DescentBB

I think the Colorado Secretary of State and his county election clerks are indeed a qualified source to raise the concerns they did.
There is election fraud ...that is a fact. What they point to makes it extra easy...
Same day registration AND vote BY MAIL?!?! Get real vision, no one believes there won't be a fraud campaign unleashed if Colorado becomes a tight race with an opportunity like that!

You can piss all you want that O'Keef is a partisan but the assesment by John Fund is sound. You can toss O'keefe's candid camera victims aside and it doesn't alter the point I raised.

So where is the proof in actual numbers and percentages?

vision wrote:So where is the proof in actual numbers and percentages?

I keep asking that.

You want proof there is voter fraud?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 42488.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... too-often/

http://www.koaa.com/news/man-investigat ... n-ballots/

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-0 ... on-efforts

You want me to be able to tell you the percentage of fraudulent votes that are cast? I'm sorry, but that is quite difficult to do and if the Dem's have their way it will be near impossible to do.

Tell me, under your proposed rules for stopping voter fraud how would you count up the fraudulent votes in order to legitimately show the percentage?

*********************

re: slick,
you keep saying lots of things but you never address the issue honestly, so your words are wind.

I've stated for years, and NEVER been refuted with anything approaching data, that voter fraud is less than 0.1% of votes cast in any election and less than .01% of all voting in the US or any individual state. Will avoids the task of refuting that, and somehow always comes back to GOP lackeys for examples.

callmeslick wrote:I've stated for years, and NEVER been refuted with anything approaching data, that voter fraud is less than 0.1% of votes cast in any election and less than .01% of all voting in the US or any individual state. Will avoids the task of refuting that, and somehow always comes back to GOP lackeys for examples.

I have not avoided it. I have addressed it each time and in numerous posts just today in fact have I have addressed that fallacy.
Answer the question I asked which takes you painfully right to the heart of that false premise of yours....
You are the one who has avoided it.

I reject the premise of your claim that the percentages you cite are valid. I challenge you to show how the system as you say it should be set up can prevent fraud or even provide you with reliable data to show the percentage of fraud!
It's like the way you say Obama has reduced illegal entry to the country based on some numbers game he is playing. You are ridiculous.

Same day registration and voting? Now in Colorado mail in same day registration and voting, etc. and people are immediately trying to gather up ballots...
To do what? Line their hamster cages with?
Keep on declaring water isn't wet. The people reading this aren't as stupid as you need them to be in order for you to have any credibility. Keep it up.

still nothing to refute my numbers, huh, Will? Of course, it's easier to scare people with suppositions.

callmeslick wrote:still nothing to refute my numbers, huh, Will? Of course, it's easier to scare people with suppositions.

There is nothing to refute because 'your numbers' are worthless.

Try to show us how we should trust them to indicate anything close to the actual fraud activity taking place. Simply show us the methodology/logic you are relying on that lends any weight to them.

answer the question you are repeatedly dodging...

show me how these concerns are not relevant or valid because of your prefered method of preventing fraud:

Colorado secretary of state Scott Gessler, along with several county election clerks, have raised warning flags that a new state law that automatically mails a ballot to everyone is an engraved invitation to commit fraud. “Sending ballots to people who did not even ask for them or have moved out of state is asking for trouble” he told me. For example, little can stop someone who collects discarded ballots from trash cans, fills out the ballots, and mails them in. Election workers are supposed to compare signatures on registration records with signed ballots. But if a person has a “witness” who signs the ballot on the witness line, then the signatures do not have to match and the vote is counted.

Secretary of State Gessler had futile arguments with Democratic state legislators last year who insisted on ramming a bill through that mandated Colorado become the only state in the nation with both all-mail balloting and same-day registration. Under same-day registration someone can register to vote online, have a mail ballot sent to them, and never physically show up to register or vote. Other places that use same-day registration treat the vote as a provisional ballot pending verification. Colorado immediately counts the vote and there is no way to separate it out if the person who votes is later found ineligible.

if my numbers are wrong, that would be easily proven by statistics from as little as ONE ELECTION. In two years, you haven't been able to do so. Case closed. Try to scare the stupid elsewhere with your goofy justification of racist, desperate plots to make voting difficult for those with color, or simply those with less money. Or, in some cases, simply restrictions on folks that don't traditionally vote with you.

callmeslick wrote:if my numbers are wrong, that would be easily proven by statistics from as little as ONE ELECTION. .

