Voter Purge
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Right.
We don't require proof of citizenship to register to vote,
so there is no way to obtain evidence that noncitizens register to vote,
so we can't require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
That makes perfect sense to me.
Oh, almost forgot, I should have tossed in racism somewhere in there. Feel free to do that wherever you think it best fits.
We don't require proof of citizenship to register to vote,
so there is no way to obtain evidence that noncitizens register to vote,
so we can't require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
That makes perfect sense to me.
Oh, almost forgot, I should have tossed in racism somewhere in there. Feel free to do that wherever you think it best fits.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Nope. A solution to a known problem
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ind-hundreds-of-illegal-ballots-cast-in-state
Election officials in Pennsylvania have found several hundred ballots cast illegally by people who reside in the state but aren't U.S. citizens, dating back to 2000, after previously acknowledging a software glitch that improperly allowed them to register to vote.
57Brave
Well-known member
Trump won Pa, are you inferring the illegals voted for Trump ?
quoted from the link:
" The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the Pennsylvania Department of State's Jonathan Marks reported to a state House committee that his office found 544 ballots cast illegally out of 93 million during the past 18 years."
................................................
from the comments:
Dawn1257 • 2 days ago
544 votes out of 93,000,000....?
Okay....so, that amounts to .000005849 %.
You gotta' long way to go to get to the "Millions of illegal votes" in 2016.......
quoted from the link:
" The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the Pennsylvania Department of State's Jonathan Marks reported to a state House committee that his office found 544 ballots cast illegally out of 93 million during the past 18 years."
................................................
from the comments:
Dawn1257 • 2 days ago
544 votes out of 93,000,000....?
Okay....so, that amounts to .000005849 %.
You gotta' long way to go to get to the "Millions of illegal votes" in 2016.......
57Brave
Well-known member
Let's move on to #2
Play 2: If the law doesn’t let you suppress the vote, pull some strings to get rid of the law
Without evidence or legal arguments in his favor, Kobach’s next move was to try to eviscerate the NVRA itself. As Kobach knew, and the ACLU had made clear in court, the NVRA would need to be completely rewritten for a state official like Kobach to have the authority to impose such severe restrictions on the right to vote:
Kobach Document Screenshot
So what did Kobach do after losing in court? As the unsealed documents show, he secretly prepared a draft amendment that would rewrite the NVRA in exactly this manner.
Kobach Document Screenshot 2
No evidence of noncitizen voter fraud? No problem.
Kobach’s proposed amendment would grant him and officials across the country the power to impose any voter registration restriction they wanted regardless of the evidence — or lack thereof. Then, the very day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Kobach started peddling his amendment, sending an email to Gene Hamilton, a member of the Trump transition team:
Kobach Document Screenshot 3
Voter suppression behind closed doors
Take Action
Less than two weeks later, on November 20, 2016, Kobach was photographed walking into a meeting with Trump, carrying his agenda for the “First 365 days” of the incoming administration. A bullet point in the plan? Amend the NVRA.
Kobach Document Screenshot 4
We now know that the meeting was Kobach’s job interview with Donald Trump and his senior advisors: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, and Reince Priebus. Kobach gave each of them a copy of his playbook, pitching them the idea that noncitizens were potentially swinging the results of elections.
Shortly after the meeting with Kobach, Trump tweeted that he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of people who supposedly voted illegally.
Trump Electoral College Tweet
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway later confirmed that Kobach was the source of Trump’s tweet.
On May 20, 2017, Trump selected Kobach as the vice-chair and de facto leader of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. Kobach had the commission packed with many of his own longtime confederates and is now poised to execute the scheme outlined in his unsealed documents.
Play 2: If the law doesn’t let you suppress the vote, pull some strings to get rid of the law
Without evidence or legal arguments in his favor, Kobach’s next move was to try to eviscerate the NVRA itself. As Kobach knew, and the ACLU had made clear in court, the NVRA would need to be completely rewritten for a state official like Kobach to have the authority to impose such severe restrictions on the right to vote:
Kobach Document Screenshot
So what did Kobach do after losing in court? As the unsealed documents show, he secretly prepared a draft amendment that would rewrite the NVRA in exactly this manner.
Kobach Document Screenshot 2
No evidence of noncitizen voter fraud? No problem.
Kobach’s proposed amendment would grant him and officials across the country the power to impose any voter registration restriction they wanted regardless of the evidence — or lack thereof. Then, the very day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Kobach started peddling his amendment, sending an email to Gene Hamilton, a member of the Trump transition team:
Kobach Document Screenshot 3
Voter suppression behind closed doors
Take Action
Less than two weeks later, on November 20, 2016, Kobach was photographed walking into a meeting with Trump, carrying his agenda for the “First 365 days” of the incoming administration. A bullet point in the plan? Amend the NVRA.
Kobach Document Screenshot 4
We now know that the meeting was Kobach’s job interview with Donald Trump and his senior advisors: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, and Reince Priebus. Kobach gave each of them a copy of his playbook, pitching them the idea that noncitizens were potentially swinging the results of elections.
Shortly after the meeting with Kobach, Trump tweeted that he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of people who supposedly voted illegally.
Trump Electoral College Tweet
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway later confirmed that Kobach was the source of Trump’s tweet.
On May 20, 2017, Trump selected Kobach as the vice-chair and de facto leader of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity. Kobach had the commission packed with many of his own longtime confederates and is now poised to execute the scheme outlined in his unsealed documents.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Good idea. Let's require all of those people to provide documentation of who they are, just like anyone does who signs up for school, takes a cruise, or plays youth sports.
Then we can do a head count.
57Brave
Well-known member
I found this sentence awkward to your point.
No evidence of noncitizen voter fraud? No problem.
Kobach’s proposed amendment would grant him and officials across the country the power to impose any voter registration restriction they wanted regardless of the evidence — or lack thereof. Then, the very day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Kobach started peddling his amendment, sending an email to Gene Hamilton, a member of the Trump transition team:
...................................................
Who wants to help with the constitutionality of the bolded phrase ?
No evidence of noncitizen voter fraud? No problem.
Kobach’s proposed amendment would grant him and officials across the country the power to impose any voter registration restriction they wanted regardless of the evidence — or lack thereof. Then, the very day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Kobach started peddling his amendment, sending an email to Gene Hamilton, a member of the Trump transition team:
...................................................
Who wants to help with the constitutionality of the bolded phrase ?
57Brave
Well-known member
I laughed when the state of Florida in their knee jerk wisdom passed a law requiring welfare recipients to be drug tested.
Just everybody, drug tested --- then laughed when for the cost,assault on civil liberties (throwing a bone to sturg) and, the cost
they found a ridiculously minute number of violators. The state I am pretty sure cried uncle. With the cover of the "interpreters" the ACLU.
you showed 544 people out of 93M over the course of 17 years. If you read the link you provided you would know it was a computer glitch.
Doing the math that is 32 people per year. Don't know how many elections that swayed -- perhaps you can ?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Again, it is impossible to know, because people on your side of this issue believe minorities incapable of providing the same documentation to vote that is required to attend kindergarten, play youth sports, or go to Cancun.
57Brave
Well-known member
2 interesting overviews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
.................
I had forgotten the fight to protect the rights of homeless to vote.
In many cases whsat you advocate is seen as a poll tax of sorts.
It costs a lot of money to acquire or renew a passport.
Some states , I understand, will not issue drivers licenses without insurance. Which requires ownership.
These are real obstacles .
To satisfy those that see .000006 as a reason to disenfranchise thousands ?
.....................
are we ready to review part 3 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
.................
I had forgotten the fight to protect the rights of homeless to vote.
In many cases whsat you advocate is seen as a poll tax of sorts.
It costs a lot of money to acquire or renew a passport.
Some states , I understand, will not issue drivers licenses without insurance. Which requires ownership.
These are real obstacles .
To satisfy those that see .000006 as a reason to disenfranchise thousands ?
.....................
are we ready to review part 3 ?
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
It's become common practice for states that require voter ID to make free state ID available.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Jaw, I wonder what you think about the recent court decisions that have explicitly stated that race was improperly used as a motivation in changes to voting laws in, for example, North Carolina.
You're clamping down on the issue of ID, which is certainly part of the argument, but you seem to be focusing on it to the exclusion of everything else. In NC, for example, the judge found--based on direct testimony and documentation-- that the changes in voting laws were based on analysis of race-based voter data, which were then used to specifically target methods which increased minority voter turnout. I'm not sure how a person of good faith can assimilate that information, and then not extrapolate from it that this is a legitimate problem.
Now, as for the issue of ID...it doesn't seem too onerous on its face to require an ID at a polling place. I do wonder if you're being a little bit cavalier about the fact that some Americans don't drive, don't go on cruises to Cancun, don't play youth sports, and might not carry an up-to-date gov-issued identification with them at all times. If that person has a voter registration certificate, though, they've proven to the relevant authorities that they are who they say they are and are legally enrolled voters. Why shouldn't that person be allowed to vote? In my state, they can't. It may have passed legal muster, but it seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of voter participation. You are potentially disenfranchising person X, on the assumption that person Y might have committed two felonies-- first, stealing someone's property, then using it to vote fraudulently. How many Xs do you think are out there, versus Ys?
If there is a registration error, like in the story that was posted re: the Pennsylvania DMV, it is the responsibility of the state, and very much without the power of the state, to fix it.
Why should the default position always be the one that makes it harder to vote? Why shouldn't it be the default position, regardless of political affiliation, that voting should be easier, not harder? Voting should be easy, and barriers to doing so, for all legal voters, should be minimal. If your concern is non-citizens voting, there are ways to address the issue that don't involve making it harder for everyone else to vote.
You're clamping down on the issue of ID, which is certainly part of the argument, but you seem to be focusing on it to the exclusion of everything else. In NC, for example, the judge found--based on direct testimony and documentation-- that the changes in voting laws were based on analysis of race-based voter data, which were then used to specifically target methods which increased minority voter turnout. I'm not sure how a person of good faith can assimilate that information, and then not extrapolate from it that this is a legitimate problem.
Now, as for the issue of ID...it doesn't seem too onerous on its face to require an ID at a polling place. I do wonder if you're being a little bit cavalier about the fact that some Americans don't drive, don't go on cruises to Cancun, don't play youth sports, and might not carry an up-to-date gov-issued identification with them at all times. If that person has a voter registration certificate, though, they've proven to the relevant authorities that they are who they say they are and are legally enrolled voters. Why shouldn't that person be allowed to vote? In my state, they can't. It may have passed legal muster, but it seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of voter participation. You are potentially disenfranchising person X, on the assumption that person Y might have committed two felonies-- first, stealing someone's property, then using it to vote fraudulently. How many Xs do you think are out there, versus Ys?
If there is a registration error, like in the story that was posted re: the Pennsylvania DMV, it is the responsibility of the state, and very much without the power of the state, to fix it.
Why should the default position always be the one that makes it harder to vote? Why shouldn't it be the default position, regardless of political affiliation, that voting should be easier, not harder? Voting should be easy, and barriers to doing so, for all legal voters, should be minimal. If your concern is non-citizens voting, there are ways to address the issue that don't involve making it harder for everyone else to vote.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The shenanigans NC pulled were terrible. Deliberately decreasing the number of polling places in minority areas is crap and I'm glad they got slapped down for it. I have said here before (I think?) that I am in favor of free government ID, year round registration, longer times before people fall off the voter rolls, extended early voting, and more polling locations. At the same time, I think there are obvious avenues of voter fraud that we can address easily, by ending third party registration and requiring proof of citizenship.
I'm not defaulting to making it more difficult to vote, I'm saying a cable bill and someone's word shouldn't be enough to prove to anyone that a person has the right to vote.
Yes, that is my sole concern. I had to fire scores of employees in a single day at a previous job because they were here illegally and had falsified documents in order to be hired. They had to provide a SSN and a government issued photo ID before they ever clocked in, which is way more than we ask a voter for. So why leave such a large pathway to fraud open? Everyone of these fraudulent votes nullifies a legitimate vote just as surely as a poll tax would. The real ID laws enacted in the wake of 9/11 take care of the fraudulent ID issue now, so that seems like an obvious solution to me. I would be even more in favor of anything else anyone can come up with that is as effective but easier.
57Brave
Well-known member
perhaps a good way to start would be to target the so-called problem where it doesn't effect people that rightfully vote.
The ruse of voter fraud is a tool to suppress the vote of Democrats. Plain and simple.
this tweet:
Stephen WolfVerified account @PoliticsWolf 49m49 minutes ago
Stephen Wolf Retweeted Taniel
It’s no coincidence that the whitest states in America have the least restrictions on felons voting. These laws were intentionally racist
http://www.sunjournal.com/analysis-...to-vote-including-prisoners-and-the-homeless/
again, you show nothing but anecdotal evidence of voter fraud.
Widespread or a once and done
The ruse of voter fraud is a tool to suppress the vote of Democrats. Plain and simple.
this tweet:
Stephen WolfVerified account @PoliticsWolf 49m49 minutes ago
Stephen Wolf Retweeted Taniel
It’s no coincidence that the whitest states in America have the least restrictions on felons voting. These laws were intentionally racist
http://www.sunjournal.com/analysis-...to-vote-including-prisoners-and-the-homeless/
again, you show nothing but anecdotal evidence of voter fraud.
Widespread or a once and done
57Brave
Well-known member
Play 3: Cover your tracks
When the ACLU demanded that he produce his draft NVRA amendments in the Kansas litigation, Kobach did the natural thing a vote suppressor caught red-handed would do: He lied.
Kobach told the ACLU and a federal magistrate that “no such documents exist” in an attempt to keep his lobbying efforts under wraps:
Kobach Document Screenshot 6
After Kobach was ordered to produce his papers for review, the magistrate fined him for making “patently misleading representations to the court about the documents.” When Kobach appealed that decision, the presiding judge agreed that Kobach should be sanctioned because of a “pattern” of misrepresentation “that call his credibility into question.”
Kobach’s lobbying to gut the NVRA was always meant to occur behind closed doors. So he has been struggling for months to keep these documents out of public view, while secretly asking his ally, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), to introduce his proposed NVRA amendment to Congress in the future.
Why is Kobach trying so hard to hide what he’s been up to? Because the unsealed documents reveal that his true aim and that of the election commission is suppressing the right to vote.
When the 10th Circuit blocked Kobach’s law a year ago, the court found that a state has to prove that noncitizen registration fraud is actually a significant problem before it can demand a passport or birth certificate from voters. Since then, Kobach has been maneuvering behind the scenes to make sure he can impose whatever restrictions he wants without any proof. Why? Because he knows his claims about noncitizens voting are a scam.
Kobach realizes that his law has been disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible citizens — that is the whole point. And now, he’s poised to do the same nationwide.
Vice President Pence stated that the president’s election commission would begin with “no preconceived notions or preordained results.” That was wrong. As Kobach’s own testimony and documents show, the fix has been in from the start
When the ACLU demanded that he produce his draft NVRA amendments in the Kansas litigation, Kobach did the natural thing a vote suppressor caught red-handed would do: He lied.
Kobach told the ACLU and a federal magistrate that “no such documents exist” in an attempt to keep his lobbying efforts under wraps:
Kobach Document Screenshot 6
After Kobach was ordered to produce his papers for review, the magistrate fined him for making “patently misleading representations to the court about the documents.” When Kobach appealed that decision, the presiding judge agreed that Kobach should be sanctioned because of a “pattern” of misrepresentation “that call
Kobach’s lobbying to gut the NVRA was always meant to occur behind closed doors. So he has been struggling for months to keep these documents out of public view, while secretly asking his ally, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), to introduce his proposed NVRA amendment to Congress in the future.
Why is Kobach trying so hard to hide what he’s been up to? Because the unsealed documents reveal that his true aim and that of the election commission is suppressing the right to vote.
When the 10th Circuit blocked Kobach’s law a year ago, the court found that a state has to prove that noncitizen registration fraud is actually a significant problem before it can demand a passport or birth certificate from voters. Since then, Kobach has been maneuvering behind the scenes to make sure he can impose whatever restrictions he wants without any proof. Why? Because he knows his claims about noncitizens voting are a scam.
Kobach realizes that his law has been disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible citizens — that is the whole point. And now, he’s poised to do the same nationwide.
Vice President Pence stated that the president’s election commission would begin with “no preconceived notions or preordained results.” That was wrong. As Kobach’s own testimony and documents show, the fix has been in from the start
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
57's side: Show evidence of voter fraud.
Jaw's side: Ok, but that is literally impossible without requiring proof that voters have the right to vote.
57's side: That's racist.
Jaw's side: No, I want all races to have the same ID requirement, one that conclusively guarantees there is no voter fraud.
57's side: Show evidence of voter fraud.
57Brave
Well-known member
It is not literally impossible. You apparently have some basis for your belief in voter fraud. This isn't something you woke up one morning and thought, "oh, there is voter fraud" The notion began somewhere ---
Like welfare fraud - there used to be a poster on the scout board that was sure there was welfare fraud because he saw a nice car in the projects. He didn't know who's car it was or any reason why it was ther but that was all he needed to see.
Funny, systemic fraud is attached to minorities when brought up. Hmm, never thought of that before.
The writer wrote "racist". I am not sure how else it would be characterized.
Laws put in place aimed at minorities I would think a text book definition of racism
Like welfare fraud - there used to be a poster on the scout board that was sure there was welfare fraud because he saw a nice car in the projects. He didn't know who's car it was or any reason why it was ther but that was all he needed to see.
Funny, systemic fraud is attached to minorities when brought up. Hmm, never thought of that before.
The writer wrote "racist". I am not sure how else it would be characterized.
Laws put in place aimed at minorities I would think a text book definition of racism
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I take some issues with your second two paragraphs—for instance, a lot of folks who should be able to vote aren't going to have a cable bill, and depending on household situation some might not have any bills in their name—but altogether I find your first paragraph a sensible representation of the sort of compromise to which I'm very amenable (and—despite those protestations of the recent, sturgbot-9000 version of sturg—I am pretty willfully amenable to compromise).
However, I would add one very important caveat to your proposals: the first policies ("free government ID, year round registration, longer times before people fall off the voter rolls, extended early voting, and more polling locations") must be implemented before the second set ("ending third party registration and requiring proof of citizenship") or you're simply effectively disenfranchising a statistically-significant number of potential voters in order to deny the franchise to a statistically-insignificant number of individuals who shouldn't be voting. But if you can get that first litany of policies enacted, I'm all about rubber-stamping the second set.