Political rants, humor, and other nonsense.

[HoosierDaddy]

Fact check: Never drank bleach.

I know he drinks bleach

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

I'm surprised Twitter would even try to say that a mail in ballot is not more subject to fraud compared to showing up in person and submitting an ID. It's such a ridiculous claim. You would have to be an idiot to think they are correct (or deluded by blind hate).

 

[Gregs24]

I'm surprised Twitter would even try to say that a mail in ballot is not more subject to fraud compared to showing up in person and submitting an ID. It's such a ridiculous claim. You would have to be an idiot to think they are correct (or deluded by blind hate).

Plenty of people vote using a postal vote in other countries (myself included in the UK) and I certainly don't have any concerns here. Claims of postal vote fraud are widespread, usually by somebody with a vested interest in the claim.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/57534/1/de...ctoral_fraud_a_reply_to_Richard_Mawrey_QC.pdf

 

[Caballus]

I'm surprised Twitter would even try to say that a mail in ballot is not more subject to fraud compared to showing up in person and submitting an ID. It's such a ridiculous claim. You would have to be an idiot to think they are correct (or deluded by blind hate).

Believe Twitter had three issues with the President's tweet (right or wrong):
"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone....."

Issue 1. Research does not support the idea that mail in ballots are "substantially fraudulent...."
- In addition to what research has shown, I think I have stepped into a voting booth twice in my entire life. Every other time has been by mail (absentee) because I have been stationed outside of my home state or deployed. I do believe, as an American defending America, that our votes are counted and each vote counts.

Issue 2. Americans are not required to possess an ID and states have fought hard against the federal government's initiative to establish a national ID. Minnesota was at the forefront of that fight. So, the option is not mail in or show an ID; it is mail in or show up in person, ballot in hand (potentially during a pandemic).
https://people.howstuffworks.com/does-us-require-citizens-carry-id.htm

Issue 3. California did not send out ballots.

So, the larger issue, it seems, is to determine whether an American should be required to possess a government-issued ID to vote. This has long been an emotionally charged issue, in part because of our concern with government tracking and in part because of our history of voter suppression.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Claims of NO postal vote fraud are widespread, usually by somebody with a vested interest in the claim.

Fixed.

 

[Gregs24]

Fixed.

I attached evidence from the UK. Incidentally in the UK postal voting is MORE secure. Voting in person only requires you to turn up and if your name is on the list you can vote (I believe the same in the US) - no requirement to prove who you are. Postal voting requires registration, proof of ID, voting ballot papers are then sent out in advance with a requirement to provide personal information to verify ID, a signature and dual sealed envelopes.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I attached evidence from the UK. Incidentally in the UK postal voting is MORE secure. Voting in person only requires you to turn up and if your name is on the list you can vote (I believe the same in the US) - no requirement to prove who you are. Postal voting requires registration, proof of ID, voting ballot papers are then sent out in advance with a requirement to provide personal information to verify ID, a signature and dual sealed envelopes.

Now I see the confusion. Citizens in the US are concerned about voting in the US, not the UK. I am surprised that you don't know what is being considered is nothing like what you describe for the UK. But if you are simply saying that it is possible to hypothetically make in-person voting less secure than voting by mail, nobody would argue with you. The concerns here are proposals to simply mail ballots to some past address of anyone who may be eligible to vote. As a good exercise, I'll leave it to you to figure out what could go wrong.

I am kind of curious that you say signature and proof of personal information in UK mail-in voting makes it more secure than in-person voting. Are you actually saying that in-person voting does not also require a signature or similar proof of personal knowledge? Sounds like UK has its act together.

