• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA County Admits Number Of Registered Voters At 144% Of Resident Citizens Of Voting Age

Ah, how quickly we forget. The left was pushing a recount. The right stopped it. I still complain about what happened too, but not call it fraud.

The Right didn't stop a recount in Florida, Al Gore did. He didn't want to divide the country. You really don't know what you are talking about. And I'm someone who is on the Left, but I have a very tough time with people like you who don't care about facts.
 
The Right didn't stop a recount in Florida, Al Gore did. He didn't want to divide the country. You really don't know what you are talking about. And I'm someone who is on the Left, but I have a very tough time with people like you who don't care about facts.

There simply was no logical (or legal) reason for Florida to honor Gore's request for a recount in a few (only 4?) counties that he clearly had won by a large margin. It was a blatant attempt to have low friends in high places find (manufacture?) a few more Gore votes and to prevent any additional Bush votes from being found (manufactured?) by requesting a statewide recount (which was an option) instead.
 
The Right didn't stop a recount in Florida, Al Gore did. He didn't want to divide the country. You really don't know what you are talking about. And I'm someone who is on the Left, but I have a very tough time with people like you who don't care about facts.

Correct. Gore graciously accepted defeat. But there was grass roots republican activity --the "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- to try to affect the recount, as well as the Supreme Court decision along party lines. The parties did not cover themselves with glory, as the democrats should have asked for a statewide recount.

But your condescending comment is noted.
 
There simply was no logical (or legal) reason for Florida to honor Gore's request for a recount in a few (only 4?) counties that he clearly had won by a large margin. It was a blatant attempt to have low friends in high places find (manufacture?) a few more Gore votes and to prevent any additional Bush votes from being found (manufactured?) by requesting a statewide recount (which was an option) instead.

Automatic recounts are triggered in close races if the losing party wants one. The 2000 Presidential election results in Florida came out to be 2,912,790 (Bush) to 2,912,253 (Gore). That's definitely worthy of a recount if Gore wanted one. It would've taken months and been extremely expensive, though. It also would've undermined the legitimacy of the result (however it turned out).
 
Correct. Gore graciously accepted defeat. But there was grass roots republican activity --the "Brooks Brothers Riot" -- to try to affect the recount, as well as the Supreme Court decision along party lines. But your condescending comment is noted.

You said that the Right stopped the recount, and now you admitted that Gore did. So you were a liar, and my condescending comment was completely justified. Stop lying and you'll find me a lot less condescending.
 
You said that the Right stopped the recount, and now you admitted that Gore did. So you were a liar, and my condescending comment was completely justified. Stop lying and you'll find me a lot less condescending.

And the role of the Supreme Court, the efforts by activists on both sides? Your comments suggest that there was a close race... A recount started ... Gore stopped it... End of story. It was more complex than Gore simply stopping things.

And why would I lie? I might simply be just mistaken. Two things can be true at the same time.
 
Automatic recounts are triggered in close races if the losing party wants one. The 2000 Presidential election results in Florida came out to be 2,912,790 (Bush) to 2,912,253 (Gore). That's definitely worthy of a recount if Gore wanted one. It would've taken months and been extremely expensive, though. It also would've undermined the legitimacy of the result (however it turned out).

Gore's recount request (which you claim that he voluntarily withdrew) was not for a statewide recount. The problem seemed to be that the longer Gore drug out the recount process then the more absentee ballots for Bush would show up.

Following the statewide machine recount, the Gore campaign requested a manual recount in four counties. Florida state law at the time allowed a candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts.[9] The county canvassing board was then to decide whether to do a recount, as well as the method of the recount, in those three precincts.[10] If the board discovered an error that in its judgment could affect the outcome of the election, they were then authorized to do a full recount of the ballots.[11] This statutory process primarily accommodated recounts for local elections. The Gore campaign requested that disputed ballots in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia Counties be counted by hand. Volusia County started its recount on November 12. Florida statutes also required that all counties certify and report their returns, including any recounts, by 5:00 p.m. on November 14. The manual recounts were time-consuming, and it soon became clear that some counties would not complete their recounts before the deadline. On November 13 the Gore campaign and Volusia and Palm Beach Counties sued to have the deadlines extended.[12]

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign worked to stop the recount. On November 11, it joined a group of Florida voters in suing in federal district court for a preemptive injunction to stop all manual recounting of votes in Florida. Bush's lawyers argued that recounting votes in just four counties violated the 14th Amendment and also that similarly punched ballots could be tabulated differently since Florida had no detailed statutory standards for hand-counting votes.[13]:8–9 On November 13, the federal court ruled against an injunction.

