2018 Midterm Election Thread

[Sour Masher]

I tend to lean that way too, I certainly don't think it is the problem many make it out to be.

My question is how do we know it is or isn't a problem? How can anyone say definitively either way if we don't have good data?

Unfortunately we may have to include some kind of voter ID just in order to show that we don't have a problem.

That is fair. All I know if that in cases where someone tried to show there was a problem, ironically, they got caught. There was a case in NY of this with a woman who tried to vote in two places to show she could. Only, she couldn't, and got caught doing it! Everything I've read or know about how voting works in this country makes it clear that, at the least, the issue trump says exists with people voting many times, is not possible. That is one type of fraud that we already combat with the voter roles we keep. But I suppose it is possible that the data we have now showing cases of other types of voter fraud are nearly non-existent are inaccurate, because, for instance, how do we know the right person is actually casting the vote?

The thing that gets me is that this second type of fraud is rarely highlighted as the main fear. It is that illegals are voting when they are not on voter registries, or liberals are getting in line 5 times to vote again and again. Neither of those things seem possible to me. But without IDs, I don't know how they come up with the numbers I've seen that suggest voter impersonation is next to non-existent. I'd love to get an explanation from someone who may know more about it, though.

[Bernie Brewer]

You all have provided compelling evidence to me that the Dems are in the wrong on promoting off-cycle elections. I do not think this issue is as insidious or wide-reaching as the sort of voter suppression the GOP trades in, but I know it is good to address any and all issues that detract from all people actively participating in our democracy, and call it out on both sides, when we see it. So, thanks for opening my eyes on an issue of was ignorant of.

In a broader sense, I'll say that I think most left-leaning folks here are fully aware that the Democratic Party is far from perfect, and not all Dems are saints. I think where conflict arises here is in the frustration felt by those on the left that those on the right want to deflect or suggest that all problems bear equal culpability by both parties, which is very seldom the case. But rather then get into a game of "well, you guys do it worse", it would most often be more productive to all agree that we should all call out rather than defend any and all bad actors and practices. We should not be excusing poor behavior from our team. It isn't about us vs them on issues like this, it is right vs wrong.

I briefly posted a response and then deleted it because I didn't want to get into this discussion that deeply. But...

I agree that there is blame to go around and I agree that it isn't necessarily equal. In the eyes of liberals, I understand how they see it, and I understand how the conservatives see it. I think everyone in this thread agrees that we should let everyone who is legally registered to vote, vote. We don't agree on what legal means. I think most recently its been the GOPs turn in the box because of state level election trends over the past 10 to 15 years. The state level GOPs made the rules to benefit their side in state elections and those for federal election such as the US House. The Presidential Election and election of Senators and Governors can't be gerrymandered. But, gerrymandering isn't new. It has been done by both sides for years and as someone said, I think recently the GOP took it farther than the Dems ever did. It doesn't make it right in either case, but it is what it is. And, I believe that PA was rightly cited for how they created their redistricting boundaries during the state's GOP controlled bodies. The districts did not represent or reflect the state-wide electorate equally. The SC decided it was egregious enough that they required a change immediately. So far only PA has been required to change. More cases may result in similar findings, but not yet.

Again, where we seemingly disagree is who should be allowed to vote and the method or methods used to verify that they are in fact Legal Voters. I understand the argument of Trump on voting fraud was bullshit, but no one here is disagreeing with that, at least I don't think anyone in here is. It was his normal small penis response to everything.

[Sour Masher]

Again, where we seemingly disagree is who should be allowed to vote and the method or methods used to verify that they are in fact Legal Voters. I understand the argument of Trump on voting fraud was bullshit, but no one here is disagreeing with that, at least I don't think anyone in here is. It was his normal small penis response to everything.

I may have missed part of this discussion--is there disagreement by what we mean by legal voters? I did not think there was. What is the legal dispute in play? I thought the issue was about methods of IDing voters. I'd be surprised if we disagreed about who should be voting. I thought that was established and agreed upon by most.