Show it then. Give us the methodology of your calculations that proves your assertion.

Or answer the question, apply your prefered fraud prevention methods to the Colorado scenario.

Either will result in the same thing.

You're coming up a bit small, Will.



seriously, dude....for two years, I have thrown out a couple numbers, and defied you to refute them. NOW, you ask me to prove them. Can you read? Can you understand a basic statement? I stated that I am convinced that my numbers represent the upper threshold, not the actual numbers. Why? Because, the only studies I've ever read, put the incidence of ALL types of voter fraud at around .006%. Yes, six THOUSANDTHS of one percent. As I have very clearly requested, if you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.

callmeslick wrote:You're coming up a bit small, Will.



seriously, dude....for two years, I have thrown out a couple numbers, and defied you to refute them. NOW, you ask me to prove them. Can you read? Can you understand a basic statement? I stated that I am convinced that my numbers represent the upper threshold, not the actual numbers. Why? Because, the only studies I've ever read, put the incidence of ALL types of voter fraud at around .006%. Yes, six THOUSANDTHS of one percent. As I have very clearly requested, if you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.

You cant show how the numbers you hide behind genuinely report the instances of fraud because they don't. They can't. They can't because they don't represent all the data needed to support the claim you are making. You don't need to swing an election by large percentages to change the outcome if it is close.

So show me where that assertion is wrong.

Otherwise all you are citing is the number of incidents where a fraud has been BOTH detected AND intercepted.
That is a far cry from your claim that the numbers prove any accurate accounting of all incidents of fraud that is committed.


Feel free to prove my assertion untrue.

Until you do people will understand what I've said and with the knowledge of the underhanded activities being reported they will logically arrive at the conclusion that slick doesn't know how much fraud takes place, slick can't prove otherwise and slick has a definite reason to want people to think its all just about racists hurting black people...

slick=the wizard of oz behind the curtain and the little dog named reality is tugging the curtain open for all to see the great windbag slick for what he really is

still coming up empty, save the predictable bluster. Oh, and it would take 0.1% incidence, all going the same way, to affect an election. Prove ONE case. Feel free, you've had two years already, but with just a bit more time......

Look Will, if you can't find numbers that not only show that voter fraud is rampant, and that it is having a pronounced effect on elections, I don't see how you or anyone else can use fraud as a justification for restricting the ability of citizens to vote. ID's or not, fraud would most likely be in the form of electronic manipulation post-ballot anyway.

bingo, we have a winner. Thank you, vision, I was getting dizzy from the trip to WillWorld

Wind

Will is just convinced that there is rampant fraud that throws every election, it is just that nobody is keeping track of it. The numbers don't support it because it is totally on the honor system.

Anyone who has actually worked at an election before knows this to be in fact: complete bull★■◆●. Some cretin cannot just walk in off the street and vote at any polling place he wants multiple times or even in multiple locations, it isn't that easy. And besides that, in our economy nobody who would be motivated to sway an election like that could afford to burn that much time away from their borderline slave laboring. The people that do have the money just $$ buy $$ out whoever wins anyway so the results of the election are completely irrelevant to them.

You know what would really surprise me: if simple human error had less of an impact on election outcomes than fraud, I would be legitimately shocked.

Krom,
You misrepresented my position, I have never said what you attribute to me. All elections thrown?!?
I said there is more fraud than slick claims his numbers limit it to.
I said the Colorado type loosening of already weak monitoring makes it easier to cheat.
I asked anyone to show how slicks numbers prove what he says it proves and/or to show how the loose monitoring can be used to accurately tally fraudulent votes.

You also claim something can't be in a thread where I linked a story of a person arrested for doing what you said can't happen.

Why?

Fun fact. 150,000,000 voters and only 527 votes in a single state was what Bush needed to beat Gore and take the Whitehouse.

In a tight race a few crooked people organizing some fraudulent ballots by mail etc can steal a state...maybe even a Presidential election.
And we shouldn't have an ID requirement because of this fairy tale that ID's that are used, uncontested, in numerous everyday qualifications to participate in a variety of activities suddenly become nothing but a racists tool?!?

I get the feeling someone is still upset about Romney.

I'm exaggerating your position because that is how overblown it sounds like to the rest of us.

Will Robinson wrote:You also claim something can't be in a thread where I linked a story of a person arrested for doing what you said can't happen.