On November 14, the original deadline for reporting results, with the Volusia County recount complete, Bush held a 300-vote lead. The same day, a state judge upheld that deadline but ruled that further recounts could be considered later. Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, a Republican, then gave counties until 2:00 p.m. on November 15 to provide reasons for recounting their ballots. The next day, the Florida Supreme Court allowed manual recounts in Palm Beach and Broward Counties to continue but left it to a state judge to decide whether Harris must include those votes in the final tally. Miami-Dade County decided on November 17 to conduct a recount but suspended it on November 22. The Gore campaign sued to force Miami-Dade County to continue its recount, but the Florida Supreme Court refused to consider the request.

As the manual recounts continued, the battle to certify the results intensified. On November 17, Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County Circuit Court permitted Harris to certify the election results without the manual recounts, but on the same day the Florida Supreme Court stayed that decision until it could consider an appeal by Gore. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously that manual counts in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties must be included and set 5:00 p.m. on November 26 as the earliest time for certification. After that decision, the Bush campaign appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state court effectively rewrote state election statutes after the vote.

As the manual recounts progressed, most of Florida's counties were considering overseas absentee ballots. That part of the vote count was completed on November 18, increasing Bush's lead to 930 votes (see Controversial issues below).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida
 
News Flash: They aren't going to get deported because the government isn't going to go after people for voting, even if they aren't legitimate voters.

Wrong. ICE has every right not just to check voters in specific election, but even registration voter rolls... and they DO. Federally available voter rolls are accessible by ICE.

There could be a handful of idiots, but honestly, illegals main concern is to be under the radar and registering to vote, let alone voting itself is a sure way to be ON the radar.

Next, I don't know where you got 20M figure. I see estimates of 12M instead. Also, they are not all in one place. So local elections would have much less of an influence than what you are implying as if all illegals are in the same city.
 
Wrong. ICE has every right not just to check voters in specific election, but even registration voter rolls... and they DO. Federally available voter rolls are accessible by ICE.

There could be a handful of idiots, but honestly, illegals main concern is to be under the radar and registering to vote, let alone voting itself is a sure way to be ON the radar.

Next, I don't know where you got 20M figure. I see estimates of 12M instead. Also, they are not all in one place. So local elections would have much less of an influence than what you are implying as if all illegals are in the same city.

1) ICE and other authorities do not seriously check for illegal voting. They are mostly worried about terrorist attacks, and they don't want to intimidate voters. Checking voters can be considered voter intimidation, because they don't know who is illegally voting and who isn't.

2) There's more than a handful of idiots. And again, voting doesn't put illegals on the radar. Look at the illegal voting going on in the Midwest by the DNC official that got fired after admitting he was organizing mass voter fraud campaigns. None of them ever got caught and they were being pretty obvious about it. It took an undercover reporter to catch them.

3) Here's an article about an MIT study that says 22M: https://thehill.com/latino/407848-y...-not-11-million-undocumented-immigrants-in-us And, I never implied they were all voting in the same city. That's ridiculous. They don't vote evenly across the whole country, either, though. They are concentrated in certain areas across the country. Florida, Arizona, Texas, and California are some of the big areas.
 
Last edited:
1) ICE and other authorities do not seriously check for illegal voting. They are mostly worried about terrorist attacks, and they don't want to intimidate voters. Checking voters can be considered voter intimidation, because they don't know who is illegally voting and who isn't.

There is no voter intimidation here. ICE can scan voter rolls and see if they find names/addresses of non-citizens. Some cases that resulted:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/cheektowaga-woman-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/24/feds-charge-19-noncitizens-illegally-voting-2016/

2) There's more than a handful of idiots. And again, voting doesn't put illegals on the radar. Look at the illegal voting going on in the Midwest by the DNC official that got fired after admitting he was organizing mass voter fraud campaigns. None of them ever got caught and they were being pretty obvious about it. It took an undercover reporter to catch them.

Link?

Illegals don't want any chance of being on the radar. While I am sure there are some, I honestly don't think there are thousands dummies that are here illegally and yet got out and vote... Still, if you have links to prove otherwise, please share.

3) Here's an article about an MIT study that says 22M

Thanks for the links. So you are using a number from 1 outlier rather than the more accepted number?

And, I never implied they were all voting in the same city. That's ridiculous. They don't vote evenly across the whole country, either, though. They are concentrated in certain areas across the country. Florida, Arizona, Texas, and California are some of the big areas.

True, and their effect on local elections is that much less, accordingly.

In any case, there is a balance between trying to address two problems: making it EASY for citizens to vote. Making it HARD for non-citizens to vote. We've heard a TON of reports of how citizens get disenfranchised, by the bus loads if you will. Yes, aside from Trump / right-wing conspiracies, I have yet to see any good indication that illegal voting is a real issue.

Do you believe there is more people that are disenfranchised from voting or more illegals that vote? Seriously...

With so much apathy to voting to begin with, it's all too easy to erect a small another hoop to jump through to get less people to vote in this country...
 
There is no voter intimidation here. ICE can scan voter rolls and see if they find names/addresses of non-citizens. Some cases that resulted:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/cheektowaga-woman-arrested-charged-voter-fraud

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/24/feds-charge-19-noncitizens-illegally-voting-2016/



Link?

Illegals don't want any chance of being on the radar. While I am sure there are some, I honestly don't think there are thousands dummies that are here illegally and yet got out and vote... Still, if you have links to prove otherwise, please share.



Thanks for the links. So you are using a number from 1 outlier rather than the more accepted number?



True, and their effect on local elections is that much less, accordingly.

In any case, there is a balance between trying to address two problems: making it EASY for citizens to vote. Making it HARD for non-citizens to vote. We've heard a TON of reports of how citizens get disenfranchised, by the bus loads if you will. Yes, aside from Trump / right-wing conspiracies, I have yet to see any good indication that illegal voting is a real issue.

Do you believe there is more people that are disenfranchised from voting or more illegals that vote? Seriously...

With so much apathy to voting to begin with, it's all too easy to erect a small another hoop to jump through to get less people to vote in this country...

1) We're talking about different things apparently in regards to ICE. I thought you meant go to the polling places and you are talking about just checking voter registration roles.

2) Here's the DNC operative giving an in-depth explanation about how he would organize mass illegal voting campaigns (and how others were doing it, too): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGcfRbtgVak

3) Whether I believe there are more disenfranchised or illegal voters is irrelevant. We don't have to choose one. But I will say that voter apathy (which is the right of any citizen) makes illegal voting more impactful.
 
Whether I believe there are more disenfranchised or illegal voters is irrelevant. We don't have to choose one.

In theory what you said is true. I have no problems with ICE running a quick matching program to check every SSN that voted against a database of US citizens. But, as you know, in practice, (mostly) Republicans instituting addition hoops to jump through claim that these hoops are there to prevent illegal voting. Of course the true effect is more disenfranchisement instead. If these "solutions" do more harm on disenfranchisement front than good on illegal voting front, then yes, the two are very much related and we end up choosing one over the other...
 
In theory what you said is true. I have no problems with ICE running a quick matching program to check every SSN that voted against a database of US citizens. But, as you know, in practice, (mostly) Republicans instituting addition hoops to jump through claim that these hoops are there to prevent illegal voting. Of course the true effect is more disenfranchisement instead. If these "solutions" do more harm on disenfranchisement front than good on illegal voting front, then yes, the two are very much related and we end up choosing one over the other...

I think before we get to the practical aspect of what we should do about it, we have to agree that illegal voting exists. Up until this point you haven't agreed with that. Has something changed? I'm also skeptical of ICE matching SSNs, because many illegals steal SSNs. This will only encourage identity theft more. ICE will also undoubtedly get things wrong at times, but the voter taken off wouldn't know they got it wrong. I also don't see ICE matching up SSNs and then going to detain those who voted illegally. I don't think you and I are actually that far off on how we think because most practical people will realize that some illegal voting does happen and some voter disenfranchisement does happen. It's almost impossible to make voting easy for citizens and difficult for non-citizens.
 
I think before we get to the practical aspect of what we should do about it, we have to agree that illegal voting exists. Up until this point you haven't agreed with that. Has something changed?

Nothing changed. I maintained there could be some idiots that would still try this. I just don't believe there would be that many or enough to affect an election. I think disenfranchisement resulting from schemes that use stopping illegal voting as their premise is much larger problem than the supposed problem being solved.

ICE will also undoubtedly get things wrong at times, but the voter taken off wouldn't know they got it wrong.

Why would not they know. ICE should only take someone off if they notify them first, and likely arrest them along the way...

I also don't see ICE matching up SSNs and then going to detain those who voted illegally.

Why should not they?

I don't think you and I are actually that far off on how we think because most practical people will realize that some illegal voting does happen and some voter disenfranchisement does happen. It's almost impossible to make voting easy for citizens and difficult for non-citizens.

... yes, and which is why I think it comes down to whether illegal voting or disenfranchisement is the bigger problem ...
 
Assuming that the article is accurate...something I'm not 100% sold on... 144% of a population area that consists of 9.81 million people is NOT a small amount. Particularly when you take into account of the fact that NO county in the entire US ever has a 100% voter registration count. Unless something hinky is going on...

It's caused by Obama changing the rule requiring that the perp "intended" to vote illegally. IOW, it's got to be pretty blatant. As it stands now, illegals and ineligibles who are mailed ballots merely "throw" them away into the palm of a democrat precinct worker for a few bucks and they can claim they don't know what happened to it after they tossed it. Along with the dead and rest home vegetables, they keep on voting because no one is checking. There is no such thing as an audit of absentee ballots. Mere possession is a right to vote, and if Sec of State blows off checking eligibility, voter fraud is welcome.

We are losing control of the legitimacy of our voting system, and there is no antidote to voter fraud because the winning side is not going to change the rules that let them win.
 
Nothing changed. I maintained there could be some idiots that would still try this. I just don't believe there would be that many or enough to affect an election. I think disenfranchisement resulting from schemes that use stopping illegal voting as their premise is much larger problem than the supposed problem being solved.



Why would not they know. ICE should only take someone off if they notify them first, and likely arrest them along the way...



Why should not they?



... yes, and which is why I think it comes down to whether illegal voting or disenfranchisement is the bigger problem ...

In Gore vs Bush, Florida was decided by around 500 votes, and that decided the entire Presidential election. Local races can come down to dozens of votes. Illegal voting can definitely impact an election. How many votes do you think it would take before an election was impacted?
 
In Gore vs Bush, Florida was decided by around 500 votes, and that decided the entire Presidential election. Local races can come down to dozens of votes. Illegal voting can definitely impact an election. How many votes do you think it would take before an election was impacted?

Ok, yes, there are close examples. And I keep thinking that disenfranchisement policies affect those elections in greater way than preventing illegal aliens from voting.
 
Ok, yes, there are close examples. And I keep thinking that disenfranchisement policies affect those elections in greater way than preventing illegal aliens from voting.

As I stated earlier, the disenfranchisement is a separate issue.
 
So there are people who have died, and people who have moved, still on the list.

Can you please provide evidence that this has translated into large scale illegal voting and voter fraud?

This is evidence. There is no single piece of evidence that by itself is going to prove what you want it to. Proof like that will never exist on any issue. A collection of evidence is what we have to gather. So do we have voter registration roles that are over 100% of the amount of eligible voters? Check. Do we have DNC officials explaining in-depth methods of mass illegal voting campaigns by them and their colleagues? Check. Do we have extensive amounts of illegal aliens in the country? Check. We just keep adding bits of evidence. Not that it will ever be enough for someone like you, but it will be enough for reasonable people.
 
As I stated earlier, the disenfranchisement is a separate issue.

But it's not in practice... and you yourself effectively confirmed it by saying ...

It's almost impossible to make voting easy for citizens and difficult for non-citizens.

In other words, you seem to agree that if you make it difficult for non-citizens, it won't be easy for citizens either, which directly leads to disenfranchisement... The harder it is to vote, the less people will vote.
 
But it's not in practice... and you yourself effectively confirmed it by saying ...



In other words, you seem to agree that if you make it difficult for non-citizens, it won't be easy for citizens either, which directly leads to disenfranchisement... The harder it is to vote, the less people will vote.

Yes, I agree with your point on that. I'm pretty sure I even specifically stated that I agree. But disenfranchisement is still a separate issue from illegal voting. It's possible to care about both issues. The side we're talking about here is the illegal voting. I will add that there can be things done that help one problem but don't impact the other. For instance, securing the border reduces illegals but doesn't really impact voter disenfranchisement. The same thing is true with deporting illegals who steal SSN's or break other laws. You can have a court rule against gerrymandering without that impacting illegal voting. So while many aspects are a pull/tug, they are still separate issues. And we can concentrate on the illegal voting side without having to also concentrate on the disenfranchisement as well.
 
Yes, I agree with your point on that. I'm pretty sure I even specifically stated that I agree. But disenfranchisement is still a separate issue from illegal voting. It's possible to care about both issues. The side we're talking about here is the illegal voting. I will add that there can be things done that help one problem but don't impact the other. For instance, securing the border reduces illegals but doesn't really impact voter disenfranchisement. The same thing is true with deporting illegals who steal SSN's or break other laws. You can have a court rule against gerrymandering without that impacting illegal voting. So while many aspects are a pull/tug, they are still separate issues. And we can concentrate on the illegal voting side without having to also concentrate on the disenfranchisement as well.

Ok, fair enough. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as when we talk about solutions for illegal voting, the solutions being discussed do NOT cause more disenfranchisement.

So going back to JUST illegal voting subject, I DID state that I did not think vast majority of illegal aliens would care to risk it and so I am not sure how much it would really affect the results. Now, there are many other ways for illegal votes to appear. But my point was only regarding an illegal alien exposing themselves for that 1 more vote (and often that means also risking well being of their families, either here illegally or somewhere else depending on income from USA). I am having hard time imagining this is being a huge issue.

Now, I understand the numbers game we've been playing pulling numbers out of thin air. Yes, there are outlier cases like 500 Florida votes in 2000 and were there 500 illegal aliens risking their futures for those votes would be a big question mark IMO. On DP board, it's easy to believe there would be (because here everyone cares about politics around here). In real world out there, illegal aliens could care less - they are just happy to be here and stay under the radar.
 
Ok, fair enough. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as when we talk about solutions for illegal voting, the solutions being discussed do NOT cause more disenfranchisement.

So going back to JUST illegal voting subject, I DID state that I did not think vast majority of illegal aliens would care to risk it and so I am not sure how much it would really affect the results. Now, there are many other ways for illegal votes to appear. But my point was only regarding an illegal alien exposing themselves for that 1 more vote (and often that means also risking well being of their families, either here illegally or somewhere else depending on income from USA). I am having hard time imagining this is being a huge issue.

Now, I understand the numbers game we've been playing pulling numbers out of thin air. Yes, there are outlier cases like 500 Florida votes in 2000 and were there 500 illegal aliens risking their futures for those votes would be a big question mark IMO. On DP board, it's easy to believe there would be (because here everyone cares about politics around here). In real world out there, illegal aliens could care less - they are just happy to be here and stay under the radar.

We have some fundamental differences in how we think about the issue. I don't consider an illegal going to vote as just one vote. There are many who go to vote, and many illegals are connected to each other. If a husband and wife are both illegal, they are likely both going to vote illegally if either does. Now add in cousins. Now add in friends. Now add in the fact that all illegals know other illegals are going to vote. Now add in the organizations out there that fight for rights of illegals and try to organize them and/or other groups that would have a high % of illegals.

You also talk about races like Florida being outlier races. Well, they still exist. You haven't even really seemed to consider just how little many, many small races come down to. There are many races around the country where you'll only get hundreds of votes in the entire race. We're talking about votes for Sheriffs and races like that. So these races you call outliers still made, and they are not as outlier as you make it seem. But despite that, even one single race ever being decided by illegal voting is unacceptable.

Finally, you talk about the risk illegals take on if they are to vote, but we disagree about the willingness of the government to actually go after these people. If the government is not willing to go after them in any major way, which I don't think the government is, then there is little risk to vote illegally. Furthermore, you are not looking at the gain. People who come here illegally have more to gain/lose by what policies are enacted than a typical citizen. It's the difference between chain migration being allowed, policies of deportation, e-verify being enacted, allowing illegals to win scholarships and get government loans, allowing illegals to go to schools in general, etc. The local races matter at least as much and probably more than the national races, and those are the races that are easier to impact. And if voting illegal, they can probably establish their residency anywhere they want to make the biggest impact possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom