Voter impersonation fraud - 31 cases out of 1 billion votes cast in past 14 years

[Kembal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

We've been discussing this in prior threads, so I saw this article and thought it a relevant read.

best quote from the article:


Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens.

Not sure it'll change any minds here on voter ID, but facts are facts.

[Parkbandit]

So now the narrative against voter ID has changed from "ZOMG DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" to "ZOMG SLOW AND CLUNKY!"?

The last time I voted, it took the person exactly 5 seconds to verify that the name was the same on my license as I said it was. Not sure your reasoning to eliminate voter ID is still working.

[waywardgs]

So now the narrative against voter ID has changed from "ZOMG DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" to "ZOMG SLOW AND CLUNKY!"?

The last time I voted, it took the person exactly 5 seconds to verify that the name was the same on my license as I said it was. Not sure your reasoning to eliminate voter ID is still working.

Signed,
Parkbandit
CEO, Reading Comprehension Failure Inc.
Graduate, Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good

[Latrinsorm]

I can understand criticizing PB, but to accuse him of being 3 inches tall? You've crossed the line, sir.

[Parkbandit]

Signed,
Parkbandit
CEO, Reading Comprehension Failure Inc.
Graduate, Derek Zoolander Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good


Signed,
waywardgs
Unemployed
Drop out of 5th grade because "skool are two harder"

[Kembal]

So now the narrative against voter ID has changed from "ZOMG DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" to "ZOMG SLOW AND CLUNKY!"?

The last time I voted, it took the person exactly 5 seconds to verify that the name was the same on my license as I said it was. Not sure your reasoning to eliminate voter ID is still working.

You recognize the "slow and clunky" refers to the idea of using voter impersonation fraud to steal an election, not to the process of checking an ID, right?

[Parkbandit]

You recognize the "slow and clunky" refers to the idea of using voter impersonation fraud to steal an election, not to the process of checking an ID, right?

Maaybee...

I simply want people to identify themselves, proving they are who they say they are before they vote... and that a system is in place to ensure they are only voting once.

It's not a difficult concept in the 21st century.. given everything we have to give our ID for.

If I don't have to show an ID and I claim I'm someone I'm not.. and I vote.. exactly how am I going to get caught for voter fraud? Maybe the reason people rarely get prosecuted for committing voter fraud is because it rarely actually gets caught?

[Dendum]

Maybe the reason people rarely get prosecuted for committing voter fraud is because it rarely actually gets caught?

That....could be used to justify anything...

[Thondalar]

That....could be used to justify anything...

Well, he does have a point. I mean, if we're not checking things, how do we know? I've never been arrested for shoplifting, so would it be safe to assume I've never shoplifted?

[Taernath]

Most voter ID laws being proposed are solutions for non-existent problems. The ratio of fraudulent votes to legitimate votes is like .0000001:1 and doesn't affect the ballot one way or another.

[Thondalar]

Most voter ID laws being proposed are solutions for non-existent problems. The ratio of fraudulent votes to legitimate votes is like .0000001:1 and doesn't affect the ballot one way or another.

My point is, we're assuming this because people aren't getting caught doing it. What if the ratio is more like .2:1? I'm not saying that's accurate, because I don't know. None of us know.

[Thondalar]

I have to be registered to vote, and I can only vote at the local voting place I'm zoned for (usually a Church...separation my ass! jk). When I get there, they find my name on the list of registered voters for that area, look at my Driver's License, mark me off the list, and I go to the booth. Is this not the norm across the US? I pretty much figured everyone else did it the same way.

If that's the case, it seems like it would be pretty hard to get around without some sort of systemic corruption. Sorry if I'm late to the party, but what exactly is this whole argument about? Are people trying to make a separate ID just to vote with?

[Latrinsorm]

My point is, we're assuming this because people aren't getting caught doing it. What if the ratio is more like .2:1? I'm not saying that's accurate, because I don't know. None of us know.I guess you have to ask yourself: is the burden of proof on those who wish to (however indirectly) infringe on others' rights, or those who resist that infringement?

[Kembal]

Maaybee...

I simply want people to identify themselves, proving they are who they say they are before they vote... and that a system is in place to ensure they are only voting once.

It's not a difficult concept in the 21st century.. given everything we have to give our ID for.

If I don't have to show an ID and I claim I'm someone I'm not.. and I vote.. exactly how am I going to get caught for voter fraud? Maybe the reason people rarely get prosecuted for committing voter fraud is because it rarely actually gets caught?

In most states, you always had to show some type of ID. It just wasn't photo ID. A voter registration card or a utility bill would suffice, and no one has a problem with that, because you get those for free, mailed to your residence.

The particular IDs being demanded now all require either a) payment for the ID itself, b) payment for the records needed to get the ID if you've lost those records, and/or c) requirement to go stand in line at some location (that can be far away) to get the ID ahead of time. (actually, all of them require either a or b and also c) For some reason, states also want to exclude college student photo IDs, even though that meets all the requirements of a photo ID.

These are all additional burdens on a citizen's right to vote. If such a burden is being placed, then the state needs to show a compelling reason, backed by facts, that justify the burden. The problem is, the facts do not just show such a justification. And then for the people that cannot get the ID (mainly low income or elderly), they're effectively disenfranchised. And for the college students, then it just becomes fairly obvious that someone doesn't want them particularly voting, even though they have photo IDs.

[Latrinsorm]

I have to be registered to vote, and I can only vote at the local voting place I'm zoned for (usually a Church...separation my ass! jk). When I get there, they find my name on the list of registered voters for that area, look at my Driver's License, mark me off the list, and I go to the booth. Is this not the norm across the US? I pretty much figured everyone else did it the same way.

If that's the case, it seems like it would be pretty hard to get around without some sort of systemic corruption. Sorry if I'm late to the party, but what exactly is this whole argument about? Are people trying to make a separate ID just to vote with?People without IDs are disproportionately racial minorities, thus requiring IDs to vote (like the poll tax before it) violates the 15th Amendment even though it does not have the explicit aim of doing so.

