklin situation, which weakened Emmer’s strategy."
Regarding the Franken recount. It looks like that was pretty well investigated and legislated.
"The best way to minimize the impact of improper voting is to get more legal people voting." LOL!
The best way to minimize the impact of improper voting is to minimize improper voting!
NOT to increase the opportunities for it further!
And "found no significant issues" doesn't hold much water with me. You cannot find what you do not look for, or what has been carefully concealed from you. The proper thing to do is minimize the OPPORTUNITIES for improper voting-- provisional ballots, mandatory cleaning of the voter rolls, careful training of judges to eliminate other opportunities, fixing the law for students, etc. Until somebody does all those things, I will say our election system is badly flawed and cannot produce an honest result. I have here a book titled "If it ain't close, they can't cheat." Too often in MN, it's close.
I know, you will believe as you do no matter what the GOP, DEM and Courts find.
I will believe as I do BECAUSE of what the GOP and Courts have found, plus what I have observed personally. You will deny all of it, for some obtuse reason.
Please provide the sources... I am not finding them.
"the GOP and Courts have found"
It is an interesting story, not sure where a President resides...
On his application, he claimed he lived in Washington D.C. Although he travels to Florida frequently, he spends most of his time out of the state. Thankfully, he effort to defraud the voters of Florida was thwarted without requiring Mr. Trump to produce an ID.
--Hiram
Al Franken won by 300 votes, after being behind by 600 votes. Tom Emmer fell short of being our Governor by 4000 votes, which is ONE vote per precinct. We know for FACT that in that race, 27,000 same-day registrants could not be verified, but their votes were already counted. You still think fraud or "improper voting" doesn't matter?
Notice that the evidence that is cited is the fact that the outcome was the one the individual producing the evidence didn't like. We shouldn't exclude ballots from being counted just because we didn't like whoever it was that the person voted for.
--Hiram
Well Jerry has a point if this were true.
"27,000 same-day registrants could not be verified"
But apparently the courts disagreed with him.
NO, the courts never took up the case of 27,000 non-existent voters. They DID take up the case of felons illegally voting (and found many), and at least two other lawsuits against the Secretary of State have been successful in lower courts, requiring him to remove dead people from the rolls and to release publicly available voter information to the public. Trump's voter integrity team never found fraud because George Soros' hand-picked Secretarys of State refused to cooperate. Again, absence of proof (of voter fraud) is not proof of absence. Ballots come in packs of 50. What do you think when you see exactly 100 ballots in a pile, all marked identically, and ONLY for the Democrat candidate? Do you suspect Republicans of chicanery in that instance?
So you believe there is a problem but have no proof...
And from what I remember most SOS's refused to give specific data.
You would have been supporting State's rights if Obama had been asking for your specifics.
'"The best way to minimize the impact of improper voting is to get more legal people voting." LOL!'
John, as we've learned in the ongoing AGW discussion, jerry doesn't understand simple math.
You know, the math that goes like this:
1 in 1000 votes is fraudulent - .1%
Add 1000 legal votes
Now, 1 in 2000 votes is fraudulent - .05%
Personal experience is not data. It may inform your opinion, but it is not proof; therefore, it is unreliable.
Moose
Or it may be 1 in 1000
And 2 in 2000
But it is unlikely to be
1,000 in 1,000,000
Unless of course we have a lot of cheaters out there who are willing to commit a felony.
how about 27,000 in a million?
Why NOT cheat, if nobody can looks for it and if they do, nothing comes of it? Voter integrity isn't as much about stopping cheating, but about severely limiting the opportunities.
That would imply that a LOT of people are willing to go to jail ?
Not likely.
What makes you think they believe they will be caught, or even that they are "improperly" voting? How many people does it take to mark up 100-200 ballots and then "find them in the trunk of a car," all marked for the Democrat? The simple solution here is not to prosecute the cheaters, but to tighten up procedures so the opportunity is essentially eliminated. You keep insisting we should go the other way and LOOSEN verification procedures. What is your justification for corrupting the election process?
Where have I recommended loosening verification procedures?
I have recommended:
- longer voting durations
- more polling places not less
- no excuse required mail in ballots
- voter ID like SD
Unfortunately folks like yourself do not see this as adequate because you want to make it hard for the young, elderly and poor to vote... It is pretty sad.