I'm not sure this helps your position. Maybe if they hadn't been caught, but then there wouldn't be a story about it... So what?

Krom wrote:I'm exaggerating your position because that is how overblown it sounds like to the rest of us.

So we have identified that you and "the rest" have a perception problem that causes your failure to grasp reality? You have all bought into the narrative so completely that valid points raised begin to sound like something they are not so that your brain can reconcile the event to fit your programmed bias?

How about you address the actual points I made instead of restate them into something that makes it easy to dismiss.

Krom wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You also claim something can't be in a thread where I linked a story of a person arrested for doing what you said can't happen.

I'm not sure this helps your position. Maybe if they hadn't been caught, but then there wouldn't be a story about it... So what?

in your attempt to discredit my comments you claimed, based on your experience, that people can't go and cast votes in multiple precincts etc.
I posted an example of someone doing exactly that.

Considering how many places now don't have the methods to catch that crime at all and in this thread some are arguing for even less effective monitoring...basically no monitoring in Colorado....

"So what"?

What=you are wrong. That's what.

And let's not get too tied up in the one aspect of a person casting multiple votes as if that is the core problem with weak monitoring.
If some President were to allow millions of illegal 'voters' to enter the country and not be prevented from voting due to the lack of monitoring it would be a whole new domination of elections for decades. That is exactly what many Democrats are gloating about right now. Or is that a 'so what' consideration too?

The opposition to identifying voters isn't based on what is 'right'.
It is based on what is right for Democrats in the next 20 - 40 election cycles.

Krom wrote:Will is just convinced that there is rampant fraud that throws every election, it is just that nobody is keeping track of it. The numbers don't support it because it is totally on the honor system.

Anyone who has actually worked at an election before knows this to be in fact: complete ****. Some cretin cannot just walk in off the street and vote at any polling place he wants multiple times or even in multiple locations, it isn't that easy. And besides that, in our economy nobody who would be motivated to sway an election like that could afford to burn that much time away from their borderline slave laboring. The people that do have the money just $$ buy $$ out whoever wins anyway so the results of the election are completely irrelevant to them.

You know what would really surprise me: if simple human error had less of an impact on election outcomes than fraud, I would be legitimately shocked.

By the way, I'm having serious doubts about the honesty of the counting of votes in the referendum on Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Yes, 19 September all the votes were counted: 55.3%. But there was no independent observers to monitor the vote!!! Although Scotland could be declared independent country.

no, Will, access to voting being increased is RIGHT, no matter how you wish to whine. And, thanks for displaying your true focus: the effect it will have on voting patterns. Heaven forbid that easy access allow more working poor people and students to get to the polls. Why shouldn't the GOP wise up and develop a platform which appeals to such voters, well before 30 election cycles pass?

callmeslick wrote:no, Will, access to voting being increased is RIGHT, no matter how you wish to whine. And, thanks for displaying your true focus: the effect it will have on voting patterns. Heaven forbid that easy access allow more working poor people and students to get to the polls. Why shouldn't the GOP wise up and develop a platform which appeals to such voters, well before 30 election cycles pass?

I'm all for increasing the legal vote totals. I never suggested anything that would prevent that.
If we have people who would like to cheat we have to deal with it by identifying who is a legal voter. There is nothing new about that safeguard.
If we have people who want to make it easy for illegal votes to be counted we have to deal with them too...

All of this particular debate aside, I believe it is more important to have a proper vote, than an easy vote.

I hope that wasn’t stating the obvious, but I needed to say it.

both can be done, though, Spidey. And, as nothing is perfect in this world, one has to err to one side, and with no proven evidence of any record of abuse, I choose gladly to err to the side of easy voting. As was noted above, anyone who has ever worked polls(I've done so, in 3 states, was a district representative in one monitoring 5 polling places)knows that this stuff just doesn't happen like folks like to fearmonger about.

Truly independent observation commission of the elections in the United States can only be a Russian independent examination. Without the control of independent Russian commission an election results in the United States must be recognized as influenced official authorities of the USA and illegal.

could you spare us the stupid observations, Sigma? Thanks.

Oh, and if anyone needs to know HOW desperate the longer term voting picture IS for the GOP crowd:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/10/ ... 414061735/

I offered you a good solution to the problem. I was just painful to look at your suffering.

Sigma, as much as you may think of your country, I hope you can realize that it would be insanity to allow a foreign state a hand in elections.