[Taernath]

My point is, we're assuming this because people aren't getting caught doing it. What if the ratio is more like .2:1? I'm not saying that's accurate, because I don't know. None of us know.

As soon as there's a reputable study done that suggests 20% (or more than the ballpark ratio I posted earlier) of votes made are fraudulent, I'll consider it. Until then, I don't think it's a good idea to disenfranchise millions on the basis of a possibility.

[Parkbandit]

http://nypost.com/2014/10/22/850-people-officially-over-164-years-old-nyc-board-of-elections/

[Gelston]

http://nypost.com/2014/10/22/850-people-officially-over-164-years-old-nyc-board-of-elections/

I don't think vampires should be allowed to vote.

[kutter]

As soon as there's a reputable study done that suggests 20% (or more than the ballpark ratio I posted earlier) of votes made are fraudulent, I'll consider it. Until then, I don't think it's a good idea to disenfranchise millions on the basis of a possibility.

Given that most elections are won by at most a few percentage points, your threshold for requiring an investigation might be a tad high.

[Gelston]

I really don't see why everyone wants us to be reactive instead of proactive. "Well if this happens!!!" why not... "Lets never let this happen." ?

[Androidpk]

As soon as there's a reputable study done that suggests 20% (or more than the ballpark ratio I posted earlier) of votes made are fraudulent, I'll consider it. Until then, I don't think it's a good idea to disenfranchise millions on the basis of a possibility.

If someone is dumb enough to be an adult and not have an ID card then who cares if they vote or not.

[Parkbandit]

If someone is dumb enough to be an adult and not have an ID card then who cares if they vote or not.

Dumb enough.... OR BLACK!???!

Racist.

[Wrathbringer]

As soon as there's a reputable study done that suggests 20% (or more than the ballpark ratio I posted earlier) of votes made are fraudulent, I'll consider it. Until then, I don't think it's a good idea to disenfranchise millions on the basis of a possibility.

Judging by the people we've been electing, we could stand to have a few million voters disenfranchised.

[Androidpk]

Dumb enough.... OR BLACK!???!

Racist.

I'm not racist. I hate everyone equally.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm not racist. I hate everyone equally.

Hardly seems fair when mexicans and blacks have worked so hard to earn it.

[Androidpk]

Hardly seems fair when mexicans and blacks have worked so hard to earn it.

If they're working so hard then they should be able to get themselves a state issued ID card at the DMV.

[Wrathbringer]

If they're working so hard then they should be able to get themselves a state issued ID card at the DMV.

I meant our hate...worked so hard to earn our hate...you know, like...just forget it.

[Latrinsorm]

I really don't see why everyone wants us to be reactive instead of proactive. "Well if this happens!!!" why not... "Lets never let this happen." ?Because the procedures so far advanced for "let's never let this happen" are expressly unconstitutional. If there is a serious problem, then we might do something unconstitutional (Lincoln/FDR internment). If there is no problem, there's no reason to.

[Gelston]

Because the procedures so far advanced for "let's never let this happen" are expressly unconstitutional. If there is a serious problem, then we might do something unconstitutional (Lincoln/FDR internment). If there is no problem, there's no reason to.

Shut up Latrin, stop trying to take everything to the furthest extreme imaginable every time.

[Latrinsorm]

Shut up Latrin, stop trying to take everything to the furthest extreme imaginable every time.Nothing about my post took anything to an extreme. Disenfranchising on the basis of race (even if unintentionally) is expressly unconstitutional. We have broken the Constitution in the past in the face of serious problems.

[Kembal]

http://nypost.com/2014/10/22/850-people-officially-over-164-years-old-nyc-board-of-elections/

Probably all women that didn't want to reveal their age?

[Taernath]

I don't think vampires should be allowed to vote.

Why, because they lean Republican?

[Taernath]

Given that most elections are won by at most a few percentage points, your threshold for requiring an investigation might be a tad high.

I was responding to Thondalar who was asking what if the ratio of fraudulent votes to legal votes was .2:1.

And it's not. From the OP it's 31:1,000,000,000 over 14 years. That's hardly high.

[Parkbandit]

Why, because they lean Republican?

Sucking the blood out of people sounds more like a Liberal trait to me. I feel it every April.

[Parkbandit]

I was responding to Thondalar who was asking what if the ratio of fraudulent votes to legal votes was .2:1.

And it's not. From the OP it's 31:1,000,000,000 over 14 years. That's hardly high.

How is voter fraud actually calculated?

[Gelston]

Nothing about my post took anything to an extreme. Disenfranchising on the basis of race (even if unintentionally) is expressly unconstitutional. We have broken the Constitution in the past in the face of serious problems.

It the isn't disenfranchising on the base of race.

[Kembal]

It the isn't disenfranchising on the base of race.

Not what the judge found in Texas. (no idea if that ruling will survive on appeal)

[Latrinsorm]

It the isn't disenfranchising on the base of race.The Supreme Court has explicitly said otherwise.

[Taernath]

How is voter fraud actually calculated?

Here are some studies that include their methodology:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/c176576c0065a7eb84_gxm6ib0hl.pdf
http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/behavior/Papers/AhlquistMayerJackman2013.pdf
http://www.projectvote.org/images/publications/Policy%20Reports%20and%20Guides/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf

[Gelston]

Not what the judge found in Texas. (no idea if that ruling will survive on appeal)

You are a bit behind on that one. Voter ID laws are staying as is.

[Methais]

That....could be used to justify anything...

Like Jesse Ventura would always say during WWF matches, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught."

[Archigeek]

Interesting read:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1

Details of Judge Posner's opinion:


"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud," he writes, "and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." More specifically, he observes, photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.

[Warriorbird]

One of my favorite conservatives.

[Archigeek]

More from Judge Posner, regarding the supposedly negligible cost of obtaining a photo ID:
"that's an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper-middle-class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate." He cites a study placing the expense of obtaining documentation at $75 to $175 -- which even when adjusted for inflation is far higher than "the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964."

[Tgo01]

75 to 175 dollars to get an ID? I think it cost me like 10 bucks last time I had to pay.

