Obama election staffers have no problem with vote early and vote often.

[jjjayb]

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Literature

No, I think there were several purposes, and one was most likely to prevent in-person voting fraud. But we know that in-person voting fraud is very rare. Where there is voting fraud is in mail-in voting. But the amount of times people have come to the voting booth and said that they were someone they really weren't has barely ever happened, if ever. (The reasons for that should be rather obvious: that kind of fraud faces a serious penalty, and the chances of being caught are very good: if you claim to be someone on the registration list, and that actually someone comes into vote, you're ****ed; and since voting rolls are public after the election, the person you alleged to be can see that someone stole his identity).

Because of how rare in-person voting fraud is, and because of how widespread the problem of not immediately having a voter ID was for many minorities, poor, and older citizens, the driving purpose of these laws becomes clear to any person who isn't hopelessly naive or dishonest: this was a way that could disenfranchise many likely Democratic voters on election night.

There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare. When you can register and vote without proving you are a real person, how could you prove it happened?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare.

Maybe that explains why Pennsylvania was asked to provide evidence in support of their law to the courts, and Pennsylvania said, "Um, we can't. Just trust us." Imagine a judge hearing that. "You have no evidence that it's a problem, but you're enacting a law that significantly burdens thousands of voters for the purpose of stopping that problem?"

"Yes, your honor. You see, this could help Mitt Romney win presi -- I mean, the integrity of the electoral process demands it."

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

There is no way to either prove or disprove that in-person voter fraud is rare. When you can register and vote without proving you are a real person, how could you prove it happened?

Just like there is no way that you can prove that requiring a photo ID is an unreasonable burden and will disenfranchise legitimate voters. But for some reason, we must accept that to be a universal truth.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Just like there is no way that you can prove that requiring a photo ID is an unreasonable burden and will disenfranchise legitimate voters. But for some reason, we must accept that to be a universal truth.

You haven't read the plaintiff's brief or the judge's opinion, have you? Were you aware there was an actual hearing over this issue in PA? Did you know a judge read more information than you've ever read on this subject and made a decision about it?

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Literature

Maybe that explains why Pennsylvania was asked to provide evidence in support of their law to the courts, and Pennsylvania said, "Um, we can't. Just trust us." Imagine a judge hearing that. "You have no evidence that it's a problem, but you're enacting a law that significantly burdens thousands of voters for the purpose of stopping that problem?"

"Yes, your honor. You see, this could help Mitt Romney win presi -- I mean, the integrity of the electoral process demands it."

Again, If you have left yourself no way to prove it, how do you prove it? Try doing spot checks at the polls and see what you come up with.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Again, If you have left yourself no way to prove it, how do you prove it? Try doing spot checks at the polls and see what you come up with.

You don't have to do that. Here's what you do: purchase the voting rolls afterwards. This will show you who voted in the district. Then actually go to every person on the roll and see if they voted. If they say no, then you know there was in-person voter fraud.

How much of the voting process is a complete mystery to you, by the way?

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Literature

In-person voter fraud does not happen enough to give any party an advantage in elections! What part of this aren't you understanding?

But how long do we keep turning a blind eye before it does trip an election ? Someday it will affect a local election because of the extra doubling of voters.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

But how long do we keep turning a blind eye before it does trip an election ? Someday it will affect a local election because of the extra doubling of voters.

Why would someone do in-person voter fraud and risk the high chance of getting caught, when they could just focus their efforts on at-home mail-in voter fraud? It makes zero sense. Please explain what you mean by turning a blind eye. What are we turning a blind eye to?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Why would someone do in-person voter fraud and risk the high chance of getting caught, when they could just focus their efforts on at-home mail-in voter fraud? It makes zero sense. Please explain what you mean by turning a blind eye. What are we turning a blind eye to?

If it makes zero sense, why was ACORN trying so hard then? Many states started debating this issue after all of the shit ACORN did during the last Presidential election.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Literature

You don't have to do that. Here's what you do: purchase the voting rolls afterwards. This will show you who voted in the district. Then actually go to every person on the roll and see if they voted. If they say no, then you know there was in-person voter fraud.

How much of the voting process is a complete mystery to you, by the way?

If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

If it makes zero sense, why was ACORN trying so hard then? Many states started debating this issue after all of the shit ACORN did during the last Presidential election.

Anything in particular from ACORN?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

Flesh this out for me. You've got your registration form in front of you. You fill out John Smith, even though your name isn't John Smith. What's your next step?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

If I register as John Smith, and vote as John Smith even though my name is not John Smith, you can ask me if I voted all you want and you still wouldn't know it was fradulant.

How much of life is a complete mystery to you kid?

I've discovered in life that a lot of people like to pretend they know what they're talking about, even though they've never spent a minute of their time actually searching for the truth of it. It's okay to some degree. There's a lot of information to process in the world. We can't be experts in everything. But it's hard to excuse a person who doesn't know but acts like he knows.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Anything in particular from ACORN?

Well, here is what google popped up in a simple search:

I only read the first couple of paragraphs for each one, but they seemed pretty self explanatory:


http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344577/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/10/ac...new-documents/


Are you trying to say ACORN was innocent of the charges levied against it? Charges that a judge reviewed and heard evidence for in Nevada? Charges that ACORN officials were convicted of?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Are you trying to say ACORN was innocent of the charges levied against it?

You know why you're a douchebag? Because I ask you one question, and you imply that I'm in denial. You're a weasel. I never said anything hinting on the guilt or innocence of ACORN in any charge, you piece of shit.

How would you appreciate if I said things like, "Are you trying to say that black people don't deserve to vote?" when I ask you about the voter ID requirements? You'd probably be frustrated because it's dishonest to imply.