When? Always.
Longer voting durations allow people to vote before the campaign ends, indeed, before the "October surprise" hits. How fair is that? And without more checking, it simply spreads the existing opportunities over a longer time frame.
More polling places means more places where ballot security is needed, and where more under-qualified or biased election judges work.
No excuse ABSENTEE ballots is current law, which you keep confusing with the Democrat proposal to send ballots to everybody with no security whatsoever.
Voter ID, yes, but yet you fight against actually HAVING it in MN. Not tightening election verification is "loosening" it, is it not? And notice Same-days get /provisional/ ballots?
Jerry,
It is okay... You just want to make it harder for the young, elderly and poor to vote...
That is pretty obvious since you are thinking of ways to make it harder to vote, and none to make it easier to vote.
Again... When have I ever...
"yet you fight against actually HAVING it in MN."
supported "Democrat proposal to send ballots to everybody with no security whatsoever"
"It is okay... You just want to make it harder for the young, elderly and poor to vote..." That is a LIE, and you have no basis for saying it other than admitting YOUR preference for massive voter fraud, by falsely claiming suppression of fraud is equal to suppression of legitimate votes.
When have u said you supported SD-style Voter ID in MN? And isn't this whole discussion about the Democrat proposal for new and massive voter fraud? Why even bring it up, especially under such a ridiculous title?
As far as I know, only the Gov of Cal has proposed anything atypical. (ie send ballots to all registered voters)
Well other than the GOP who fights against making it safe, easy and secure to vote.
- longer voting durations
- more polling places not less
- no excuse required mail in ballots
- voter ID like SD
Yes, the GOP fights against voter ID like SD. :-^ And no excuse absentee ballots. Who do you think has championed these things? And who has opposed them? Here's a hint: the SD legislature, which passed the voter ID law, consists of 90 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
Well keep up the good fight to suppress legal voting. We will keep working to make it easy, safe and secure to vote.
Who is this "we" and isn't everything you say an absolute LIE, to disguise the truth? What you really want is to make stealing an election for Democrats not just a possibility, but a certainty. What you SAY you want is simply the opposite of what you propose for how to do it, while strongly opposing those things that WOULD make voting safe and secure, even easy for LEGAL voters-- those things /I/ am supporting. I guess you cannot tolerate that alternate point of view.
Jerry,
From what I can tell, you want a very inflexible system that requires most people to show up on a certain day with very precise documentation to prove who they are and that they are voting at the correct polling place.
And you are okay with making people travel further and wait in longer lines to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
All of which leads to fewer people voting, which is apparently part of the goal.
I want the following which should make voting secure and simple.
- longer voting durations
- more polling places not less
- no excuse required mail in ballots
- voter ID like SD
You keep saying that, yet we already have the first two, plus people going around with ballots or ballot applications, which may or may not lead to increased fraud but certainly presents an opportunity.
We also have the third, by your own cites a major source of fraud (which I did not know). As for the fourth, you stubbornly refuse to countenance the SD system for MN. Why?
Excellent, now how do we get that nation wide?
No
"While election experts say fraud in mail balloting is slightly more common than in in-person voting, it's still such a minuscule amount it's not statistically meaningful."
I would happily support the SD system in MN. When have I ever said I did not?
This explains the problem. Thousands of instances of voter fraud over BILLIONS of votes... As they said above.
such a minuscule amount it's not statistically meaningful
In fact from Aug 2016
"Now I am a fan of the SD style of Voter ID law. It is interesting what is happening with the more restrictive versions. Thoughts?" G2A
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That's the typical Democrat dodge, to say "we can't find evidence of fraud." That is because they fail to LOOK, in many ways. It is deliberately looking the other way. Do I need to make a partial list for you?
And when have you NOT said that Voter ID is a means of suppressing the vote?
States control elections. It is why MN has a lot of voter fraud and other states have less, and that is as it should be. If the first two measures you "like" are avenues for fraud, why should the federal government get to dictate them to States that cannot guarantee the fairness of the election already? Is a free and fair election the goal, or not?
Jerry,
The GOP has been looking for voter fraud in MN for decades... No evidence of measurable / significant fraud. Sorry.
I have said that more excessive voter ID requirements suppress the vote. SD's does not prevent people from voting.