[Methais]

I wasn't aware that only minorities who vote democrat don't have IDs.

But now I know!

[Back]

I wasn't aware that only minorities who vote democrat don't have IDs.

But now I know!

It also stops republican votes ignoramus.

[Methais]

It also stops republican votes ignoramus.

But I thought all republicans were white, and all white people already have IDs!

[Parkbandit]

It also stops republican votes ignoramus.

I honestly want to meet one of these people who don't have an ID in today's society.

Where do they live? Where do they work? If they don't work, how do they get welfare/foodstamps?

[Fallen]

I honestly want to meet one of these people who don't have an ID in today's society.

Where do they live? Where do they work? If they don't work, how do they get welfare/foodstamps?

They'll live in a city with mass transit. Perhaps an older spouse of the primary breadwinner. They've never had a license as they've never owned a car. Unless you count homemaker, they may not have a job, or at least one which is declared in taxes.


By all estimates, those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/policy-brief-voter-identification

[Methais]

They'll live in a city with mass transit. Perhaps an older spouse of the primary breadwinner. They've never had a license as they've never owned a car. Unless you count homemaker, they may not have a job, or at least one which is declared in taxes.



http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/policy-brief-voter-identification

You can have an ID that isn't a driver's license.

[Parkbandit]

They'll live in a city with mass transit. Perhaps an older spouse of the primary breadwinner. They've never had a license as they've never owned a car. Unless you count homemaker, they may not have a job, or at least one which is declared in taxes.

So... 25% of all blacks have no form of ID according to this "study"? 25%? Really?

So, 25% of the black population doesn't hold a job or collect unemployment, doesn't rent an apartment, doesn't own a home, doesn't buy alcohol until they are old enough to look 21, do not have a bank account, aren't on any type of welfare program, never picked up a prescription, etc.... but people believe that the only reason they won't vote is because they have to have an ID?

http://new2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Mfw+analytical+chemistry+was+abbreviated+quot+anal +chem+quot+at+my+highschool+_0a3b441c09cc3bcd59fc5 eee414b263b.gif

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/policy-brief-voter-identification[/QUOTE]

I love how organizations claim they are non-partisan. It's awesome.

By the way.. I'm non-partisan too. Proof? I JUST SAID I WAS!

[Parkbandit]

You can have an ID that isn't a driver's license.

That's fucking racist.

[Fallen]

I imagine many of them do have forms of ID, just not picture ID's, which are the ones required for voting. I don't like the trend i'm seeing where if you don't like the facts provided, you simply attempt to discredit the source, rather than posting any evidence to dispute said facts.

[Parkbandit]

I imagine many of them do have forms of ID, just not picture ID's, which are the ones required for voting.

All of the things I quoted require a valid photo ID. I doubt that 25% of the black community refuses to participate in this country.. but really wants to vote.


I don't like the trend i'm seeing where if you don't like the facts provided, you simply attempt to discredit the source, rather than posting any evidence to dispute said facts.

I don't like the trend I'm seeing where you see "non-partisan" and immediately believe it to be true. Let's work together to see the type of studies that the Brennan Center specializes in.. or see who is financially backing the Center. I doubt it's the Koch Brothers... I imagine it's either Soros or Steyer.. maybe a group or organization who's funded by 1 of these 2..

Should we bother researching it?

[Fallen]

Should we bother researching it?

I'm seeing criticism of the Brennan Institute by a group called Groupsnoop.org. This website also seeks to discredit the American Civil Liberties Union, The NAACP, Climate change research, etc. I believe every organization this website examines appears to be called "left-leaning" at best. From there, we can take a look at the homepage of groupsnoop's publisher, http://www.nationalcenter.org/ Without doing to much research, I believe one could easily come to the opinion that this site is fairly overt in its political leanings. Take a visit to the page and tell me if i'm mistaken.

The Brennan Institute appears to be far more reliable than the sources I am seeing which are presenting criticism. I can't claim it's free of bias, but I can freely state the attempts at discrediting the website are overwhelmingly biased. So, we have some data supporting one point of view, and instead of data supporting the opposite viewpoint, we have allegations of bias from organizations with very obvious bias themselves.

Do either of you genuinely believe voter fraud is a legitimate cause for concern for this country? Perhaps it is instead the belief that people who cannot or who are unwilling to obtain the required documentation for voting shouldn't be voting in the first place?

[Parkbandit]

Let's see... the name "Brennen Group for Justice" is founded by William Joseph Brennen.. I wonder.. was he considered left or right when he was on the Supreme Court.

Really.. if I even bother to do this.. the only one that's going to look bad is you.

It's a non-partisan group.... really.........

[Fallen]

Really.. if I even bother to do this.. the only one that's going to look bad is you.

It's a non-partisan group.... really.........


I can't claim it's free of bias, but I can freely state the attempts at discrediting the website are overwhelmingly biased.

And you're right, there is no point in further pursuing this discussion until you answer my question:


Do either of you (Parkbandit and Methais) genuinely believe voter fraud is a legitimate cause for concern for this country? Perhaps it is instead the belief that people who cannot or who are unwilling to obtain the required documentation for voting shouldn't be voting in the first place?

Voter fraud is a red herring. Questioning the validity of the vote of people who fail to possess proper ID is a debate i'm willing to pursue. I'd rather skip the nonsense of voter ID fraud and get down to the issue at hand.

[Vorpos]

And you're right, there is no point in further pursuing this discussion until you answer my question:



Voter fraud is a red herring. Questioning the validity of the vote of people who fail to possess proper ID is a debate i'm willing to pursue. I'd rather skip the nonsense of voter ID fraud and get down to the issue at hand.

My Mom has been a poll worker for a few years. The most common thing she has seen is after the polls close and all the inspectors leave, they will go through the books and find blank signatures of people who did not vote. They will have one person signing the names in the book and one person in the booth voting over and over again.