[Bernie Brewer]

I may have missed part of this discussion--is there disagreement by what we mean by legal voters? I did not think there was. What is the legal dispute in play? I thought the issue was about methods of IDing voters. I'd be surprised if we disagreed about who should be voting. I thought that was established and agreed upon by most.

It's all about voter IDs with me. I'll promote the old saws of if you need an ID to cash a check, buy alcohol, or cigarettes, why is having an ID to vote bridge to far?

Edited to add: If someone hasn't voted in many election cycles, why shouldn't they be removed from voter roles?

[Sour Masher]

It's all about voter IDs with me. I'll promote the old saws of if you need an ID to cash a check, buy alcohol, or cigarettes, why is having an ID to vote bridge to far?

Edited to add: If someone hasn't voted in many election cycles, why shouldn't they be removed from voter roles?

Okay, we agree that we agree about who is a legal voter or not, right? At least that is something.

As far as proving one's status with an ID, in theory, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In practice, the data I see suggests it would lead to hardships for many voters, and there is no evidence to support it solves a problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests folks go to the polls pretending to be someone else to vote. But as Ken says, maybe there is no evidence of it, because we have not looked hard enough. I would expect that if this sort of thing does happen frequently, it would turn up in cases where the real person also shows up to vote, and the system would flag two votes for one person, and that just doesn't happen hardly at all.

Is the theory that the imposter voters somehow know who will not show up to vote and only impersonate those people? If so, how do they know who will vote and who won't?

[Bernie Brewer]

Okay, we agree that we agree about who is a legal voter or not, right? At least that is something.

As far as proving one's status with an ID, in theory, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In practice, the data I see suggests it would lead to hardships for many voters, and there is no evidence to support it solves a problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests folks go to the polls pretending to be someone else to vote. But as Ken says, maybe there is no evidence of it, because we have not looked hard enough. I would expect that if this sort of thing does happen frequently, it would turn up in cases where the real person also shows up to vote, and the system would flag two votes for one person, and that just doesn't happen hardly at all.

Is the theory that the imposter voters somehow know who will not show up to vote and only impersonate those people? If so, how do they know who will vote and who won't?

In my own personal world of a Chicago suburb in Illinois, when I go to vote in my precinct, they only ask me my last name and address. If they verify that I knew that, and that I am listed in the rolls, all I need to do to vote is verify my first name. I have three kids who are still registered to vote at my address, while two haven't lived at home in more than 8 years. They are both registered to vote elsewhere in Illinois now, but haven't been purged for reasons unknown, and even though I've told the precinct captains they are registered elsewhere. What stops me from saying I'm my son, whom I knew didn't vote in the recent election, or saying I'm my son whom I know that he will not vote here. What stops me from asking for an absentee ballot in Chicago for my deceased grandmother who could still be listed on the voting rolls. Other than its illegal and would have absolutely no impact on the election outcomes, what stops me from doing so without any form of ID. And who, besides me, and potentially a very attentive precinct worker, would ever know?

[baldgriff]

In practice, the data I see suggests it would lead to hardships for many voters

Im curious as to what data suggests it would be a hardship? And yes this goes back to the have to have a DL to drive or an ID to buy beer, buy cigarettes and other things. First, I would suggest a FREE voter ID card - similar to what I got in AZ when I got my license done (just not $12, but free). As to the concern about the poor not having the ability to afford it:

Cigarette smoking is more prevalent in the lower economic classes. In fact they state:

By Poverty Status2
Current cigarette smoking was higher among persons living below the poverty* level than those living at or above this level.

About 25 of every 100 adults who live below the poverty level (25.3%)
About 14 of every 100 adults who live at or above the poverty level (14.3%)

All of the 25 of every 100 adults should have an ID if they are legally purchasing cigarettes.

Larger infographic

By Education2
Current cigarette smoking was highest among persons with a general education development (GED) certificate and lowest among those with a graduate degree.

About 24 of every 100 adults with 12 or fewer years of education (no diploma) (24.1%)
Nearly 41 of every 100 adults with a GED certificate (40.6%)

This is 65 of 100 adults that have to have an ID in order to purchase legally. Now whether or not the ID is being checked is another issue - but we can say that 65% of the the lower educated and 25% of those below the poverty level are purchasing cigarettes. If they have to pay for a voter ID, then its essentially one pack of smokes to get your Voter ID.


YEAH - I know people arent going to like the stats Im using and will say what about the others not covered in those stats -- which is why I believe states should provide the voter ID for FREE.

[nots]

I agree with both parts of your sentence, but the second part, as has been discussed again and again, seems unnecessary. I have yet to see any evidence at all that voter fraud is an actual issue in this country. Unless there is evidence that it is, why would we create problems for many voters--especially poor or older ones--with enacting demands for voter IDs? If this were being put forth as a solution to a real problem rather than an obvious attempt at voter suppression, I'd be all for it. In a perfect world, everyone would have a valid form of ID, but many don't, so why hinder their ability to vote in the absence of evidence for the need to do so? The solution seems to create more issues than the initial problem in this case.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article218975125.html

Not exactly the same thing, but this a form of voter fraud

[revo]

Okay, we agree that we agree about who is a legal voter or not, right? At least that is something.

As far as proving one's status with an ID, in theory, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In practice, the data I see suggests it would lead to hardships for many voters, and there is no evidence to support it solves a problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests folks go to the polls pretending to be someone else to vote. But as Ken says, maybe there is no evidence of it, because we have not looked hard enough. I would expect that if this sort of thing does happen frequently, it would turn up in cases where the real person also shows up to vote, and the system would flag two votes for one person, and that just doesn't happen hardly at all.

Is the theory that the imposter voters somehow know who will not show up to vote and only impersonate those people? If so, how do they know who will vote and who won't?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about.

In my district, no ID is needed, just name and address. They have roll books that have your name, address and a copy of your signature. So in theory, if you wanted to impersonate someone and vote, you'd have to have their name and address down pat, and then make sure your signature can match their signature in a way that it won't be detected. Now maybe that isn't too difficult -- just memorize the name and address of some mark you can find online, and there's bound to be some senior volunteer who can't really see or isn't really paying too much attention. But you'd have to do some advance scouting to make sure the polling place isn't staffed by younger folk with good vision.

Then you have to make sure that person hasn't already voted, or will not vote that day.

Then if you wanted to do this successfully in your district again, you have to do as Trumpy says and have a quick change disguise in your car, and hope no one notices when you enter a second, or even a third time. Maybe change your voice so the aforementioned senior gets properly fooled, and again, hope the new mark(s) haven't voted yet.

I suppose it can be done.

But then again, thinking of a GOP-mandated "Voter ID" card....some guys in my dorm were pretty adept at altering driver's licenses so us underage kids could get into bars, and they usually got us by the peering eyes of bouncers. And this was 1990 -- think of how technology has changed since then!

So what needs to be on the GOP-mandated "Voter ID" card? Photo? So we'd all need to go down to City Hall and get this done? Great, there go my property taxes to pay for GOP shenanigans. Address? What if I move? Are they laminated, or a hard plastic, or just a flimsy piece of cardboard? Could an enterprising serial voter simply claim a person has moved, and have a new card sent to the fugazy address? Who's maintaining the database? Who's in charge or issuing cards -- the local government? The state? If you have residences in two states, like I do, how is that rectified? (BTW, I believe I AM registered to vote in both NJ and PA.) Who's to say some partisan hack isn't in charge and starts making his or her own rules as to who gets Voter ID cards?

Ya know what -- I'm fine with the current system with the senior volunteers and just a correct name, address and signature needed....but thanks!

