Democrats Vote Against Election Reform

From Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (linkie):

And when the voting system has been rigged? Don't think a lot of Democrats won't do when they get the chance. I don't think the Republicans will crow about how they have benefitted by that fraud when it happens.

In my district, registration has to be done well ahead of time. When voting, you sign a book that has your name and the poll people check your signature to the one on record. It works for us.

 

Absolutely. Don't even think the Democrats haven't looked at this from every angle. They would do ANYTHING for the abolishment of the Electoral College. But fortunately it's a non-starter.

 

Here, to vote, all you need to do is be able to match a name and an address. If you say you are "Joe Blow" and live at "123 Any St" and your name matches the voter roll, you can vote as Joe Blow. It is a total joke.

You don't even have to verify who you are.

Picture ID for voting is an absolute must. It will not disenfranchise anyone. For about $10 (or two packs of cigarettes) one can get a state issued picture ID that would suffice.

Absentee voting is also a big business here. It is well known that candidates have people go and get absentee votes, where a voter will sign the ballot and then allow someone to fill it in for them.

Until we crack down on voter fraud, we will continue to have problems. The biggest problem is that those who depend on the fraud, mostly Democrats, are do not have the character to stop it because it will cost them power. Look for every election in teh near future to be tainted by voter fraud.

 

I can very well believe that there is a great deal of voter fraud with absentee ballots.

Absentee voting tends to be markedly republican. And since the most notorious and pervasive cases of electon fraud in recent years have been those that favored republican candidates, it would make sense.

 

Actually, the most notorious voter fraud has not been republican but democrat in places like Chicago and St Louis. The absentee voting around here is almost totally democratic. Dead people voting in Chicago has been known for years. There have been few documented cases of Republican voter fraud.

 

Democrats are always guilty of voter fraud just study the many well documented cases out there. they cut republicans off while they are trying to drive to the polls. Send them death threats, beat up children of republicans. Republicans are the most disenfranchised on the face of the earth.

 

:applause: :applause: :laugh: :thumbs:

 

:laugh: Yes, most notorious of the awful democratic voting frauds was the wholesale disinfranchisement of thousands of black voters who were fraudulently accused of being felons.

Another was a similar attempt (which was fortunately caught before the election) when it was found that the State of Florida had rigged the process so as to falsely accuse more blacks of being felons, while bypassing Cuban felons entirely.

Not to mention the rather unusual case of a precinct in Florida with a huge Jewish majority was reprorted by Jeb Bush to have overwhelmingly voted for Pat Buchanan. (Even Buchanan called a foul on that one)

The perpetrator of these frauds? That notorious democrat, Jeb Bush.

 

When you are done with that very broad brush, may I borrow it?

:laugh: :laugh: Let's see, the GOP controls all 3 branches of the federal government. Yeah, they're disenfranchised.

Can you say "persecution complex"? I knew you could.

 

$10 is a lot of money for some people, plus transportation to the DMV, plus taking time off work. It amounts to a poll tax. The photo id should be free and readily available to people without transportation.

Yes, I've heard that, too. What is the remedy?

If it were true that Democrats are more dependent on fraud - which has not been shown to be true - they haven't done a very good job of it. An equal argument can be made that the Republicans are in favor of election rigging as it has put then kept them in power.

Which has been the bigger problem, unregistered voters voting fraudulently or registered voters being prevented from voting?

 

Those aren't teh most notorious. They are the mos recent that got publicized. In the same election (and many before) you had massive voter fraud in heavily democractic populations. As usual, you pick and choose to fit your own biases, and as usual, you only tell half the story.

 

$10 is not much money at all in this day and age, and transporation to the the DMV or BMV is no more a poll tax than transportation to the polling place.

But I have no problem with free ID, so long as you find a way to pay for it.

$10 is two packs of cigarettes in a four year period. It's a trip to McDonald's. It's a night at the movies for one person with no popcorn or drinks.

So clearly $10, is not much.

Eliminate it, IMO. If you can't show up to vote, then you don't get to vote.

The Democrats have done very well at it in places like Chicago. There is no proof that the Republicans have ever rigged an election. There have been charges but no one has proven it. I am sure that both sides have their tactics, but by and large, it seems the Democrats have been at it longer. And the evidence is overwhelming as I recall.

I think the biggest problem is people voting fraudulently.

But there is a simple solution to all this, and that is tightenign teh voting restrictions. We need to take it seriously.

 

As long as it's free, and readily available where people live, it's not a problem. But don't you see, that would make it useless, as far as the republicans are concerned.

If it was free, and readily available, no one would be disinfranchised.

It would be like making those GOP-contributor voting machines hackproof. That would be defeating the whole purpose of making them hackable in the first place.

 

I dont actually believe this. But I thought as there seems to be this big game of outrageous, unfounded, unproven, rediculous statements I would join the fun and play the game.

What I found out was it really isnt all that fun. The lack of truth can be very vexing.

 

I agree with you on the ballot being written in plain English! (Proposed Amendments and propositions are required to be that way on KY ballots, by law, BTW.)

I strongly disagree with you that we should "get rid of the electoral college" (sic).

We are not a uniform nation. We are not the "country of 'America'". Our nation is not a homogenous democracy, it is a federal republic - the United States of America, composed of 50 separate but equal states (four of which are also legally commonwealths, including my home state, KY), one Federal District that is the seat of government, two Commonwealths that are not states, and three organized territories, along with some minor possessions with no indiginous population, as well,. I personally would like to see some progress made on getting something close to 'equivalent' voting rights and relatively equal electoral votes for the three territories and the Commonwealth of the Mariannas; and progress on Puerto Rico becoming a state, or not, as it may choose, and especially erasing the spectre of colonialism over American Samoa, by the population there becoming citizens of the US, as are those of all other organized entities, as opposed to "American nationals", which, IMO, smacks of the early days of our Constitution, when an "Indian" was a non-entity, and a "slave" was 3/5 of an entity. (And should any other sovereign nation desire to become a part of the USA, not that I expect that in any forseeable future, mainly, it should be afforded that opportunity on an equal footing, by following the legal procedures to do so, IMO.)

Any vestige of that thinking should have been put behind us forever 160 years ago at Lee's and the CSA surrender at Appomattox, in the case of the latter, and for at least a century, in the case of the former. Simply put, while slavery may not be 'prohibited' by Scripture, neither is it sanctioned or suggested, and I find it totally unacceptable in the USA in the 21st Century! PERIOD! NO questions asked! No objections entertained!

Ed

 

I agree Ed but what does any of that have to do with the Electoral College?

 

I can speak for no other, but I don't trust them. Frankly, I trust none of the 'machines', or printed paper ballots either, for that matter. - I merely distrust some less than others. Stats have consistently shown voting miscues or errors, at anywhere between the 2 to 7%, with a consistent average of between 4 and 6%. Granted, one problem will usually cancel out another, here, for the most part, but I find any of these numbers completely unacceptable. Three of the last four Presidential Elections had a total popular vote in excess of 100M cast, with the 2004 toatl exceeding 120M. In fact, John Kerry's total votes, even losing by 3M, in any other Presidential election would have translated into a huge 'landslide'. And an error of even 1-2% could have easily altered the outcome of the 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000 elections with no shenanigans at all involved.

Comparison studies have shown that the fewest problems and mistakes were made with the big lever action mechanical behemoths over all others and KY had them before switching to all electronic voting machines. The only reasons KY switched is that they were supposedly (A) out of date; (B) hard to get parts for and repair; and (C,D,E) - the real reasons, BTW - they were awkward and heavy (They were!), took a crew just to move them and set them up (Yes on the first; no on the second.) And one person usually can move and set up the electronic machine that weighs 60-70#, has wheels and slides, and folds into the size of a large piece of luggage. (Yes, Yes, and Yes)

Ed

 

The "Electoral College" (a term not found in the Constitution, BTW) is how the electors are apportioned, by the numbers of Senators and Representatives in a state, so that each state is allocated a minimum of three electors, up to whatever is the number of Representatives plus two for the Senators. And the states have the constitutional mandate for the Legislatures of the several states to "chuse" or appoint their electors as their Legislatures may direct. That all the states "chuse" to appoint the electors on the basis of popular vote, is their choice. That not all states apportion how the votes determine the electors is also a choice, as Maine and Nebraska have opted to apportion all but two of their electors by Congressional district, and for 48 states, its a "winner take all" proposition. BTW, I agree with both methods, and both are equally valid.

Ed