O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot

Karl · Apr 13, 2012

Quag said:
Where can you show me the motives behind what you are saying? You are implying them but where is the proof? [...] Yes I know you will point to lack of proof that there is voter fraud caused by not requiring ID. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible [...]

I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof that the Republican motive in requiring new ID is to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible . . . :2razz:

Karl · Apr 13, 2012

Quag said:
[...] As to those in favor (on this forum) I have not heard them demand a voter photo ID card (tired of typing that, VPID) Only those against have mentioned that.

It is common knowledge to those who are familiar with the topic. Your confusion is a result of weighing in on a topic that you

a) are not familiar with, and

b) have failed to research (sorry, listening to talk radio does not qualify as research).

nonpareil · Apr 14, 2012

ARealConservative said:
You are ignorant. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. We know some level of election fraud occurs, I am pursuing a a system of acquiring knowledge about the level of corruption that occurs.

Your analogy is equally idiotic. A better one is that someone is stealing money from me. Now I am going to start counting the money so I know exactly how much was stolen.

You don't know that anyone is stealing from you, you admitted as much. The system won't "acquire knowledge" about the level of "corruption" that occur because the kind of fraud that has been documented will not be caught by the photo ID requirement. Requiring photo ID also will not stop people from using fake IDs which are easy to get. All and all, you propose an ineffective system that might have a big cost, to solve a problem that you don't even know exists to any large extend.

I call your arguement idiotic because factually it is and I explained in details why. Calling me "ignorant" and "idiotic" won't change that.

nonpareil · Apr 14, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
The key word there is "suspect". What if you don't suspect?

And how will a photo ID change that? That someone can produce a photo ID doesn't mean that it is not fake. So anyone who claims that the requirement is so that they know that there will be no fraud going on is just giving themselves a false consolation. A photo ID requirement will not do that.

And how can "Holder" in this case know whether someone voted for him or not? Particularly if he didn't vote because of some emergency. Or if he goes to a different polling station.

Holder can go to the registrar (if he cares enough to do so) and see that a ballot was cast in his name when in fact he never did, that's the only way to know. Requiring photo ID would not change any of that. If there's Holders who's determined to the be the same person in the registrar voting at 2 different polling stations, that's a clear case of fraud, whether there's a photo requirement or not.

nonpareil · Apr 14, 2012

Quag said:
Actually this is my point. you point out the other sides stance (voter photo ID law) then ascribe an evil intent to it (depriving minorities of votes)
On the other side people have pointed out your stance (Voter photo ID not necessary) then ascribe evil intent to it (permitting voter fraud to keep your side in power)

That was my point! Same story different spin. This is why I like it when US talk radio shows are on same subject. I find it amusing that they automatically assume the other sides stance is based on some sort of nefarious plot.

Let me try this.

Karl: If requesting voter ID would cost the state nothing and not disenfranchise people would you still be against it?

Kal'Stang: Is a seperate voter photo ID card what you are demanding? would a lesser threshold of Identification be acceptable to you?

*edit* Didn't mean to limit questions to Karl and Kal'Stang. Everyone please feel free to answer either/both questions.

Sure, if the government can magically give everyone a photo ID at no costs before the election, why not? Then you wouldn't even need to consider whether there's any benefit from the scheme since there's no cost at all. But the real world doesn't work that way.

Kal'Stang · Apr 14, 2012

nonpareil said:
And how will a photo ID change that? That someone can produce a photo ID doesn't mean that it is not fake. So anyone who claims that the requirement is so that they know that there will be no fraud going on is just giving themselves a false consolation. A photo ID requirement will not do that.

It may not stop it...but it sure can limit it. Lets say a crooked politician/corporation wants to rig the votes by hiring people to cast fake votes by using other peoples names. As it stands right now that crooked politician/corporation could just pay someone 50 bucks to do one, another person another 50 bucks to do it also and so on and so forth. For someone that is poor and needs money that may sound like a good deal. Especially when you consider most poor people don't know the punishment for voter fraud. (I know I didn't until this thread)

But with requireing a voter ID that crooked politician now has to provide those fake ID's. In order to do that you have to find someone to make it and they get to charge their normal rate. Which from what I have heard is around $300 per ID. How many politicians are going to spend that much for the amount of votes needed to sway an election?

Please note that the above here is simplistic and would more than likely be far more convoluted. I could make it more convoluted but I'm just trying to make a point...not write a desertation.

nonpareil said:
Holder can go to the registrar (if he cares enough to do so) and see that a ballot was cast in his name when in fact he never did, that's the only way to know. Requiring photo ID would not change any of that. If there's Holders who's determined to the be the same person in the registrar voting at 2 different polling stations, that's a clear case of fraud, whether there's a photo requirement or not.

Holder might do such a thing. But what about Jane doe? John Doe? Mr. Smith? How many people actually go to the registrar and check to see if they have already voted or voted twice? Would people that don't even normally vote go check? Do you even check? I would bet that no one actually ever does this. I mean why would you? You don't believe in voter fraud on this side of the curtain.

Quag · Apr 14, 2012

Since you support a new regulation (some sort of gov't issued photo voter ID), the burden is upon you to show why it is a good thing.

Good luck

I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof that the Republican motive in requiring new ID is to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible . . .

hypocritical much?

lets have some fun

I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof of this type of voter fraud means ANY type of voter id is unecessay. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible. see what I did there

Go back reread my posts, notice the difference between when I ask a question and when I make a statement. I think you will find I am not an extremist on this issue.

Since you never answered before I will ask again.
If voter ID requirement would not cost the sate anything and not disenfranchise anyone would you still be against it? If so why?
Notice questions? not the same thing as a statement. in fact the posing of a question is pretty much the admittance that I am i seeking knowledge/clarification on the subject.

It is common knowledge to those who are familiar with the topic. Your confusion is a result of weighing in on a topic that you

a) are not familiar with, and

b) have failed to research (sorry, listening to talk radio does not qualify as research).

Your confusing me with Kal'Stang. I didn`t weigh in on the topic I asked a question and got very unsatisactory answers, and some rather snippy comments from ppl who assumed things about me without actually noticing I was asking for information IE I was trying to get informed. Seems some ppl here would rather spout off rather than read the actual posts. Would you not consider that my posts asking for such information as to why this voter ID thing should be such a negative as not an attempt by me to inform myself? I never claimed talk radio was research, I merely stated that listening to talk radio both sides spin things and accuse others of nefarious plots. You still haven't proven that Kal'Stang wants to disenfracnhise ppl because of the way they vote, You have only pointed out it may be possible and then JUMPED at that as their reasoning. This is proof of my statement, something that seems to have been lost on you. Kal'Stang hasn't proven you want to keep the laws the same so your side can win elections through fraud either, but as my posts about this have been in reply to you, I haven't really brought that up. it is exactly the same thing.

Kal'Stang · Apr 14, 2012

Quag said:
Your confusing me with Kal'Stang. I didn`t weigh in on the topic I asked a question and got very unsatisactory answers, and some rather snippy comments from ppl who assumed things about me without actually noticing I was asking for information IE I was trying to get informed. Seems some ppl here would rather spout off rather than read the actual posts. Would you not consider that my posts asking for such information as to why this voter ID thing should be such a negative as not an attempt by me to inform myself? I never claimed talk radio was research, I merely stated that listening to talk radio both sides spin things and accuse others of nefarious plots. You still haven't proven that Kal'Stang wants to disenfracnhise ppl because of the way they vote, You have only pointed out it may be possible and then JUMPED at that as their reasoning. This is proof of my statement, something that seems to have been lost on you. Kal'Stang hasn't proven you want to keep the laws the same so your side can win elections through fraud either, but as my posts about this have been in reply to you, I haven't really brought that up. it is exactly the same thing.

You're right I haven't. I have based my entire arguement on what I believe to be common sense, logic, and a knowledge of how people are. Nothing more. I have done this because I don't believe that it is possible to get what they ask for. For the simple fact that it is almost (at best) impossible to track voter fraud from the direction that ID's would help. I mean...where do people think the term "ballot box stuffing" came from? It came about due to people literally voting more than once in an election. Yet all of a sudden such a thing is denied as even existing.

Quag · Apr 14, 2012

Sure, if the government can magically give everyone a photo ID at no costs before the election, why not? Then you wouldn't even need to consider whether there's any benefit from the scheme since there's no cost at all. But the real world doesn't work that way.

That is why I left the photo part out, I know I know everyone here means photo ID, But as i have said umpteen times in Canada, if anyone would have bothered to look at the link I posted, Photo ID is not required. There is a higher level of proof for non photo ID, example a piece of non photo ID and an electricity bill, with name and adress on it. As I seem to be having problems with ppl who read part of the posts and jump to conclusions, that is just an EXAMPLE there are lots of ways you can do it.
I understand the USA doesnt have national health cards like we do here (actually they are povincial but cards from 1 province are accepted* in others, It is in a way national).
I will reask my question using Canadian requirements would you have any problems with voter ID?

*Don't want to get into the healthcare thing here, that would be another topic, but the cards between provinces are't equal. What one province covers is not necessarily the same as what another covers. Way to complicated to explain but for practical use your card is good anywhere in canada.

Quag · Apr 14, 2012

nonpareil:
just realized I missed the 2nd part of your post. Yes cost/benefit analysis must be considered.
Should bank tellers have bullet proof glass? should they have armored steel between them? should they be behind 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete with monitors to interact with costomers? Obviously at some point it gets ridiculous and there is no point. But I think most people would agree a bank with no guards/video surveillance/alarms/safes/seperation between tellers and customers will probably get robbed fairly often. Each time you add a measure you increase security and decrease risk but often at a price.

Karl · Apr 14, 2012

Quag said:
[...] I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof of this type of voter fraud means ANY type of voter id is unecessay. [...]

Strawman...

Karl · Apr 14, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
[...] I mean...where do people think the term "ballot box stuffing" came from? It came about due to people literally voting more than once in an election. Yet all of a sudden such a thing is denied as even existing.

Strawman (in bold).

More literally, "ballot box stuffing" means one person stuffing 'a lot' of votes into the box, often an election official (opportunity), which would not be prevented by photo voter ID.

In short, successful ballot-stuffing usually requires the misconduct of genuine registered voters and/or elections personnel.

Ballot stuffing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karl · Apr 14, 2012

Quag said:
[...] Your confusing me with Kal'Stang. I didn`t weigh in on the topic I asked a question and got very unsatisactory answers, and some rather snippy comments from ppl who assumed things about me without actually noticing I was asking for information IE I was trying to get informed. [...]

Quag said:
I don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? It seems kinda common sense to provide proof of who you are when you vote. I don't see how this could have any negative effects. Not trying to be pissy or anything I just really don't understand why this shoudl be an issue.

Recall better now?

In a debate, it is best to arrive informed.

Grant · Apr 15, 2012

Karl said:
Strawman (in bold).

More literally, "ballot box stuffing" means one person stuffing 'a lot' of votes into the box, often an election official (opportunity), which would not be prevented by photo voter ID.

It would certainly be a lot easier to trace. as would "telegraphing".

Since this problem has been around for generations it's difficult to see why improvements in security aren't being welcomed.

The only explanation would seem to be that a political party, in this case the Democrats, would have something to lose if honesty in voting regulations were introduced..

Ballot stuffing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karl · Apr 15, 2012

Grant said:
It would certainly be a lot easier to trace [...]

Please explain.

Grant said:
Since this problem has been around for generations it's difficult to see why improvements in security aren't being welcomed.

Explain how photo voter ID, as envisioned by the numerous Republican proposals, would be an "improvement in security" as it relates to ballot stuffing.

Grant · Apr 15, 2012

Karl said:
Please explain.

Explain how photo voter ID, as envisioned by the numerous Republican proposals, would be an "improvement in security" as it relates to ballot stuffing.

Why does this need explaining? If you do not understand something why not investigate on your own? Why are you even on this thread if you don't understand voter fraud?

OpportunityCost · Apr 15, 2012

Karl said:
Please explain.

Explain how photo voter ID, as envisioned by the numerous Republican proposals, would be an "improvement in security" as it relates to ballot stuffing.

Have all registered voters on a list by precinct. Check ID at the door before voting. Tally marked list versus votes cast. Eliminating the fraudulent votes also becomes easier as you have a list of those that voted by precinct. Ballot stuffing becomes something close to impossible.

Quag · Apr 15, 2012

Karl

I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof that the Republican motive in requiring new ID is to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible . . .

lets have some fun

I'm not surprised that you claim a lack of proof of this type of voter fraud means ANY type of voter id is unecessay. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible. see what I did there

Your post/my post read them again. Now can you not see that I am using sarcasm? I used your own words to point out how silly your statement was. But someohow you missed the point and just attacked my paraphrasing of your argument.
Still thank you for pointing out that your arguement was false.

Recall better now?

In a debate, it is best to arrive informed.

don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? It seems kinda common sense to provide proof of who you are when you vote. I don't see how this could have any negative effects. Not trying to be pissy or anything I just really don't understand why this shoudl be an issue.

You quote me asking a question, Highlite the bit where I say I don't see how there could be any negative effects after the question, IE I am clarifiying what my question is about and you think this is proof of me refusing to learn anything?

In a debate, it is best to actually listen to the other people involved.

Your confusion is a result of weighing in on my posts that you

a) are not familiar with, and

b) have failed to read and/or comprehend.

back to the subject at hand
Would you still be against voter ID if it cost the state nothing and disenfranchised no one?

Karl · Apr 15, 2012

Grant said:
Why does this need explaining? If you do not understand something why not investigate on your own? Why are you even on this thread if you don't understand voter fraud?

You know, even when I expect a stupid response, I'm still surprised when I get it.

Karl · Apr 15, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
Have all registered voters on a list by precinct. Check ID at the door before voting. Tally marked list versus votes cast. Eliminating the fraudulent votes also becomes easier as you have a list of those that voted by precinct. Ballot stuffing becomes something close to impossible.

You don't need photo voter ID for your plan. In fact, you need no ID at all.... a simple check mark is made every time a voter is handed a ballot. The total number of checkmarks should = the total number of votes in the ballot box (or the total number of checkmarks at that voting location = the total number of votes cast there).

Like, duh.

That is why, historically, ballot box stuffing is perpetrated by election officials or those in possession of the ballot boxes when no one else is around, rather than those actually voting... the 'fix' has to be 'in' by those who are supposed to be policing corruption, but are instead practicing it.

OpportunityCost · Apr 15, 2012

Karl said:
You don't need photo voter ID for your plan. In fact, you need no ID at all.... a simple check mark is made every time a voter is handed a ballot. The total number of checkmarks should = the total number of votes in the ballot box (or the total number of checkmarks at that voting location = the total number of votes cast there).

Like, duh.

That is why, historically, ballot box stuffing is perpetrated by election officials or those in possession of the ballot boxes when no one else is around, rather than those actually voting... the 'fix' has to be 'in' by those who are supposed to be policing corruption, but are instead practicing it.

But it also stops the secondary market of vote fraud: making fake regs then busing people in to claim those names and vote. It also stops dead voting, precinct hopping for people that have moved, absentee ballots for multi state residents and all kinds of other shenanigans if done correctly.

If you want to have a real adult conversation lose the smart ass attitude. Like, duh.

Kal'Stang · Apr 15, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
If you want to have a real adult conversation lose the smart ass attitude. Like, duh.

I've already put him on ignore for his lack of civility.

nonpareil · Apr 16, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
It may not stop it...but it sure can limit it. Lets say a crooked politician/corporation wants to rig the votes by hiring people to cast fake votes by using other peoples names. As it stands right now that crooked politician/corporation could just pay someone 50 bucks to do one, another person another 50 bucks to do it also and so on and so forth. For someone that is poor and needs money that may sound like a good deal. Especially when you consider most poor people don't know the punishment for voter fraud. (I know I didn't until this thread)

But with requireing a voter ID that crooked politician now has to provide those fake ID's. In order to do that you have to find someone to make it and they get to charge their normal rate. Which from what I have heard is around $300 per ID. How many politicians are going to spend that much for the amount of votes needed to sway an election?

Please note that the above here is simplistic and would more than likely be far more convoluted. I could make it more convoluted but I'm just trying to make a point...not write a desertation.

They could easily do it with photo ID requirement as well. Making a fake ID just require a computer, a camera, some cards and a printer. Why would people who go to the extend of conducting electoral fraud be shy about making some fake IDs? Given that this election season could go up to billions, assuming someone is committed to committing fraud, I think they could do it. "Assuming" being the operative word.

The whole arguement made by the photo ID requirement is simplistic, seems to me, if I were to believe the arguement made to be genuine. If a fraud were to occur, it would have occurred during the registration stage first, but the supporters are not asking for states to step up the requirement for that, or think of ways to make sure that don't occur.

Holder might do such a thing. But what about Jane doe? John Doe? Mr. Smith? How many people actually go to the registrar and check to see if they have already voted or voted twice? Would people that don't even normally vote go check? Do you even check? I would bet that no one actually ever does this. I mean why would you? You don't believe in voter fraud on this side of the curtain.

You claimed that there's no way to know if someone vote in another person's name and I showed that indeed there is.

The next question is: is there any systemic problem with in person voter fraud to begin with? Are there any person voting in Jane Doe, or John Doe or Mr Smith's names? If there's a problem, it's up to the person who claim the problem exists to demonstrate that it in fact exists.

And once you demonstrate that there is indeed a problem, then you consider the solution, whether it's effective in address the problem - which it is not. It is better to catch fraud at the registration stage, which would catch those absentee ballots fraud as well.

If it passes the second stage, then you have to consider the costs and benefits.

nonpareil · Apr 16, 2012

Quag said:
That is why I left the photo part out, I know I know everyone here means photo ID, But as i have said umpteen times in Canada, if anyone would have bothered to look at the link I posted, Photo ID is not required. There is a higher level of proof for non photo ID, example a piece of non photo ID and an electricity bill, with name and adress on it. As I seem to be having problems with ppl who read part of the posts and jump to conclusions, that is just an EXAMPLE there are lots of ways you can do it.
I understand the USA doesnt have national health cards like we do here (actually they are povincial but cards from 1 province are accepted* in others, It is in a way national).
I will reask my question using Canadian requirements would you have any problems with voter ID?

*Don't want to get into the healthcare thing here, that would be another topic, but the cards between provinces are't equal. What one province covers is not necessarily the same as what another covers. Way to complicated to explain but for practical use your card is good anywhere in canada.

The answer addresses any requirement, whether photo or non photo, Canada or US: if you can get the card to everyone without costs, then by all means, do it. But there's no point is talking about something that's not going to happen in reality.

Quag · Apr 16, 2012

The answer addresses any requirement, whether photo or non photo, Canada or US: if you can get the card to everyone without costs, then by all means, do it. But there's no point is talking about something that's not going to happen in reality.

Again we do this here in Canada (and many other jurisidctions) and there is no problem with the cost nor with people being disenfranchised. I do not see how it would become either expensive or disenfranchising in the states to use a system such as ours for voter ID.

They could easily do it with photo ID requirement as well. Making a fake ID just require a computer, a camera, some cards and a printer. Why would people who go to the extend of conducting electoral fraud be shy about making some fake IDs? Given that this election season could go up to billions, assuming someone is committed to committing fraud, I think they could do it. "Assuming" being the operative word.

Agreed it is possible, but it will add another level of difficulty/cost to anyone trying to perpetrate such a fraud. Requiring voter ID (again I am using Canadian standards, really shouldn't have to keep repeating that but some ppl here are intentionally blind to what my posts actually say)adds that extra level of security making it more difficult. I don't know how stringent voter registration is in the USA, but I think that it should obviously have a certain standard. Ie you shouldnt be just able to walk in or mail in a request for voter registration without any proof of eligibility. I seriously doubt it would be possible to ever make a system 100% fraud proof but you should try tomake it as safe as possible with regards to cost/rights.