 

[Hack]

Hack, I've been voting for 50 years. In that time there has never, ever been proof of widespread voter fraud in national elections. Read all the right wing BS you want but it has never happened. Fast forward to the the last twenty years and the outcry, mainly in the South, about voter ID. Again total right wing BS. The sole and only purpose for voter id was to restrict minorities from voting. and the reason for that is Republicans knew that if more minorities voted the odds of them getting elected dropped. That has been proven time and time again. Now fast forward to the past few years. Trump has taken this one step further with his mail in ballot fraud BS. Again zero proof, just the fact that he keeps saying it over and over. Mail in ballots have been used for years with no issues. Why now. Because he has to stir the pot. He has already admitted that mail in ballots would hurt the Republicans. He has said it, out loud for everyone to hear. Except for the forever Trumpers who deny anything and everything that comes out of his mouth. He himself has used mail in ballots as have many Republicans. It's all total BS. He losing, he knows he's losing the Republican Party knows he's losing and they are doing whatever they can to prevent it. That's the truth. Everything else is pure BS.

TDS is real. I started typing a reply disputing everything you said but it's just not worth it.

If you don't care to have honest and fair elections with the best possible guaranty of voters getting what they want, there's no purpose in discussing this with you.

 

[Gregs24]

I am kind of curious that you say signature and proof of personal information in UK mail-in voting makes it more secure than in-person voting. Are you actually saying that in-person voting does not also require a signature or similar proof of personal knowledge? Sounds like UK has its act together.

Correct. Walk in and as long as you identify yourself as somebody on the list you get a ballot paper and vote. No signature or any other proof. Risk of fraud is higher than a postal vote don't you think ? The only thing is you need physical people to do it for you.

You need to remember however that in person voting has been going on that way for hundreds of years (often people could not read or write when voting in the olden days!) and we have no national ID system. Yes most have a passport or photo driving license but plenty do not.

Is the US different to that for walk in voting ?

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Correct. Walk in and as long as you identify yourself as somebody on the list you get a ballot paper and vote. No signature or any other proof. Risk of fraud is higher than a postal vote don't you think ? The only thing is you need physical people to do it for you.

You need to remember however that in person voting has been going on that way for hundreds of years (often people could not read or write when voting in the olden days!) and we have no national ID system. Yes most have a passport or photo driving license but plenty do not.

Is the US different to that for walk in voting ?

I guess it depends on the degree of corruption/foolishness of the precincts. The federal govt does NOT do elections. The US is a republic. Each state has x numbers of votes (electoral college).The states have elections to determine which presidential candidates get those votes. You need to show ID in every state I've voted in.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

TDS is real. I started typing a reply disputing everything you said but it's just not worth it.

If you don't care to have honest and fair elections with the best possible guaranty of voters getting what they want, there's no purpose in discussing this with you.

I'm still laughing at a Dim on some "news" show yesterday (don't remember the show/network) who claims its a non issue. Not because it doesn't/couldn't happen but because there is proof that just as many elections have been stolen thru election fraud by one party as the other. It gave me the idea to cancel my theft insurance. If something gets stolen, I can just steal an equal amount from someone else. This not only saves on insurance but also on police and prisons if we don't waste time/money enforcing theft laws.

 

[Caballus]

Correct. Walk in and as long as you identify yourself as somebody on the list you get a ballot paper and vote. No signature or any other proof. Risk of fraud is higher than a postal vote don't you think ? The only thing is you need physical people to do it for you.

You need to remember however that in person voting has been going on that way for hundreds of years (often people could not read or write when voting in the olden days!) and we have no national ID system. Yes most have a passport or photo driving license but plenty do not.

Is the US different to that for walk in voting ?

After registering, most states either don't require a "proper" ID (i.e., with picture) to vote or don't strictly enforce any ID requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States
https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

 

[Caballus]

Are you posting these to show that they are not true?
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...al-post-alleges-voter-fraud-wood-county-ohio/

 

[Hack]

I am still convinced that Al Franken stole his election in 2009 over Coleman (or someone stole it for him).

and there is this:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

 

[Caballus]

I am still convinced that Al Franken stole his election in 2009 over Coleman (or someone stole it for him).

Interesting. Based on what? It appears that the Minnesota process was very thorough, particularly in regard to the final court ruling Mr. Coleman called for. If anything, that example seems to speak to the integrity of the system.

Sponsored