Apparently you did not read the source or quote again... I think we are back to...
"absolutely convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority"
You want people to believe you without providing a shred of actual proof.
"The GOP has been looking for voter fraud in MN for decades... No evidence of measurable / significant fraud. Sorry." SOURCES?! Sounds to me like an assertion without supporting evidence.
If SD is not "excessive voter ID requirements" then what is? From what I see, the SD system is pretty much bog standard for these systems.
I have given you at least 3 sources on GOP lack of data in the discussions here.
Where are your sources regarding this "big problem"?
And here are 2 more links from above:
Comparison of ID Laws
SD Voter ID
You really should read the links I provide.
Maybe I should, but most of them fall into the "confirmation bias" category, or actually support my view, which you misunderstood, or are just plain untrustworthy. I suggest you refer to the Minnesota Voters Alliance, and to the court records of their successful cases. And I have personally seen it, witnessed it, and found it in the written law. Denying it is not the same as proving it does not exist, or that the potential for it does not exist. How do you account, for example, for precincts which turn in more votes than they have eligible residents? Is there any way to find out which of those votes is fraudulent, let alone prosecuting the perpetrators? Does anybody even LOOK?
I assume by you mean "confirmation bias category" that you do not find them interesting because of your bias.
Yes people are prosecuted, I gave you a list from Heritage. The numbers of ballots impacted were minuscule.
MVA says they are independent, but the people interested in their conspiracy theories indicate where they land.
"MVA activities have been highlighted on the Fox News Channel, Wall Street Journal, the Jason Lewis and Hugh Hewitt radio shows, local TV and radio stations, as well as in more than a dozen high profile OpEd pieces in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press."
I think I will stick with the women
Yes, people are prosecuted. Compared to the amount of "improper voting" that actually occurs, the ballots impacted are, indeed, minimal.
And notice how quickly you dismiss the MVA, just because they disagree with you! Unlike your title, it seems that ONLY the GOP and other conservatives want free and fair elections.
Jerry,
I am sorry, but they are about voter obstruction.
Why else would a Voting Organization join a law suit to prevent the distribution of voter registration applications?
Or be against criminals rejoining society and getting their voting rights back after they served their time?
None of which supports getting more legal citizens voting. :-(
Here is an interesting piece about MVA.
And another about where they wasted tax dollars and lost
Not sure what all of these sources have in common, except I assume you believe they agree with you. You are appealing to authority, and only some of them have any. The Supreme Court rules, sometimes narrowly, but does so presumably only on the written law, and not what may be "right" or "wrong."
The underlying problem here is your title for this discussion, a presumption which you continue to maintain despite overwhelming evidence that those fundamental assumptions are incorrect. The GOP wants free and fair elections. Democrats want to win regardless, and will corrupt the process in every way possible to do so. Which side would you like to prevail?
You just pointed to a site that wants to block ex-felons from voting, to block the distribution of voter registration applications to renters, wants to make it harder for the elderly to vote, etc.
You have got to be kidding...
It is definitely the GOP that wants to win regardless, and will corrupt the process in every way possible to do so.
In fact after writing back and forth and researching, I am thinking some in the GOP would like to go back to poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. :-(
You have a fascinating perspective, that believes convicted felons should vote, contrary to law, that landlords should be forced to "speak" as government commands, and that sanctions "ballot harvesting" by Democrats among the elderly.
I guess reality doesn't matter, it's how you look at things.
I think getting more people voting is a good thing:
- laws should be changed so people who have served their sentence can rejoin society and vote.
- that land lords should be willing to distribute voter registration information as a civil service to our society
- that people from both parties should help our elders to ensure their voices are heard
Rationalize your desire to put up hurdles for citizens to vote as you wish.
I'm starting to think you are either uninformed or deliberately so.
People who have completed their sentence, INCLUDING parole, CAN vote-- current law.
Landlords who are willing CAN distribute voter registrations, or anything they like. Renters who are ineligible can, of course, use those forms to commit voter fraud.
People from both parties would LIKE to help seniors vote, but only Democrats are allowed to do so. Yes, it's anecdotal, but very common and widespread anecdotal.
