Their Names Weren’t on Voter Registration Rolls. This City Let Them Cast a Ballot Any

[Revmitchell]

Previously unpublished data from the last big election in Burlington, Vt., reveals a significant number of votes were cast by individuals whose names were not on the statewide checklist.

In the 2012 presidential election, 17,383 votes were cast in Burlington, according to city-published data. According to data not published by the city, but made available to a reporter, 639 of those votes, or 3.7 percent, came from election day walk-in voters whose names were not on the voter rolls and whose registration status was unknown.

As previously reported, votes by individuals whose names don’t appear on the checklist count whether or not the voters can be verified as having registered with the state.

The unpublished data sheds light on elections in Burlington after citizen poll watchers exposed a need for greater scrutiny in the city, and after city officials on Monday halted early voting when Republican candidates for justice of the peace were found missing from the ballot. Reprinted ballots will cost the city $10,000.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/09/3...rolls//?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

[church mouse guy]

Sounds like the old days when the bars were closed but the candidates used to get the voters drunk and the alcoholics would sell their votes for a couple of beers. That must have been the last election all over the country especially in the big cities.

Vermont must be a crooked state nowadays.

 

[InTheLight]

Sounds like the old days when the bars were closed but the candidates used to get the voters drunk and the alcoholics would sell their votes for a couple of beers.

Photo ID would not stop this.

 

[just-want-peace]

Just curious!!
You seem to be adamant that picture voter ID is reprehensible, and I cannot fathom your almost "religious" objection to it.

Could you please explain your feelings for such, if in fact I read your posts correctly?

 

[church mouse guy]

Photo ID would not stop this.

Getting voters drunk? No, the Daley Democrat Machine in Chicago would not be stopped in corrupting the vote by anything. The Democrats probably have voter ID for every dead person buried inside the city limit.

I can't believe that Minnesota is too smart collectively since their US Senator is the nut Al Franken. Minnesota = a lot of money and not so many brains.

 

[Salty]

I can't believe that Minnesota is too smart collectively since their US Senator is the nut Al Franken. Minnesota = a lot of money and not so many brains.

If I'm not mistaken, that was a close race and possibly some doubt as to the validity of the outcome?

 

[Zaac]

This is not an uncommon practice though. Most states let you vote regardless of whether or not your name shows up. They usually do a provisional ballot, if I'm not mistaken.

Do we know if these were provisional?

 

[InTheLight]

Just curious!!
You seem to be adamant that picture voter ID is reprehensible, and I cannot fathom your almost "religious" objection to it.

Could you please explain your feelings for such, if in fact I read your posts correctly?

There is no reason to HAVE voter ID because:

1. Voting is a constitutional right. The constitution of the United States does not require a photo ID to vote.

2. There is no crisis of voter fraud occurring. There are scant examples of it happening. There are policies and procedures in place that already prevent the type of voter fraud that photo ID would prevent. Actual voter fraud, the type that could be prevented by voter photo ID laws can only prevent ONE person from voting for ONE other person.

3. There are millions of elderly people that don't have a driver's license (they quit driving) and would need to get a photo ID in order to vote. That could be a burden and a hassle. Currently They ARE qualified to vote--they can simply go to the polling place and vote, like they've done their entire life.

4. People that have recently moved and want to vote would need to get a photo ID before voting. Currently they ARE qualified to vote and can vote by bringing a utility bill showing their name and address on it, or they can have a neighbor vouch for them.

5. College students attending college away from home would need to fly or drive back to their home address to vote. This means getting there before election day, which is on a Tuesday, meaning they would miss classes to vote.

Basically, requiring a photo ID to vote to cause hassles for millions of people from voting in the manner that they are accustomed to vote. Is that what we want? Less people voting?

 

[InTheLight]

I can't believe that Minnesota is too smart collectively since their US Senator is the nut Al Franken. Minnesota = a lot of money and not so many brains.

Why thank you for the kind words, but you forgot to mention we also elected Jesse "the body" Ventura for governor. We're just basically brainless up here.

 

[InTheLight]

This is not an uncommon practice though. Most states let you vote regardless of whether or not your name shows up. They usually do a provisional ballot, if I'm not mistaken.

Do we know if these were provisional?

According to the article, these voters fill out "voter affirmation ballots", which are essentially provisional ballots under a different name.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no reason to HAVE voter ID because:

1. Voting is a constitutional right. The constitution of the United States does not require a photo ID to vote.

Neither does it keep us from having to have one.

2. There is no crisis of voter fraud occurring. There are scant examples of it happening. There are policies and procedures in place that already prevent the type of voter fraud that photo ID would prevent. Actual voter fraud, the type that could be prevented by voter photo ID laws can only prevent ONE person from voting for ONE other person.