I understand, Thorne, the implication: We, in the US, impose just such conditions on nations with dubious electoral systems and bad track records. One could, I suppose, infer from Will that the US system is just as horribly ineffective, but, as i and others have argued, no such problem exists nor has it.

Will always falls back on "address my points" because with them he can attempt to restrict the argument to only them, despite the fact that his points are often outlandishly exaggerated to outright wrong or completely irrelevant to the big picture at best.

You cannot demonstrate that fraud or cheating exists on a scale that matters, you just assume it is there (perhaps because Romney lost and this shouldn't have been possible?). Slick says it is statistically irrelevant and you disagree, however actual research on the matter by people other than yourself or slick agrees with slicks assessment that it is a non issue. Also your story doesn't help your case because they got caught, which means the existing safeguards are working and sufficient to get the job done. Which means your points are worthless, because reality does not support them.

Voter ID is a solution desperately in search of a problem. The real issue here is that we know what the problem actually is: republicans are toxic extremists to minority, poor, or women voters. So they propose Voter ID as a solution to "fraud" when really it is a solution to wealthy white male voters not being a sufficient majority to elect worthless candidates like Romney.

Imagine how impractical it would be, hiring people to visit multiple poling places and cast ballots. How many would you have to hire and how many places must they visit before the effect was noticeable? Sure you can find some people that would do it for free, but again, how many would you need? The more people who are colluding to do something illegal the greater risk of it all falling apart. And if you had enough money to pay people to get the job done and be quiet, why not buy the vote another way?

When a race is decided by 527 votes that means both candidates are equally bad. Even though I voted for Bush I wish I could take it back in hindsight. Though realistically Gore would have been just as shitty, just in different ways.

Krom wrote:Will always falls back on "address my points" because with them he can attempt to restrict the argument to only them, despite the fact that his points are often outlandishly exaggerated to outright wrong or completely irrelevant to the big picture at best.

I ask you to address the point I raised instead of the one you fabricated and assign to me so you can argue against your construction instead of face the reality that the new paradigm makes your argument null. You are the one using the 'restrict the debate' tactic.

slicks stats and other theoretical explanations don't deal with same day, mail in, registration and vote with NO MEANS of correcting the vote tally even if the fraud is detected.
That is where this effort has lead us.

You can not demonstrate that which I described is untrue or not likely to increase the incidents of fraud. Common sense tells us the ratio of fraud will increase just like outlawing locks would increase theft.
So where is this 'scale that matters' going to reset to when millions of illegals are going to be voting possibly as soon as this November?

Yes. I want you to address that point instead if pretending the situation isn't dynamic and trending toward an open border/ open ballot welfare for all!

Where the illegals used to run from the Border Patrol they now walk up to them like demanding tourists at the hotel taxi stand to get their free ride to the city of their choice where the current administration is handing out documentation that allows them to easily cast a vote for their benefactors who kicked the door open for them.

That is a point you could address if you wanted to be honest about the discussion.

It shouldn't matter to your application of morality and honesty that Repubs are toxic to minorities. Let them lose every election on that. But let it be a legal vote that does them in.
I don't think you would be so heedless if the 'other team' was running this scam. You aren't standing up for what is right. You are standing up for the Democrat party dirty politics.

If you let one party dominate with impunity we will have the worst possible government imaginable.
This is one of those moments where you should all stand back and say...'hmmm this is getting out of control' (literally, from a representative form of government perspective) instead of thinking 'it's ok because I favor the winners in the present contest'.

Soon enough there is no contest if you destroy competition. Soon enough it becomes the ruling class vs the rest of us.

The case for making elections in the US easier is invalid because it’s already pretty much painless as it is, doing a load of laundry is probably harder.

There are so many things that need to be addressed, such as withholding results until “all” voting is done, for one.

“Making voting easier” is code for…helping Democratic turnout.

Now…I am not referring to the deliberate attempts to make voting harder…that’s a different issue, and should be stopped.

Will Robinson wrote:You can not demonstrate that which I described is untrue or not likely to increase the incidents of fraud. Common sense tells us the ratio of fraud will increase just like outlawing locks would increase theft.
So where is this 'scale that matters' going to reset to when millions of illegals are going to be voting possibly as soon as this November?

Can't I just call bull★■◆● when I see it? I can demonstrate that which you have described as untrue, because it is totally untrue. It hasn't happened yet, which means it is automatically false.

Plus millions of illegals... Really? Millions?

Also, I couldn't care less if the Democrats win an election or not, unlike you I don't hate one side more than the other. You really should learn to be a little more indifferent, since you are so stuck on hating everything democrat you end up taking the bait from the equally stupid republicans and start imagining millions of illegal immigrants arriving at the polling places and all of them voting multiple times of course for a democrat in order to explain how stupid fat old white guys lose elections.

We did stand back a bit and observed "Wow, Will has really lost his marbles.".

approximately 11 million here right now. 1+10 =plural.... millions...just another fact you are declaring to be untrue.
By the way, it is Obama's administration that provides that number, not a rabid repub outfit. just sayin'...

50,000 "children" in a few months have been added to that recently. How many adults accompanied them and how many 'children' were actually adult is in a data set that is being with held until after the election.

DHS places orders for more green cards...their request is the contract will provide 4 million annually with the capability to raise that delivery to 34 million on the up side. Is that anything close to the previous orders for new cards? I have a friend from UK who has been trying to get one for years. He thinks they don't issue any where nearly that many. Then again he is one of the 'legal' immigrants waiting in line. I told him he needs to adopt a latino surname and just dare them to refuse entry...

i noticed a new line on the ObamaCare application form for those who want to sign up for the remainder of the current year coverage. One of the qualifiers to be allowed to jump on for the remainder of the policy period....'Are you going to have your illegal status changed in the near future.' if so you qualify.
That wasnt there last year. Someone in government has been instructed to facilitate awarding Obamacare status in advance of looming immigration status change. How much do you want to bet that someone is in the loop with the other someone who ordered all those Green Cards to be readied this year? Do you think all the push for granting voting rights to illegals is just idle chatter?!?

And if they cant grant it, if they allow millions to hit the polls while the monitoring looks the other way, or the mailman delivers the same day registration/vote ballots, in any one or two election cycles they don't need to vote more than once.
Thus my previous comment about not getting too fixated on the multiple vote scenario. It was a simple example of the changes that I am pointing out.

It's the impunity that has me riled up. not a few extra votes in a deeply Dem Philly precinct guarded by black panther samaritans. Impunity enabled by a bunch of you short sighted enablers who I would think would be smart enough to know when it has gotten out of hand. The next three years are going to be an eye opener.

I'd like to point out that just because none of you can image how voter fraud could happen doesn't mean it couldn't or doesn't happen, and just because it hasn't been spotlighted and prosecuted doesn't mean it hasn't happened on a whatever scale. Knowledge of human nature alone--what people are and have been capable of--should cause us to be determined to be sure that voter fraud is an impossibility, not just an improbability that we don't see the need to be worried about. A grass roots effort could conceivably take advantage of any openings/weaknesses that exist in our system, without leaving a smoking gun or an easy trail to pick up on, so the obvious sensible position is to be ever-vigilant to be certain there are none. Now I don't know a great deal about the voting process from area to area, or state to state, but it is my experience that there are blind spots in any system, and without fail where there is a blind spot that can be taken advantage of there are people that will find it and take advantage of it.

Would this same subject be so easily dismissed if it were applied to the superbowl and people could influence the outcome by vote?

vision wrote:Imagine how impractical it would be, hiring people to visit multiple poling places and cast ballots. How many would you have to hire and how many places must they visit before the effect was noticeable?

highlighted the keyword here. As anyone who has worked as a polling official, or party pollwatcher knows,such a move would be blatantly obviously and reported instantly.

Spidey wrote:The case for making elections in the US easier is invalid because it’s already pretty much painless as it is, doing a load of laundry is probably harder.

varies widely with the area, frankly......some districts and some states make it FAR more difficult, in terms of needed transportation, wait times, etc. Also, we now don't simply work as a 9-5 society, so SOME folks will encounter difficulties with work/home/childcare schedules.

There are so many things that need to be addressed, such as withholding results until “all” voting is done, for one.

do you mean like withholding Eastern results until Western states have voted, or something more localized? I ask because I wasn't aware of the latter.

“Making voting easier” is code for…helping Democratic turnout.

only if the GOP doesn't appeal to the populace that would find voting easier under the new laws. It's demographics, and the only reason one party would benefit is if THEY appeal to the demographic in question. Given that demographic still represents legal, eligible voters, NOT making it as easy as possible for them to cast ballots holds utterly NO moral water.