I don't have to "rationalize" anything. I am opposed to illegal or improper voting, period. It violates fundamental democratic principles, fairness, and erodes confidence in the election process. It's bad enough as it is, and pushing for more opportunities for cheating simply makes no sense, but of course good sense isn't the objective, is it?
Excellent !!! Not sure why MVA was posting about it then?
Again... You are siding with people who refuse to help increase the number of legal voters. Not sure why? Or why MVA joined the suit unless they want to stymie votes.
I highly doubt that anyone with pure motives would be kept out of the nursing home. Of course who want to harass old folks would be...
Getting voter registration materials in the hands of more Americans more often should be the goal of all Americans... It seems that MVA is against that. Now what is the "objective" of that?
Seems to me MVA proves my point. I'm not seeing your problem.
"I highly doubt that anyone with pure motives would be kept out of the nursing home."
I was, and I could not get access for ANYBODY Republican.
"Seems"? I'll admit MVA seeks to "suppress votes," but it is ILLEGAL votes they are trying to "suppress." The objective of that is free and fair elections. One way to "increase the number of legal voters" is to reduce the number of ILLEGAL voters. Every illegal vote "cancels out" a legal vote.
And illegal votes don't even have to represent a real voter.
If MN reformed criminals voting in MN is it not an issue, why are they discussing it except for partisan reasons?
Well here are the requirements apparently? Maybe you need to volunteer more in old folks homes, and not just show up asking for votes. :-)
MVA was suing to prevent the handing out of voter registration materials. That certainly is NOT encouraging legal voters to apply.
1. If current criminals (not "reformed" because they have not completed their sentence) are voting, contrary to law, and the State PERMITS them to vote (because of our highly partisan Secretary of State) then it IS definitely a partisan issue. Especially since survey says at LEAST 70% of these illegal votes are for Democrats. One may argue (as many Democrats do), that felons should be allowed to vote (gee, wonder why), but it is current law they cannot, so the fact they can and do says our elections are tainted by fraud in at least one way.
2. And given the forgoing, do you really think the law like this one preventing people going into senior living facilities for "ballot harvesting" are being followed?
3. MVA was suing to prevent "compelled speech" in violation of the First Amendment. The court ruled in their favor, claiming that government had other means to pursue the goal of getting legal voters to register. Not that "legal voters" meant anything in the one-Party town of Minneapolis.
1. It says nothing about illegal voting.
"A recent authoritative and compelling study by the American Academy of Political and Social Science shows that 7 in 10 felons register democrat.
" A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release. “Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science."
Just implies that it is in someway bad to want to get them voting.
2. Yes. I am always puzzled who you think is willing to risk jail time for votes?
3. Let me repeat.. Not their problem if they are truly interested in getting more legal voters voting...
Unfortunately that is not their goal.
1. They are referring to those states in which felons are legally allowed to vote. MN is not one of them, yet they vote anyway. And since their votes are counted before (if the Secretary of State even checks and releases the information) they can be "caught" and prosecuted (it's not a serious crime, I don't believe), the election gets corrupted. Just that simple. IOW, it says nothing about illegal voting IN MN. But it is.
2. And I am puzzled how you think illegal voters can be caught, especially when nobody checks, and especially since all the votes are counted before anybody checks, and IF anybody checks.
3. Not WHOSE problem? As I said, MVA is interested in getting illegal voting stopped, thus enabling the votes of more LEGAL voters to count for something. Total number of votes cast is NOT the correct measure of election integrity.
Jerry,
As is often the case, we disagree.
From my perspective, MVA is definitely a Conservative organization interested in limiting the legal votes of those they disagree with.
Fighting the distribution of voter registration applications in urban areas makes that very clear. Mentioning the voting habits of ex-criminals shows that. And being against agent delivery shows that.
None of those positions is about keeping elections secure, safe and free. :-(
On top of that, I did as you asked and learned of no additional "proof of fraud"...
" I suggest you refer to the Minnesota Voters Alliance, and to the court records of their successful cases. "
They were NOT "fighting the distribution..." They were fighting against government's right to COMPEL Landlords to do so. Your loopy interpretation of intent notwithstanding.
And I am not sure how you even GET to that point of view. The entire basis of the lawsuit was in "compelled speech," nothing about the desirability or even legality of handing out voter registrations (possibly to non-citizens).