There does not need to be a crisis. There is however a big problem with it.

3. There are millions of elderly people that don't have a driver's license (they quit driving) and would need to get a photo ID in order to vote. That could be a burden and a hassle. Currently They ARE qualified to vote--they can simply go to the polling place and vote, like they've done their entire life.

This is false. It does not create a burden.

4. People that have recently moved and want to vote would need to get a photo ID before voting. Currently they ARE qualified to vote and can vote by bringing a utility bill showing their name and address on it, or they can have a neighbor vouch for them.

That is a por standard. Anyone can obtain the bill of another person and anyone can lie about their so called neighbor.

5. College students attending college away from home would need to fly or drive back to their home address to vote. This means getting there before election day, which is on a Tuesday, meaning they would miss classes to vote.

Too bad.

Basically, requiring a photo ID to vote to cause hassles for millions of people from voting in the manner that they are accustomed to vote. Is that what we want? Less people voting?

There is the extreme left wing talking points. No one wnats less people to vote. What they do want is for the people who do vote to be who they say they are.

 

[InTheLight]

There does not need to be a crisis. There is however a big problem with it.

As has been shown, there are problems with voter rolls, but actual false votes being cast is not happening. Besides photo ID will only stop one vote per voter from being cast. Doesn't sound like a good plan to throw an election.

This is false. It does not create a burden.

Despite countless news stories interviewing people contradicting your statement.

There is the extreme left wing talking points.

And there it is. The name calling.

No one wnats less people to vote. What they do want is for the people who do vote to be who they say they are.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Alcott]

T1. Voting is a constitutional right. The constitution of the United States does not require a photo ID to vote.

The constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote. And there is certainly no provision therein that forbids identifying oneself.

3. There are millions of elderly people that don't have a driver's license (they quit driving) and would need to get a photo ID in order to vote. That could be a burden and a hassle.

My mom gave up driving 9 years before she died. But she always kept a a current ID from the same department that issues driver's licenses, as there are other valid reasons to do so.

Currently They ARE qualified to vote--they can simply go to the polling place and vote, like they've done their entire life.

I'm inclined to quip your "entire life" citation, but I'll just assume you meant since they became of age.

5. College students attending college away from home would need to fly or drive back to their home address to vote. This means getting there before election day, which is on a Tuesday, meaning they would miss classes to vote.

Of all the reasons I recall that students missed classes and/or traveled 'home,' a lot were miniscule compared to voting.

Basically, requiring a photo ID to vote to cause hassles for millions of people from voting in the manner that they are accustomed to vote. Is that what we want? Less people voting?

It's what Obama and Holder wanted, when they refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for trying to intimidate voters. It's what Lyndon Johnson wanted in 1954 because a private organization encouraged people to vote for his opponent It's what the Democrats wanted when the results from Florida determined the presidential election-- in 1876, not 2000. So yes, that is what a lot of people want.

 

[Revmitchell]

And there it is. The name calling.

No it wasn't. Maybe you need to study sentence structure.

 

[InTheLight]

No it wasn't. Maybe you need to study sentence structure.

And there it is the name calling--you need to study = veiled statement, "you're stupid".

 

[Revmitchell]

And there it is the name calling--you need to study = veiled statement, "you're stupid".

That's not what it means. Sheesh talk about overly sensative. It just simply means that is the same thing the extreme left wing says all the time. I don't do veiled. I am always direct and to the point. Here again we need not assume nefarious motives.

 

[InTheLight]

The constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote.

Fifteenth Amendment says you must be:
a.) a citizen
b.) have skin,
and
c.) be in the service of someone else, or not in the service of someone.

Otherwise you can't vote.


Nineteenth amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

And there is certainly no provision therein that forbids identifying oneself.

True, states can regulate their own voting laws.

My mom gave up driving 9 years before she died. But she always kept a a current ID from the same department that issues driver's licenses, as there are other valid reasons to do so.

Your mom vs. Millions of other people. Anecdotal evidence.

 

[Alcott]

Fifteenth Amendment says you must be:
a.) a citizen
b.) have skin,
and
c.) be in the service of someone else, or not in the service of someone.

Otherwise you can't vote.

Nineteenth amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I'm not sure what it is that is so hard to understand that the reasons a person cannot be denied the vote does not guarantee anyone a vote. If you think not, name one person who currently has the right to vote for whom that right absolutely cannot be taken away for any reason whatsoever.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your mom vs. Millions of other people. Anecdotal evidence.

"Millions" is as much anecdotal as anything else.

 

[Zaac]

According to the article, these voters fill out "voter affirmation ballots", which are essentially provisional ballots under a different name.

So this is once again a bunch of talk about nothing. :laugh: