Jerry has been trying to convince us that the system is deeply flawed and that voter fraud is rampant. Of course he has no evidence, and claims that the MN SOS sending absentee ballot applications out to all registered voters is proof of this terrible state of affairs. I mean some of voters may have moved, may have died, etc.
Then a bunch of DEM operatives may collect them or dumpster dive to get them so that they can commit felony fraud and obtain extra ballots. Of course the argument seemed kind of stupid after I received the same document from the MN GOP party. And of course it really gets terribly foolish when you remember that people can print out as many of them as they want at the web site.
Now we have GOP law suits all over the country that are aimed at making it harder for legal citizens to vote.
- We have the suit in Pennsylvania to make sure that all "naked ballots" get disqualified. Sorry Granny... You forgot to put the ballot in an envelope before putting it in an envelope... Your vote goes in the trash.
- Then there is the suit in TX to limit ballot collection boxes to one per county. Even though some of the counties are huge and have 4 million citizens in them.
- And there are hundreds more apparently. With DEMs trying to give citizens more time and options to legally vote, and the GOP trying to shorten voting times, options and generally make it harder for qualified legal citizens to vote.
I personally think it is one of the most terrible things about the Republican Party. Samuel L Jackson did a wonderful PSA discussing the evil history of voter suppression.
Now I did ask what the GOP was doing to promote legal voting, make it safer, increase voter turn out, etc. Unfortunately that apparently is not important to them. :-(
22 comments:
A couple of different positions from the previous post.
G2A / John
The balancing of 2 evils... (promoting voting / Stopping errors / fraud)
1. Place so many restrictions and checks in the process that MANY people choose not to or are not allowed to vote, and negligible errors / fraud occur. (Jerry's position)
2. Maintain status quo reasonable restrictions and checks in the process so some people choose not to or are not allowed to vote, and negligible errors / fraud occur. (Normal position)
3. Let anyone show up everyone who wants to will show up, however there may be significant errors / fraud? (No one's position)
Jerry:
You people...
1. You cannot find what you do not seek.
2. Therefore the burden is on you to PROVE that fraud/"improper voting" does NOT occur (and simple declarations do not suffice, e.g. "we didn't find any evidence"), because
3. There are many possible ways it CAN occur, and
4. You can't prevent fraud after the fraudulent votes are counted.
Now the data repeatedly shows that voter fraud is looked for, it does occur, but it okays so rarely and in such low numbers to be negligible.
Even the Heritage database shows how rare fraud is. Just remember that there are hundreds of millions of votes cast every other year between primaries and general elections and this is what they have to show.
It's an issue of an absolute in conflict with a relative. The absolute is the right to vote and the right to have one's vote counted. All laawfully cast votes must be counted. The government simply does not have the right to discard votes, not even when it mismanages their handling. So what is the implication of that absolute in relation to the fact that in some relative degree the voting system is always flawed, will never be perfect. The implication is that we will always have to pretty much lump it. We do the very best we can, but ultimately we accept the results of a flawed system. In the real world in which so many of us live, we can devote endless resources to tinkering with a system in order to achieve an impossible level of perfection, nor can we spend unlimited time analyzing and reanalyzing results. Congressional terms are two years long. We cannot spend all of those two years counting votes.
--Hiram
Here is a good summary of reality.
Now we have group's threatening to bring guns to polling places...
Really? Is this what you think of when you envision American Democracy?
Or Trump trying to order that his competitors to be charged with crimes before the election?
Does he is Putin in Russia?
The president wants to jail his political opponents. After the election, we have to come to grips with the fact that 40% of the electorate voted for him. For those who love to argue about whether we are democracy or a republic, it may soon turn out that we are neither.
--Hiram
Juan Williams Trump's Plan to Thwart Democracy
"We do the very best we can,"-- Hiram
Hah! Our Secretary of State does not require voter ID, does not allow provisional ballots for same-day registrants even though tens of thousands are challenged after the election, allows felons to vote, allows college students to vote twice, refuses to purge dead people from the rolls, and now permits people to request an absentee ballot with no ID at all.
Your big problem, other than being unwilling to admit to any possible "chicanery", as Biden calls it, is that you seem to think fraud is the only possible means of "improper voting" and it is not. For example, all of those same-day registrants found not to exist were not and can not be prosecuted for fraud or anything else, because they do not exist! Nonetheless, their votes counted and were more than enough to have altered the election outcome. A simple provisional ballot system would not suppress any legal vote, but would "suppress" these "improper" votes.