As for "no proof of fraud," apparently you, like all liberals and especially our far-left Secretary of State, are "blind in one eye and can't see out of the other," to coin a phrase, where improper voting is concerned. I would offer you a map, but you would hold it backwards and upside down.
Again why is a "Voting" organization spending time and money supporting Landlords?
It is NOT THEIR PROBLEM unless they want to resist the distribution of applications.
Are you confusing the ACLU and MVA now?
You have offered me ZERO PROOF of significant Voter Fraud.
So, nobody is allowed to defend nasty landlords when their rights are violated? What kind of totalitarian society do you live in??
I have the evidence; you will not believe it, and you have offered zero proof that the many opportunities for fraud, clearly written into the law, have not been used. Nor have you explained how the known opportunities for improper voting /contrary/ to law are being detected, prosecuted, and prevented from corrupting the election results.
Your title for this piece clearly spells out your bias, that you believe the GOP has no right to insist on free and fair elections or "election integrity," and instead favor as much cheating as the Democrats can manage, unimpeded by such petty concerns.
The land lords have a lot of money and are fully capable of defending themselves. I just have NO IDEA why MVA stuck their noses into it if they support legal voting. So I have to assume they do not.
I gave you the Heritage list of known fraud. Again they are very small numbers.
I just follow the data, the GOP has a history of wanting to:
- close polling places
- shortening times for voting
- resisting "no excuse" mail in voting
- resisting the distribution of voter registration applications
The simple sad truth is that they are more worried about suppressing votes from the unfortunate masses, than keeping elections secure, safe and free. :-(
Is it even remotely possible that you are imputing motivations to people you do not know, with slanderous intent, just so you can cling to your pre-conceived and fact-free notions of "election integrity"?
The one thing you have correct is this: "I just have NO IDEA..."
I had to look up Heritage myself, and here is what I found:
"Maintaining state voters rolls is critically important. A 2012 Pew study found that nationally, nearly 1 out of every 8 voter registrations was inaccurate, outdated, or duplicative. Nearly 3 million individuals were registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million dead people remained on state rolls.
The consequences of tolerating these inaccuracies are real: Evidence is emerging of potential wide-scale double voting and unlawful registration and voting by noncitizens."
"potential wide-scale double voting and unlawful registration and voting by noncitizens"
Still NO proof..
And still no proof it does NOT occur, given the many, many opportunities and the lack of any detection mechanism. You cannot find what you do not look for, and our election system is geared to NOT look. You simply cannot tell me that a 110% voter turnout (in many precincts) is proof positive that there is no "improper" voting.
Source?
"110% voter turnout (in many precincts)"
OK, I give you that one; I cannot find it except as "preliminary" speculation. How about the rest of the obvious opportunities and lack of detection? Even in the most oft-cited case of "excess votes," they use provisional ballots, yet MN does not.
The lack of detection is because it does not exist in any significant quantity.
It is hard enough to get people to vote once, there is no group out there risking jail time to vote more than once. It is all a phantom created by people who want to make voting harder for their benefit.
That's a whole lot of unproven assumptions you have there. The lack of detection is because there is a lack of detection attempted. Nobody looks for duplicate votes, imaginary voters cannot be found (but their ballots count), dead people vote and never pay the penalty, college students legally double vote, and illegal aliens legally vote. To mention just a few. No detection because that is the way the DFL wants it.
What makes you think anybody risks jail time? If there is no detection mechanism then this imaginary risk of yours is just that. What is the incentive for people to cheat? Because they are partisans and know they can get away with it. For those on the left, it's not even immoral.
Paranoia seems like it would not lead to a happy life.
But you do what works for you.
You continually forget, and re-forget, that I have the EVIDENCE, from my personal experience and study, that the /opportunities/ for "improper voting" (unchallenged and undetected) exist on a MASSIVE scale, and yet you want to promote another scheme to make elections even LESS honest and fair. Why does that not bother you?
Because unfortunately claims are suspect and not provable.
And you have a history of believing in unfounded conspiracy theories. :-(
Sorry.
More unprovable assertions from you.
How many dead people voted in the last election? You don't know. Was it possible for them to do so without detection? Of course; we would have no way of knowing who cast that vote, to prosecute them. And I wager our Secretary of State didn't look. Heck, we have to sue him to get him to remove KNOWN decedents from the rolls.
