The Glade 4.0

What do they do if that person shows up to vote later?

Yeah, it doesn't extend to the entire Republican party... because I was just pointing out one specific example that I thought was especially damning. There's a bunch of other examples in that short article RD posted, and you can easily find shit-tons more online. And once again I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats doing the intimidation, the point is there is a long history of it, along with many other voter-suppression tactics going all the way back to poll taxes and literacy tests.

I know they aren't watched 24 hours a day. It's not like they're all in some central location where they can be easily locked up and monitored. There are so many thousands of polling places all over the country, you don't think a determined group could infiltrate a single one?[ /quote]

Most polling places are not dedicated polling places; they're things like schools, city halls, and community centers and wouldn't store them anyhow. They'd be stored at a board of elections or something, so on a county by county basis they are stored centrally ,and there's this nifty thing called a burglar alarm. They don't need to be watched 24 hours a day; they aren't nuclear weapons.



You are hilarious. Not only is that not "doable", aalmost any one of those elements, especially those surrounding creating the device, entail nearly insurmountable technical challenges, especially if you want the device to be undetectable. You are claiming its "doable" on nothing more than intuition and because its convenient to this hacker nonsense you seem to want to hang your hat on.

It would be far easier to simply recruit people to vote fraudulently. Most of them don't need to be in on the scheme, they just need to buy into going and voting a 2nd time or even taking money to go vote and some fast talker to get them to do it.



You just go get a bunch of illegals to register. As for voter registration cards, ohio doesn't have them. You just say "I'm bob smith and I'm here to vote.". If bob smith or jose gonzalez or whoever is on there, they get to vote. This is why fraudulent registration is a concern, especially since any attempt to quality control the roles is met with shrieks of outrage. Its very easy to talk about "conspiracy theories" when you just pretend everyone involved has to know the whole story, or pretend technical challenges are "doable" with handwavium.

Kaffis, that's why I said "divide that number by the overall percentage of registered voters who vote in that election." Although that may not be the correct statistical way to estimate the overall occurance of fraud in this instance, but I assure you there is a way. That's what statistics is made for.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has not brought a single case under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act. Indeed, when I was at the Voting Section, political appointees expressed open and outright hostility to enforcing Section 8. Former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates testified under oath that he recommended eight Section 8 investigations into various states, but that the political appointees overseeing the Voting Section simply said the Obama administration would not enforce Section 8 to require the removal of ineligible voters.5 Coates also testified that political appointees announced to the entire Voting Section in November 2009 that the Obama administration would never enforce Section 8 to require states to purge ineligible voters. Coates’ testimony was given under oath, and I can corroborate his account because I was also an eyewitness. Dozens of other eyewitnesses to these instructions exist.

With over 150 counties across the nation with more voters on the rolls than could possibly be eligible to vote, the outright refusal to enforce Section 8, a provision that was part of a carefully crafted compromise by Congress in 1993, threatens the integrity of the elections in November 2012.

If it's a lot then you'll have a pretty solid argument for stricter ID requirements.

Vote fraud is a very high personal risk-reward crime for a poor person or illegal immigrant. An extra 50 or even 20 bucks can mean a lot, especially with low risk of detection. People are willing to suck cock for $20 or less, they'd certainly cast a vote or three.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Can you specifically pinpoint why you have a problem with an ID requirement to vote?

Can you imagine if some shady policitcal party filled a bus with people by offering them $100 per day and drove them from polling station to polling station to vote multiple times for known dead voters? Imagine how many more times you could do that if you allowed early voting?

Vote fraud is a very high personal risk-reward crime for a poor person or illegal immigrant. An extra 50 or even 20 bucks can mean a lot, especially with low risk of detection. People are willing to suck cock for $20 or less, they'd certainly cast a vote or three.

But if there's a low voter turnout, the chances of collisions caused by fraud are lower, too. So trying to estimate such fraud by tracking collisions is... a pretty awful metric.

You are hilarious. Not only is that not "doable", aalmost any one of those elements, especially those surrounding creating the device, entail nearly insurmountable technical challenges, especially if you want the device to be undetectable. You are claiming its "doable" on nothing more than intuition and because its convenient to this hacker nonsense you seem to want to hang your hat on.

It's simply an unnecessary barrier to voting.

So you believe in universal suffrage but don't believe in identity confirmation?

Those beliefs cannot be fully reconciled.

We can easily detect voter impersonation using the method I described above. If you impersonate someone who is living and that person later tries to vote (or already voted before you) it will be detected. If you impersonate someone who is dead it can be detected by going back through the voter rolls after the election and cross-referencing them with death certificate records, as many studies have done. What the hell is stopping us from detecting it?

We have a system of identity confirmation and it's working just fine. Why change it?

Purging voter rolls is not detecting fraud, it's trying to prevent fraud. Also, the states already regularly purge their rolls for dead people. There is only opposition when it's done in a retarded way that results in the purging of a bunch of people who aren't dead.

Not sure what your problem is with the other half of my statement about living people, I don't see anything in this thread where you dispute that.

Voter ID laws also do not help detect fraud, they merely help prevent it. So where is the opposition to detecting voter fraud?