Oh, and by the way, the normal absentee ballot process finds Republicans at the disadvantage, (it surprised me, too), because more of them fail to meet all the technical requirements. Maybe SOS Simon's loosening of those rules-- no ID, no witness signature-- will actually help the GOP, if every absentee ballot comes from a legal voter. :-/
We disagree about the rules, but if we make universal agreement on the rules the ssandard for valid elections, no election ever has or ever will be valid. I know I have my own list of complaints.
Voting twice is an issue. It always has been. So is the solution not to regard elections in which voting twice is a possiblity as valid? I have noticed that measures aimed at eliminating the possibility of voting twice havve not been proposes by either party.
Generally, Republicans beneift from absentee ballots. That's the conventional wisdom anyway. People like me suspect many Republican vote twice, once in their home jurisdiction and once where they live as snow birds, but hey, it's something we live with.
--Hiram
For myself, I think it's voter fraud when the govweror of Texas tries to limit ballot drop off points to one a county. There are 254 counties in Texas. Some counties have as few as 200 residents. Other counties have as many as 2.4 million residents. Can you imagine trying to drop off a ballot in Harris County where the city of Houston is located?
--Hiram
Jerry,
As usual... So many claims and ZERO data or sources...
Please at least try to back up your beliefs with something more than "maybe it could happen".
As usual, you simply deny the possibility that I HAVE sources, facts, data, truth, and logic. Rather than dig and PROVE my assertions untrue, you simply assert the opposite, with exactly the same lack of foundation that you claim I have. That's an argument, not a discussion, and certainly not a proper debate.
Again, logic dictates that the proper logical response to "maybe it could happen" is to PROVE, with concrete and credible evidence, that it can NOT. Yet I have concrete evidence that it can and does, which you refuse to go look for. You cannot find what you do not look for, so unless you are willing to either do that, or take my word for it, you will continue to believe your self-spun delusions.
I can certainly prove that voter suppression exists. But what of it. Does that mean elections where it happes are invalid? I don't think so myself, but those who believe elections must be perfect to be valid, are free to argue my point for me if they wish.
=+Hiram
Jerry,
You claim significant amounts of fraud exist...
It is your job to prove your position is correct.
I have given you dozens of sources that disprove your position.
...and Republican setting up fake ballot drop boxes in California (likely other States, as well).
I mean...the Republicans have been telling us for some time to expect voter and election fraud. Should we be surprised that they are the perpetrators?
Moose
Election outcomes are easily influenced. That being the case, why would people choose to influence them through the riskiest methods which are often those which would have the least impact? I suppose it's possible to organize a campaign where people vote illegally. But to do that, one would have to deal with potential voters individually and persuade them to break the law for what? Money? And what about the risk that the poetential voter would go to the cops? Surely, in any significant illegal vote campaign, there would be reports to the police. Compare this with techniques that are proven to be successful, with no legal risk at all. We know that making voting eaiser helps Democrats. We know making voting harder helps Republicans. We know both can turn around close elections. Neither involves anyone going to the big house. Why not spend the money and the effort there? And in real life, isn't that exactly what provably happens?
--Hiram
I mean...the Republicans have been telling us for some time to expect voter and election fraud. Should we be surprised that they are the perpetrators?
Republicans aren't exactly committed to elections to the same extent Democrats are. After all, Republicans are very quick to tell you we are a Republic not a Democracy. I have that conversation multiple times every elections season. What that means is that Republicans are less interested in having a system of government directly responsive to the people. They are far more comfortable with institutions and practices that negate the pure expression of will by the voters. You can see this by how comfortable they are with the electoral college, and those branches of government that distort the impact of votes like the senate. You see it by how comfortable they with the making of policy through the courts. In these discussions, it's the Republicans who seek to undermine the credibility of elections with their fantasies of voter fraud so ridiculous that they aeek to place the burden of disproving them on Democrats.
--Hiram
Elsewhere I was just told maybe for the umpteenth time by a Republican that the popular vote doesn't matter. If asked, Stalin would say the same thing. While it isn't literally true, to begin with, it has some truth to it, and what is disturbing is that Republicans seem to want it to be true.
What is wrong with Republicans? At their recent convention, they didn't issue a platform, they issued a press release basically saying they were for anything Trump was for. Trump in so many words wants to imprison his opponents. This goes deeper than one election, and I am afraid, deeper than one party.
--Hiram
When I talk about how one party wants to jail it's opponents, I get responses to the effect that the other party wants to jail it's opponents too. Is this supposed to make me feel better?
--Hiram
Romney said it well
I have a visceral reaction to bothsiderism, particularly when it comes from partisans. If I do something awful, that just isn't an excuse for the other side to something awful. Most of what's wrong with my party is different from what's wrong with the other party. We have entirely different faults.
--Hiram
Post a Comment