How many people voted in more than one precinct? Since their name is legally on the rolls in one, and they can same-day register in another, unless there is a comparison of the rolls THEY don't get caught. [And I DID that comparison-- which the Secretary of State does not-- and found well over 100,000 duplicates.)
How about students that vote absentee AND at their college address, as the LAW permits? Do you know how many of those kids do it, and does the SOS check? How?
How about people from the 11 states that issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The MN SOS insists they can use that ID to register and vote in MN. Do any of them do so? How many, do you know? Does the SOS know?
How many of the 27,000 same-day registrations later discovered to have been fictional people, or living at fictional addresses, had their votes counted? Will you be tracking them down for prosecution? HOW?
In the 2008 Senate election, how many of the 1366 felons who voted illegally did so for Franken? 70% of 1366 is over the 312 vote margin of victory. (And a 1000 vote swing from the first count, in Coleman's favor).
OK, look up the accuracy of the voter rolls, then tell me that mailing a ballot to every one of them will result in a fair and honest election:
pew
And what do you think will happen? Republicans will dutifully vote only the one to which they are entitled, and some Democrats, knowing the moral superiority of their cause, will vote them all.
Zero apparently since you can prove NOTHING. :-)
You certainly think highly of the Republican voters. The same folks who sued to keep people from getting voter registration applications from the apartment Owners. The same people who have some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country.
Your "I/We am/are Better than Them" complex is amazing and disturbing. :-(
This seems appropriate here also
Here we go again. You deny facts, logic, and my personal experience in order to pursue your unreasoning dislike of Republicans and your acceptance of left-wing lies and propaganda.
You even offer your own spin on the obvious-- that "people who sued... getting voter registration applications"-- when there is absolutely nowhere in the /successful/ lawsuit that seeks to prevent renters from getting such applications, or the city government from distributing them. You have absolutely no basis for such a statement, except your own wildly biased mis-interpretation. And that I can PROVE.
And why am I the one to offer proof? Is it not your job to prove that "improper voting" does NOT occur? You cannot, because the means to detect it, either before or after the fact, do not exist. Unless you can prove their existence, of course. I claim as fact they do not.
Sorry. One does not have to prove that a crime "is not" occurring.
And MVA had no reason to be part of that law suit, except that they want to keep urban voters out of the polls where ever possible. :-(
Sorry, but you do not get to determine who may be concerned about individual rights. If you don't like MVA, don't donate to them.
But you DO have to prove that "there is no fraud occuring" to back up your many statements to that effect. That is a flat-out lie unless you have proof that, given all of the many possible ways I have outlined in which it CAN occur, undetected, it still does not. Absence of proof, especially in this case, is not proof of absence. Tell me: how many dead people voted in the last election?
Actually I do not have to do anything except to restate my opinion.
The GOP Fears Voters
Otherwise they would supporting voter registration, secure vote by mail, etc.
Instead of fighting to make better and more secure systems, they just want to make it harder and more complicated... Should remind you of the good old days.
Actually, you have the right to your opinion, but not your own facts. You cannot say fraud is not occurring when it almost certainly is, given the many possible ways in which it can occur (by the way, we have been using "fraud" as a synonym for "improper"). One reason there is so little outright fraud is that fraud requires proof of intent (as well as detection), whereas improper voting can take place on a massive scale and, because it cannot be detected, cannot be prosecuted even though it may be intended.
Likewise, you should know better than making a blanket statement that 50 million Republicans "fear voters" and universally want to make voting harder rather than more secure. Should not it be difficult to cast an "improper" vote??? Why do you fear making elections secure and trustworthy? I thought it was Democrats that have said elections are too important to be entrusted to the voters?
Actually I wrote.
"The GOP Fears Voters"
I am sure there are a lot of GOPers like me who want secure, safe, easy election processes and systems that increase voter turnout and reduce gerrymandering. Unfortunately it seems the party leaders do not. :-( They just want to stay in power by any means available.
Your stated objectives and your means for attaining them are at odds. My stated means align more closely with your stated objectives.
Look at it this way: you say there is not "fraud," so how can preventing fraud, by reasonable means, "suppress" the vote? I remind you that Voter ID laws have been repeatedly affirmed in court because no plaintiff could be found with "standing"-- denied a vote by the law.
Post a Comment