[hacko]

I wonder if that's more of an issue with poor/elderly than a voter ID would be? We like to think everyone has access to on line resources but in reality that's not truly 100%.

I am not saying to do away with the voting booth all together but just come up with a system that allows you to vote online. Our goal should be to get everyone to vote. I voted early this year which was nice but if I could have done it at home - on line that would have been sweet. I am the elderly.

[Sour Masher]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/ca...218975125.html
Not exactly the same thing, but this a form of voter fraud

See, I can see this much more than voter fraud. Some guy walking around with a petition and offering homeless people to forge a name for a buck? Easy crime of opportunity, and it is one practically being forced upon the homeless person. But I haven't seen similar stories of getting people to go to the polls and illegally vote. The risk seems much higher for the fake voter. In my area, it is as Revo describes. My name, address, and sig is on file, and I could only vote in one location, in a low volume area, where I suspect I'd be recognized if I came back to double dip. Of course, I don't get asked to sign my name here, so I guess I could be a fake me.

IDK. As I've said before, I'm not against ID in theory. Heck, it feels like I should be showing me ID when I vote. But I do know a lot of poor folks and old folks don't have what would be considered valid forms of ID, so that kinda sucks for them. It would be worth it to inconvenience them or even put them out to me if there was hard evidence this was an issue. I just have not seen evidence of it. It seems to be a solution to a non-existent problem, and I'm wary of those, especially when the solution causes other complications, like Revo brings up.

[frae]

Cox takes about a 450 vote lead for the first time in CA-21. +40 here we come!

[nullnor]

i haven't looked in this thread after i got drunk the other day and admitted i never donated to the site. IT NEVER HAPPENED! heh. although i was really happy Lucky is ok. and for the record i am still Fresno Bob's sidekick.

[Teenwolf]

I believe most people here would be shocked by how low the rate of voter fraud is. When Kris Kobach was charged with finding evidence of voter fraud, he found that there were around 1000 cases of voter fraud found... in all federal elections since 1948! That's 1000 cases from billions and billions of votes. Voter fraud is a rounding error cut off a rounding error. A speck of dust on a flea on a dog's ass. From an article about those findings:

Kobach said there have been more than 1,000 convictions for voter fraud since 2000, and that the commission presented 8,400 instances of double voting in the 2016 election in 20 states.

"Had the commission done the same analysis of all 50 states, the number would have been exponentially higher," Kobach said.

In response, Dunlap said those figures were never brought before the commission, and that Kobach hasn't presented any evidence for his claims of double voting. He said the commission was presented with a report claiming over 1,000 convictions for various forms of voter misconduct since 1948.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ad-voter-fraud

Despite these findings, GOP continues to push voter suppression.

Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines in January to advance the nomination of Thomas Farr, 64, a lawyer whom President Donald Trump picked for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The nomination has faced particularly vocal opposition from black lawmakers, civil rights groups and the NAACP, who claim that Farr intentionally disenfranchised voters of color and undermined workers’ rights...

During his confirmation hearing, Farr faced questions about his work as a lawyer for former Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) in 1990. Just before Election Day that year, Helms’ campaign targeted black voters with over 100,000 postcards that had incorrect information about voter qualifications. The postcards warned readers that they could face criminal charges for illegally voting, an intimidation tactic.

Farr's history of voter suppression is spelled out in detail. This is not an issue in which both sides are equally guilty of wrongdoing. Farr could still be voted down, but only if a couple Republicans flip their vote (Flake plus 1). Pretty clear which party favors large scale voter suppression.

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/th...w_entry_recirc

[Fresno Bob]

It's all about voter IDs with me. I'll promote the old saws of if you need an ID to cash a check, buy alcohol, or cigarettes, why is having an ID to vote bridge to far?

Edited to add: If someone hasn't voted in many election cycles, why shouldn't they be removed from voter roles?

If someone hasn't bought a gun in 20 years, should we remove their right to purchase one?