[Parkbandit]

And you're right, there is no point in further pursuing this discussion until you answer my question:

Voter fraud is a red herring. Questioning the validity of the vote of people who fail to possess proper ID is a debate i'm willing to pursue. I'd rather skip the nonsense of voter ID fraud and get down to the issue at hand.

I believe that there should be no question about voting. Proving who you are when you vote is a basic step in that general direction.

If you don't have a photo ID, you aren't participating in this country.. given how many things require a photo ID.

[Fallen]

My Mom has been a poll worker for a few years. The most common thing she has seen is after the polls close and all the inspectors leave, they will go through the books and find blank signatures of people who did not vote. They will have one person signing the names in the book and one person in the booth voting over and over again.

I may be incorrect here, but if the people involved in running the poll are committing the fraud, I do not believe ID checks of voters will have an impact on this issue. Granted this account is anecdotal, I will limit my assertion of voter fraud being a red-herring to the idea of a large-scale effort of 1 person voting more than once. Ballot stuffing, destroying ballots, rigging voting machines, impropriety of those running the polls, etc would all IMO be far, far important areas on which to focus on to combat voter fraud than requiring ID checks.

[Hightower]

Maaybee...

I simply want people to identify themselves, proving they are who they say they are before they vote... and that a system is in place to ensure they are only voting once.

It's not a difficult concept in the 21st century.. given everything we have to give our ID for.

If I don't have to show an ID and I claim I'm someone I'm not.. and I vote.. exactly how am I going to get caught for voter fraud? Maybe the reason people rarely get prosecuted for committing voter fraud is because it rarely actually gets caught?


Yes, but you're clearly avoiding directly addressing the gaping hole in the underlying premise: What REAL problem do these laws address?

An election cannot be stolen in this way. Thus the law protects us from nothing. Is that not correct? Or would you care to explain how these laws protect from actual voter fraud on a scale that has any meaningful impact on an election? Just cut the bullshit and answer the question.

Or do you somehow believe that Democrats are more likely to engage in voter fraud than Republicans? Is that why only Republicans support these laws? Is there no other explanation for supporting these laws than upholding the purity of the election process? It sure smells like bullshit to me!

Help me clear the air and understand here.

~Taverkin

[Fallen]

I believe that there should be no question about voting. Proving who you are when you vote is a basic step in that general direction.

If you don't have a photo ID, you aren't participating in this country.. given how many things require a photo ID.

That is a reasonable stance. Do you think there is any cost/barriers involved in obtaining an ID if you do not already have one? I know I've paid to have documents replaced which I've lost. I've also had to take time off of work to go to the DMV/MVA in order to keep my photo ID current. These issues may seem trivial, but I can see where it would dissuade people enough so that they wouldn't bother going through the process.

Would you be for legislation mandating all people have a photo ID? For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, but you're clearly avoiding directly addressing the gaping hole in the underlying premise: What REAL problem do these laws address?

An election cannot be stolen in this way. Thus the law protects us from nothing. Is that not correct? Or would you care to explain how these laws protect from actual voter fraud on a scale that has any meaningful impact on an election? Just cut the bullshit and answer the question.

The 2000 Presidential Election was determined by a few votes. You might be confused on how the process in the US works.


Or do you somehow believe that Democrats are more likely to engage in voter fraud than Republicans? Is that why only Republicans support these laws? Is there no other explanation for supporting these laws than upholding the purity of the election process? It sure smells like bullshit to me!

Flip side: Why do Democrats think Blacks/Elderly are dumber than most people in this country and they are unable to get a photo ID? Why do you believe that Democrats are constantly dismissing voter fraud as something that doesn't exist.. and even if it does exist, it doesn't affect any elections?



Help me clear the air and understand here.
~Taverkin

You are asking for a lot... for someone who signs all his posts.

[Parkbandit]

That is a reasonable stance. Do you think there is any cost/barriers involved in obtaining an ID if you do not already have one? I know I've paid to have documents replaced which I've lost. I've also had to take time off of work to go to the DMV/MVA in order to keep my photo ID current. These issues may seem trivial, but I can see where it would dissuade people enough so that they wouldn't bother going through the process.

Are you calling black people lazy?

Racist.

Again.. if you don't have a valid photo ID.. you aren't doing many things that most people have to do in this country anyway.. I doubt if they are too lazy to update their photo ID that they suddenly become civic minded and want to go vote.


Would you be for legislation mandating all people have a photo ID? For the record, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Depends. Would this entail creating a Department of ID Records that now employs 20,000 people at $100K a year to issue the IDs.. headed by a new "Czar of IDs" who's appointed by the President that confirms all IDs are out? Paid for by taxing {insert group here the government wants to get back in line} Yea.. not into another big government type of program.

[Vorpos]

I may be incorrect here, but if the people involved in running the poll are committing the fraud, I do not believe ID checks of voters will have an impact on this issue. Granted this account is anecdotal, I will limit my assertion of voter fraud being a red-herring to the idea of a large-scale effort of 1 person voting more than once. Ballot stuffing, destroying ballots, rigging voting machines, impropriety of those running the polls, etc would all IMO be far, far important areas on which to focus on to combat voter fraud than requiring ID checks.

People like you are the reason why both parties are not even trying to hide stealing elections anymore. They do it right in everyone's face and laugh their asses off.

[Fallen]

Depends. Would this entail creating a Department of ID Records that now employs 20,000 people at $100K a year to issue the IDs.. headed by a new "Czar of IDs" who's appointed by the President that confirms all IDs are out? Paid for by taxing {insert group here the government wants to get back in line} Yea.. not into another big government type of program.

I agree something along this line would be required in order to get anywhere near 100% compliance with the law. The other route one could go is to give people a 1-time payment of the average cost it would take in order to retrieve any necessary forms (Birth certificate, social security card etc), arrange transportation to the appropriate office, and for any lost wages incurred while attempting to get the ID. It would be a substantial amount, but far less than setting up the type of government body you described. Would people all spend that money on ID? Nope, but they'd have no excuse when they aren't able to furnish one.

If you've actively participated in the system your whole life, it is easy to replace documentation or obtain new forms if needed. If you haven't kept up with it, then you're in for one PITA as you're dealing with the government, with all the headaches that brings with it.

At the same time, it's pretty scary to start going down the road of saying, "I don't think your vote should count because you can't be bothered to do X." Taking away a person's ability to participate in the democratic process undermines the credibility of a system which is already incredibly shaky to begin with.

[Fallen]

People like you are the reason why both parties are not even trying to even hide stealing elections anymore. They do it right in everyone's face and laugh their asses off.

Ok.

[Parkbandit]

Hey Fallen... look at the people in charge of the unbiased "Brennen Center For Justice"

Do you believe that they are still unbiased?

[Parkbandit]

I agree something along this line would be required in order to get anywhere near 100% compliance with the law. The other route one could go is to give people a 1-time payment of the average cost it would take in order to retrieve any necessary forms (Birth certificate, social security card etc), arrange transportation to the appropriate office, and for any lost wages incurred while attempting to get the ID. It would be a substantial amount, but far less than setting up the type of government body you described.

Wouldn't that simply be a part of participation in this country.. like taxes? It's not like voting requires a special ID.. it requires the same ID that you have to use to do many, many things in this country.


If you've actively participated in the system your whole life, it is easy to replace documentation or obtain new forms if needed. If you haven't kept up with it, then you're in for one PITA as you're dealing with the government, with all the headaches that brings with it.

A headache that is self created.



At the same time, it's pretty scary to start going down the road of saying, "I don't think your vote should count because you can't be bothered to do X." Taking away a person's ability to participate in the democratic process undermines the credibility of a system which is already incredibly shaky to begin with.

I think it's scarier to say "I don't think you can live in this {house or apartment} because you can't be bothered to do X" or "I don't think you can have electricity because you can't be bothered to do X" or "I don't think you can work here because you can't be bothered to do X".

No one took this person's ability to do anything.. but themselves.

[Archigeek]

People like you are the reason why both parties are not even trying to even hide stealing elections anymore. They do it right in everyone's face and laugh their asses off.

Sounds to me like your mom is the problem if she's working at a polling station and watching massive voter fraud being committed, and not reporting it. Or is she the one doing the signing? Or maybe you're mom's just full of shit? In any of those cases, requiring a photo ID at the poles would make zero difference, which is what Fallen was trying to point out.

[Fallen]

Hey Fallen... look at the people in charge of the unbiased "Brennen Center For Justice"

Do you believe that they are still unbiased?

Alright.

http://www.brennancenter.org/board-directors

Who in particular are we examining for evidence of bias in their research methods?

[Fallen]

Wouldn't that simply be a part of participation in this country.. like taxes? It's not like voting requires a special ID.. it requires the same ID that you have to use to do many, many things in this country. A headache that is self created. I think it's scarier to say "I don't think you can live in this {house or apartment} because you can't be bothered to do X" or "I don't think you can have electricity because you can't be bothered to do X" or "I don't think you can work here because you can't be bothered to do X".

No one took this person's ability to do anything.. but themselves.

The issue is that voter fraud is being used to drive this point of view into law. Wouldn't it be more genuine to frame the laws around the issues we are discussing? Are you too lazy, or so uninvolved in this country to not have these IDs? If so, you shouldn't be voting. We're saying we're passing these laws to prevent voter fraud. We're not. We're doing it because we don't think these people's votes are worth counting.

[Parkbandit]

Alright.

http://www.brennancenter.org/board-directors

Who in particular are we examining for evidence of bias in their research methods?

Start with the President... Michael Waldman.. ex-Clinton speech writer.

Then let's go to the first name on the list... Patricia Bauman.. she also is on the board of the NRDC. Look at her political contributions over say the past 20 years.

Come on man.. are you still sticking with the absurd notion that this is an unbiased group?

I can excuse naive thinking just so much... then it becomes blissful ignorance.

[Fallen]

Start with the President... Michael Waldman.. ex-Clinton speech writer.

Then let's go to the first name on the list... Patricia Bauman.. she also is on the board of the NRDC. Look at her political contributions over say the past 20 years.

Come on man.. are you still sticking with the absurd notion that this is an unbiased group?

I can excuse naive thinking just so much... then it becomes blissful ignorance.

No, I agree with you that there is a clear slant in the people running the Brennan Institute. You've a valid point. At the same time, are there any truly unbiased think-tanks if they're disqualified if people on their boards hold clear political views? Where should we go to gather information on which to form opinions?

[Parkbandit]

The issue is that voter fraud is being used to drive this point of view into law. Wouldn't it be more genuine to frame the laws around the issues we are discussing? Are you too lazy, or so uninvolved in this country to not have these IDs? If so, you shouldn't be voting. We're saying we're passing these laws to prevent voter fraud. We're not. We're doing it because we don't think these people's votes are worth counting.

I believe the number of people in this country that don't have a valid ID that would vote if they did but are stopped because of voter ID laws is greatly, greatly exaggerated.

[Parkbandit]

No, I agree with you that there is a clear slant in the people running the Brennan Institute. You've a valid point. At the same time, are there any truly unbiased think-tanks if they're disqualified if people on their boards hold clear political views? Where should we go to gather information on which to form opinions?

I doubt if there is truly an unbiased organization that conducts political studies. Each one of them is funded by someone or a group of people who wants the study to prove their political viewpoint.

[Archigeek]

More on Judge Posner's opinion on the subject:


How about the argument that photo ID is required to board a plane and for many other routine actions, so what's the harm in requiring it for voting? Posner points out that the requirement of photo ID for flying is "a common misconception." Nor is it true, as the three-judge appeals panel had it, that photo ID is required to pick up a prescription (not so in Wisconsin and 34 other states, Posner observes); open a bank account (not true anywhere in the country) or buy a gun (not true under federal law at gun shows, flea markets, or online).

Then there's the argument that getting a photo ID is easy and cheap, and therefore that people without them must not care enough about voting to bother. The three-judge panel wrote that obtaining a photo ID merely requires people "to scrounge up a birth certificate and stand in line at the office that issues driver's licenses." Posner replies that he himself "has never seen his birth certificate and does not know how he would go about 'scrounging' it up." Posner appends a sheaf of documents handed to an applicant seeking a photo ID for whom no birth certificate could be found in state records. It ran to 12 pages.

And then there's this scathing comment on whether or not it would prevent fraud:


Posner places Wisconsin's argument for its voter ID law within a "fact-free cocoon." Last week, the state's governor, Scott Walker, defended the law by asserting it's worthwhile whether it stops "one, 100 or 1,000" illegal votes." Leaving aside that the number of illegal votes for which there's any evidence is zero, the very idea of disenfranchising 300,000 voters in the hope of stopping even 1,000 illegal votes is beyond fatuous, and well into the category of hopelessly cynical. Walker's lawyers tried to make that case before Judge Posner. His written opinion shows what he thought of it.

[Parkbandit]

Also.. look who is financially supporting the Brennen Center... I KNEW Soros had to be in there. Both the OSI and the Tides Foundation are huge multi-million dollar backers.

[Archigeek]

Also, this map is telling:

7051

[Androidpk]

What is the difference between strict ID and ID requested?

[Tgo01]

What is the difference between strict ID and ID requested?

Well one means strict photo ID and one means photo ID requested.

I believe strict photo ID means a photo ID is required to vote whereas in photo ID requested states you can use alternative means of identification, like showing your gas bill with your name and address on it.

[Methais]

What is the difference between strict ID and ID requested?

Strict ID:

"May I see your ID?"

"No you may not!"

http://www.tickld.com/cdn_image_postimage/ea798ef2fb5e0c7a3b364fcb97e2ad47.jpg

ID Requested:

"May I see your ID?"

"No you may not!"

http://tiestofun.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/okay-meme-numqoaxt.png


At the same time, it's pretty scary to start going down the road of saying, "I don't think your vote should count because you can't be bothered to do X."

Like people who can't be bothered to not commit a felony?

[Kithus]

We have a made the conscious decision to deny the right to vote to convicted felons. We could argue the merits of that choice but it has been universally accepted. I'm not sure I would equate not wanting to get a photo ID with committing a serious crime.

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure I would equate not wanting to get a photo ID with committing a serious crime.

I would! People who don't have photo IDs are worse than murderers.

[Hightower]

Maaybee...

I simply want people to identify themselves, proving they are who they say they are before they vote... and that a system is in place to ensure they are only voting once.

It's not a difficult concept in the 21st century.. given everything we have to give our ID for.

If I don't have to show an ID and I claim I'm someone I'm not.. and I vote.. exactly how am I going to get caught for voter fraud? Maybe the reason people rarely get prosecuted for committing voter fraud is because it rarely actually gets caught?


I want that, too. But I want a lot of things, and I recognize that none of them are cost or consequence free. So, as I do with every other decision I make, I weigh the pros and cons. Unfortunately, I don't claim to have much knowledge on this issue. I don't know what the result would be if we made ID mandatory for voting. But why not go hypothetical here? Just for fun!

What IF voter ID laws prevent a negligible amount of fraud?

What IF voter ID laws actually DO result in lower voter turnout, specifically favoring one party or another?

IF that were the case, wouldn't you agree that voter ID laws are actually worse for the process than if we simply left the rules as they are and accepted a negligible amount of voter fraud (NOTE: I'm speaking specifically of the type that voter ID laws would address, not ALL types of voter fraud!)?

That argument works both ways. It depends on the numbers.

Is it not also possible to consider alternatives which accomplish the goal of preventing voter fraud without placing further requirements on voters who are already apathetic and who might consider an ID requirement restrictive in some ways? I don't doubt such people exist, but I have no idea how to quantify the impact!

~Taverkin

[Methais]

‘Calibration error’ changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county

CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: “Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting.”

Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

Right, a calibration "error."

[Tgo01]

‘Calibration error’ changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county

CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: “Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting.”

Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

Right, a calibration "error."

I wonder how many people weren't even paying attention to it changes votes like that.

[Methais]

I wonder how many people weren't even paying attention to it changes votes like that.

I'm sure that the only ones that didn't pay attention were people who were voting democrat anyway, therefore we should just forget about it.

[Latrinsorm]

I doubt if there is truly an unbiased organization that conducts political studies. Each one of them is funded by someone or a group of people who wants the study to prove their political viewpoint.
I believe the number of people in this country that don't have a valid ID that would vote if they did but are stopped because of voter ID laws is greatly, greatly exaggerated.Based on what?

[Tenlaar]

If you don't have a photo ID, you aren't participating in this country.. given how many things require a photo ID.

It's previously been shown that you greatly exaggerate the number of things that require photo IDs.

[Methais]

Don't let this thread get Latrin'd.

Please, think of the non-Latrins.

[Parkbandit]

What is the difference between strict ID and ID requested?

I'll find out in a couple of weeks when I say "oops? I forgot my ID!"

[Parkbandit]

It's previously been shown that you greatly exaggerate the number of things that require photo IDs.

Give us an example.

[Tenlaar]

Give us an example.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?75502-Real-Case-of-Voter-Fraud&highlight=

[Parkbandit]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?75502-Real-Case-of-Voter-Fraud&highlight=

Wait.. I thought you were going to give us a list of items you need an ID for that I "greatly exaggerated".. not a list of things you actually need an ID for.

Or are you still fixated on how I said "daily basis".. even after I said I misspoke?

[Tenlaar]

Or are you still fixated on how I said "daily basis".. even after I said I misspoke?

I'm not fixated on anything. I said it's been shown that you exaggerate the number of things you need photo ID for, you asked for an example, and I gave an example of you exaggerating the number of things you need photo ID for. I don't see what's so confusing for you here but I'm sure you will fill us in.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not fixated on anything. I said it's been shown that you exaggerate the number of things you need photo ID for, you asked for an example, and I gave an example of you exaggerating the number of things you need photo ID for. I don't see what's so confusing for you here but I'm sure you will fill us in.

Maybe it's the word "exaggerating" you aren't familiar with. I'll slow this down for you and use smaller words.....

Here is the list of things I posted, from your link, that I said requires an ID. Why don't you go through them and tell me which ones don't?

Apply for welfare or any other federal assistance program
Cash a check / write a check
Go to the hospital
Visit any federal building
Go to court
Get a job
Buy a car
Rent a car
Register a vehicle
Buy a home
Rent a home
Purchase a firearm
Apply for a hunter license
Apply for a fishing license
Receive prescription medication
Apply for a library card
Open a bank account
Serve on a jury
Get married
Go to a bar
Go into the military


There are 21 items on this list. I'm guessing that "greatly exaggerating" the number of things you need an ID for would be maybe half the list?

Heck.. I'll add a couple to this list:

Fly on a commercial flight
Apply for Social Security
Drive a car
Adopt a pet from a shelter
Buy some over the counter medication like cold medicine
Proof of age purchases (cigarettes, alcohol, casino, lottery tickets, etc...)
Apply to hold a rally or protest
Go on a cruise
Donate blood

[Methais]

Maybe it's the word "exaggerating" you aren't familiar with. I'll slow this down for you and use smaller words.....

Here is the list of things I posted, from your link, that I said requires an ID. Why don't you go through them and tell me which ones don't?

Apply for welfare or any other federal assistance program
Cash a check / write a check
Go to the hospital
Visit any federal building
Go to court
Get a job
Buy a car
Rent a car
Register a vehicle
Buy a home
Rent a home
Purchase a firearm
Apply for a hunter license
Apply for a fishing license
Receive prescription medication
Apply for a library card
Open a bank account
Serve on a jury
Get married
Go to a bar
Go into the military


There are 21 items on this list. I'm guessing that "greatly exaggerating" the number of things you need an ID for would be maybe half the list?

Heck.. I'll add a couple to this list:

Fly on a commercial flight
Apply for Social Security
Drive a car
Adopt a pet from a shelter
Buy some over the counter medication like cold medicine
Proof of age purchases (cigarettes, alcohol, casino, lottery tickets, etc...)
Apply to hold a rally or protest
Go on a cruise
Donate blood





Why do you hate minorities?

[Gelston]

Maybe it's the word "exaggerating" you aren't familiar with. I'll slow this down for you and use smaller words.....

Here is the list of things I posted, from your link, that I said requires an ID. Why don't you go through them and tell me which ones don't?

Apply for welfare or any other federal assistance program
Cash a check / write a check
Go to the hospital
Visit any federal building
Go to court
Get a job
Buy a car
Rent a car
Register a vehicle
Buy a home
Rent a home
Purchase a firearm
Apply for a hunter license
Apply for a fishing license
Receive prescription medication
Apply for a library card
Open a bank account
Serve on a jury
Get married
Go to a bar
Go into the military


There are 21 items on this list. I'm guessing that "greatly exaggerating" the number of things you need an ID for would be maybe half the list?

Heck.. I'll add a couple to this list:

Fly on a commercial flight
Apply for Social Security
Drive a car
Adopt a pet from a shelter
Buy some over the counter medication like cold medicine
Proof of age purchases (cigarettes, alcohol, casino, lottery tickets, etc...)
Apply to hold a rally or protest
Go on a cruise
Donate blood





You don't need an ID to go to the hospital or visit every federal building, and I've adopted a pet from a shelter with out one before.

[waywardgs]

‘Calibration error’ changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county

CHICAGO — Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

“I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan said. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

The conservative website Illinois Review reported that “While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: “Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting.”

Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.

“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county/

Right, a calibration "error."

Clearly this could have been avoided if those machines were all required to have proper photo identification.

[Gelston]

Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: “Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting.”

Well you don't say.

[Kithus]

You don't need an ID to go to the hospital or visit every federal building, and I've adopted a pet from a shelter with out one before.

Shhh. Stop undermining his point you dirty liberal.

[Latrinsorm]

Here are the ones I have personally done without being asked for an ID:

Cash a check / write a check
Go to the hospital
Visit any federal building
Go to court
Get a job
Receive prescription medication
Apply for a library card
Serve on a jury
Go to a bar
Fly on a commercial flight
Drive a car
Proof of age purchases (cigarettes, alcohol, casino, lottery tickets, etc...)

There have been times I have been asked for ID on these, but with the exception of getting a job the majority is "no ask" for each.

[Fallen]

When was the last time you flew without showing ID? Are you counting getting through security as a separate step or something?

[Parkbandit]

When was the last time you flew without showing ID? Are you counting getting through security as a separate step or something?

That's racist. Do you know how many black and elderly people you disenfranchise by not allowing them to fly?

[Latrinsorm]

When was the last time you flew without showing ID? Are you counting getting through security as a separate step or something?Two thousannnnd five? I think? Somewhere around there.
That's racist. Do you know how many black and elderly people you disenfranchise by not allowing them to fly?For the record, I have been using "disenfranchise" in the strict sense of deprive of the right to vote.

[Fallen]

Two thousannnnd five? I think? Somewhere around there.

Conclusion: Latrinsorm is an illegal alien!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690070/TSA-allowing-illegal-immigrants-fly-passenger-jets-just-piece-paper-no-photo-ID-border-council-claims.html

[Tgo01]

When was the last time you flew without showing ID? Are you counting getting through security as a separate step or something?

I was wondering the same thing. My mom flies often and she has to show an ID every time she picks up her ticket or checks in. Not sure about at security, probably there too.

[Latrinsorm]

Conclusion: Latrinsorm is an illegal alien!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690070/TSA-allowing-illegal-immigrants-fly-passenger-jets-just-piece-paper-no-photo-ID-border-council-claims.htmlWe prefer differently legal.

[Gelston]

Two thousannnnd five? I think? Somewhere around there.For the record, I have been using "disenfranchise" in the strict sense of deprive of the right to vote.

Everytime I've gone through security they have required a form of ID to match my name with the boarding pass. Unless you were flying from some private air port or going on a helicopter tour or something, I doubt you are telling the truth.

[Fallen]

Everytime I've gone through security they have required a form of ID to match my name with the boarding pass. Unless you were flying from some private air port or going on a helicopter tour or something, I doubt you are telling the truth.

I find your lack of faith in the incompetence of airport employees disturbing.

[Gelston]

I find your lack of faith in the incompetence of airport employees disturbing.

I yhad an expired ID once, they made me also show 2 other forms of pictureless ID or cards with my name on it along with it because it was expired. So, license, a credit card, and my Sam's Card.

[Back]

I was just a witness at trial. No one asked me for id.

[Gelston]

I was just a witness at trial. No one asked me for id.

I wasn't IDed as a witness, but I was when I went for Jury Duty.

[Latrinsorm]

Everytime I've gone through security they have required a form of ID to match my name with the boarding pass. Unless you were flying from some private air port or going on a helicopter tour or something, I doubt you are telling the truth.I could be mistaken, but to the best of my recollection it was a regular air port and no one asked me for ID. I think it's fair to say I look a lot more trustworthy than you though, nobody trusts FSU alums.

[Gelston]

nobody trusts FSU alums.

I don't think anyone should trust them either.

[Parkbandit]

I was just a witness at trial. No one asked me for id.

Yea.. I thought it was obvious when I said "go to court" it was for jury duty.

I bet if you deliver pizza to a bailiff, you don't have to show your ID either. THAT MUST MEAN YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO SHOW YOUR ID IN COURT!!

[Parkbandit]

Everytime I've gone through security they have required a form of ID to match my name with the boarding pass. Unless you were flying from some private air port or going on a helicopter tour or something, I doubt you are telling the truth.

Since 9-11, every person (except children) has to show their ID in order to ride in a commercial flight. There is no magical exceptions to this policy except perhaps for TSA failures.

Anyone who makes the claim that they don't have to show a picture ID to prove who they were when getting on a flight is simply bullshitting you. Don't fall for it.

[Tgo01]

I asked my mom and she said she has to show ID twice everytime she flies; once when she checks in and once through security.

[Methais]

I heard that last time Seany Digital flew they were like "Can I see your ID?" and he said said "ID this!" and whipped out his dong, and then she was like "Thank you sir, have a safe flight." and banged him in the bathroom for the whole flight.

Can anyone confirm this?

[Warriorbird]

I heard that last time Seany Digital flew they were like "Can I see your ID?" and he said said "ID this!" and whipped out his dong, and then she was like "Thank you sir, have a safe flight." and banged him in the bathroom for the whole flight.

Can anyone confirm this?

Lies. Afterwards he got into a fight and it was totally this TSA dude's fault because he was jealous and those airplane shots don't drink themselves. Why are they out there? It was the airline's fault.

[Methais]

James O’Keefe exposes Mark Udall advocates condoning VOTER FRAUD

James O’Keefe went undercover in Colorado to reveal just how easy it will be to commit voter fraud with their new mail-in ballot system:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_uHDjk3fSc




http://therightscoop.com/james-okeefe-exposes-mark-udall-advocates-condoning-voter-fraud/

[Warriorbird]

James O’Keefe exposes Mark Udall advocates condoning VOTER FRAUD

James O’Keefe went undercover in Colorado to reveal just how easy it will be to commit voter fraud with their new mail-in ballot system:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_uHDjk3fSc




http://therightscoop.com/james-okeefe-exposes-mark-udall-advocates-condoning-voter-fraud/

Guy who's gotten into a lot of trouble for faking stuff and harassment attempts to fake something to show it is real!

[Methais]

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/noisepollution460.jpg

Fixed.

[Jarvan]

No, I agree with you that there is a clear slant in the people running the Brennan Institute. You've a valid point. At the same time, are there any truly unbiased think-tanks if they're disqualified if people on their boards hold clear political views? Where should we go to gather information on which to form opinions?

There is no "Un-biased" anything anymore.

Every group is funded by, run by, and employees people with an opinion.

People will look at one group's opinion, and either agree, or dismiss it based on their opinion.

[Jarvan]

Thread: Voter impersonation fraud - 31 cases out of 1 billion votes cast in past 14 years

wow that shart was rocketing out of your anus at an incredible rate


Do we really have an 11 year old on these forums? I mean, I figure 11 cause they are so interested in shit that they send me red shit flavored rep at least 3 times a week.

No idea who it is.. course of cause the child is to cowardly to ever post a name.

[Tgo01]

Thread: Voter impersonation fraud - 31 cases out of 1 billion votes cast in past 14 years

wow that shart was rocketing out of your anus at an incredible rate


Do we really have an 11 year old on these forums? I mean, I figure 11 cause they are so interested in shit that they send me red shit flavored rep at least 3 times a week.

No idea who it is.. course of cause the child is to cowardly to ever post a name.

S/he hits everyone with shit rep.

Their rep is worth 2937 so I'm guessing whoever it is they are listed somewhere between page 3-10 of the list of users when sorted by rep.

We'll get to the bottom of who the Mad Shitter is!

[JackWhisper]

rofl. The Mad Shatter. I hope when they're found out they get that as their title.

Hilarious.

[Taernath]

S/he hits everyone with shit rep.

Their rep is worth 2937 so I'm guessing whoever it is they are listed somewhere between page 3-10 of the list of users when sorted by rep.

We'll get to the bottom of who the Mad Shitter is!

There are a couple accounts doing it now. The initial one was around 100 rep, while the 3kish one just started recently. I've been getting hit by both of them. I also got a green one once but I'm thinking it was a mistake or someone fucking around.

[Tgo01]

There are a couple accounts doing it now. The initial one was around 100 rep, while the 3kish one just started recently. I've been getting hit by both of them. I also got a green one once but I'm thinking it was a mistake or someone fucking around.

I think you're right. The original Mad Shitter focused on butts and anything coming out of butts. The Mad Shitter Wannabe seems to focus on sharts.

The search continues...

[Androidpk]

What I really want to know is what the fuck is a shart?

[Fallen]

What I really want to know is what the fuck is a shart?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbDcnUH6rOc