• 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!

Voter Fraud Database Tops 1,000 Proven Cases

I'm still not convinced there is some overall problem and I'm don't agree with collecting every voter's personal information to supposedly try and find out.

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Mwahahahahah.
 
Last I read, their was nothing in the Constitution claiming the federal government should be running our elections or collecting our voting data, much less that the Trump org should be building a national voter database!

And let's not forget: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The People run the elections, not the government! :doh

This is a grab by the Trump org, under the guise of "government". And it's big government, at that. Does anyone trust Donnie Boy with their personal data? I don't trust him at all, much less trust him with my data!


Right on! He won't trust 'we the people' with his data. :applaud
 
It's publically available information that is being sold to any party for big bucks.

Not everything Kobach demanded is "public information". His own state refused to comply.

Why are 'conservatives' so eager to spend "big" taxpayer "bucks" looking for a problem they haven't been able to prove exists, even after decades? And millions spent?

We need a government program to solve a problem they can't find. Very "conservative". ha ha ha...
 
I don't agree with the methods the Trump team is taking, I DO want to see each state doa deep dive on the matter, and shore up the voter rolls, and increase fraud deterrent. Voting is the exercise of power, and we should ensure it's use is proper.
I agree completely! Nothing is more sacrosanct to the democratic process, than vote integrity.

But Trump building a federal voting database is not the solution.

For the first time in the country's history the federal government is declaring our election tally was in error! What? Is this some banana republic? Can you see the next step, in Trump's mind? Yes! They will be determining the State's voting "integrity", at the federal level! My God! Will they "review" our elections? Will they "vet" our elections? Will the purge the voter rolls (selectively or not)?

And why do they require party affiliation and voting history?

No freaking way, will I go for this!

And of all the ironies, the guy in charge of the commission that sent the letter? Korbach, Kansas' Secretary of State? He can't comply due to his state's privacy law! And it's a letter he sent to himself!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! :doh
 
Imagine what a serious indepth investigation of voter fraud would reveal...

The issue with this is that there is evidence of actual crimes.

The Dems only like to investigate crimes for which there is no crime to start with, no evidence so prove it and no statute to rely on. All they need is a hated target to go after.

Not much different than the practices they followed in the segregated South. I guess old habits are hard to break.
 
The issue with this is that there is evidence of actual crimes.

The Dems only like to investigate crimes for which there is no crime to start with, no evidence so prove it and no statute to rely on. All they need is a hated target to go after.

Not much different than the practices they followed in the segregated South. I guess old habits are hard to break.

If removing voters from the rolls is the solution proposed, then there is a law preventing them from doing so. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993
 
The issue with this is that there is evidence of actual crimes.
:roll:

Heritage has found an average of 30 cases of voter fraud per year. That's out of maybe 125 million voters on average. And, that includes at least a dozen states, run by Republicans, who have aggressively looked for voter fraud over the past 5-10 years.

For those who can't do math, that means 0.000024% of all votes in a given year are fraudulent.

That does not justify disenfranchising voters in the name of fraud reduction.


Not much different than the practices they followed in the segregated South. I guess old habits are hard to break.
Yeah, sorry, but that's bull****.

1) Today's Fraud Hunters propose using many of the same tactics that the segregationists used to disenfranchise voters.

2) After the Democrats passed the Civil Rights acts in the 1960s, many of those segregationists gradually migrated to the Republican Party. Black voters, we should note, did the opposite -- in the 1930s, black voter identification was much more evenly split (44% D vs 37% R), and it gradually shifted to very heavily Democrats by the late 1960s.

3) I hate to break this to you, but it's the Democrats who are currently focusing on making sure everyone can vote. They push for expanded voting hours; more polling places; pushed for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, and more.

Republicans are doing the opposite. They try to restrict and shorten voting periods. They eliminate polling places, triggering lawsuits in some areas. There is some talk of repealing the MVA. Texas passed a voter ID law that would have prevented up to 600,000 legitimate voters from casting ballots.

The reality is that there is remarkably little voter fraud in the US. It is not the 1930s, when machines from both parties marched faithful voters into buses, shuttling them from one polling station to the next, to vote for their preferred candidate. Massive national efforts, which are thinly disguised attempts to block minorities and poor citizens from voting, are not justified.
 
:roll:

Heritage has found an average of 30 cases of voter fraud per year. That's out of maybe 125 million voters on average. And, that includes at least a dozen states, run by Republicans, who have aggressively looked for voter fraud over the past 5-10 years.

For those who can't do math, that means 0.000024% of all votes in a given year are fraudulent.

That does not justify disenfranchising voters in the name of fraud reduction.



Yeah, sorry, but that's bull****.

1) Today's Fraud Hunters propose using many of the same tactics that the segregationists used to disenfranchise voters.

2) After the Democrats passed the Civil Rights acts in the 1960s, many of those segregationists gradually migrated to the Republican Party. Black voters, we should note, did the opposite -- in the 1930s, black voter identification was much more evenly split (44% D vs 37% R), and it gradually shifted to very heavily Democrats by the late 1960s.

3) I hate to break this to you, but it's the Democrats who are currently focusing on making sure everyone can vote. They push for expanded voting hours; more polling places; pushed for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, and more.

Republicans are doing the opposite. They try to restrict and shorten voting periods. They eliminate polling places, triggering lawsuits in some areas. There is some talk of repealing the MVA. Texas passed a voter ID law that would have prevented up to 600,000 legitimate voters from casting ballots.

The reality is that there is remarkably little voter fraud in the US. It is not the 1930s, when machines from both parties marched faithful voters into buses, shuttling them from one polling station to the next, to vote for their preferred candidate. Massive national efforts, which are thinly disguised attempts to block minorities and poor citizens from voting, are not justified.

So I guess that means there is no point in investigating the issue.

There are very few beheadings completed in the US each year. Should these be ignored as they happen as well?
 
So I guess that means there is no point in investigating the issue.
There are very few beheadings completed in the US each year. Should these be ignored as they happen as well?

No, instead we should form a national presidential committee to investigate beheadings.

And we should risk disenfranchising swaths of American citizens to deal with the beheadings.
 
Only in special circumstances.

Isn't being registered in various precincts a "special circumstance" all by itself? I am registered in only one.

If not, what is the special circumstance that would trigger your enforcement plan?
 
So I guess that means there is no point in investigating the issue.
It means, as I said: It is not worth disenfranchising voters to prevent non-existent fraud.

I have no problems with states running routine checks on voters. However, that's not what is going on. Instead, we have people alleging millions of fraudulent votes on no basis whatsoever. That's not justified.


There are very few beheadings completed in the US each year. Should these be ignored as they happen as well?
:roll:

OK, maybe I can put this in terms you might understand.

Voting is a right, as it is the way that individual citizens hold their elected officials accountable, and determine how they are represented in government. It is not acceptable to disrupt that right, and disenfranchise voters, in the name of nearly non-existent fraud.

What you are suggesting is like saying "we should get rid of the requirement for police to get a warrant before searching property, in order to stop the handful of murderous decapitations." We should not empower the state to disrupt a right in the name of fixing a nearly non-existent crime.
 
No, instead we should form a national presidential committee to investigate beheadings.

And we should risk disenfranchising swaths of American citizens to deal with the beheadings.

Swaths?

Do you have a link for that?

The only people I know of that have been stripped Constitutionally guaranteed rights were victims of the Obama DOJ and IRS.

Now THERE were some swaths.
 
I'm still not convinced there is some overall problem and I'm don't agree with collecting every voter's personal information to supposedly try and find out.
agreed..
 
It means, as I said: It is not worth disenfranchising voters to prevent non-existent fraud.

I have no problems with states running routine checks on voters. However, that's not what is going on. Instead, we have people alleging millions of fraudulent votes on no basis whatsoever. That's not justified.



:roll:

OK, maybe I can put this in terms you might understand.

Voting is a right, as it is the way that individual citizens hold their elected officials accountable, and determine how they are represented in government. It is not acceptable to disrupt that right, and disenfranchise voters, in the name of nearly non-existent fraud.

What you are suggesting is like saying "we should get rid of the requirement for police to get a warrant before searching property, in order to stop the handful of murderous decapitations." We should not empower the state to disrupt a right in the name of fixing a nearly non-existent crime.

I'm glad you brought up the need for a warrant to avoid illegal search and seizure.

Warrants are granted by Judges when there is probable cause based on reasonable suspicion. This is the result of the English legal understanding that a man's home is his castle.

The premise is not entered without prior suspicion and, if it is, any evidence is disqualified. The fruit of the poison tree.

There have been very well documented abuses of the voting systems. Any reasonable person accepts this. JFK Joked that his father was only willing to pay for a win, not a landslide.

There have been various instances of more votes cast than registered voters, people voting at various polls and so forth. It is understood that there are abuses, but the winners NEVER investigate and the losers can't. It is likely that if Hillary won, the whole Russian thing that Obama now says he knew about in the summer of 2016 would never have gained this level of publicity.

Enter Trump as a victorious candidate. We now have a winner who is willing to investigate. I find this refreshing.

That you do not is interesting. Disenfranchising voters? Seriously? You're dreaming.
 
Imagine what a serious indepth investigation of voter fraud would reveal...

I can tell you why I - a liberal - do not think voter fraud is occurring. In Minnesota, an organization trying to discredit Senator Franken's victory came up with a list like this of right about 1,000 cases of "voter fraud." The Secretary of State investigated every single case. It turned out that from this list, I think 2 were actual cases of illegal voting and they were cases where the individual was unaware they weren't legally able to vote. They'll say "John Smith voted 10 times in Springfield county!" Well, that's because there are 10 people named John Smith in Springfield county. Or they'll say "Doris Ablemeister died in Springfield county in 2002 but voted in 2016!" Well, that's because Doris Ablemeister isn't dead. She moved to Springfield county and registered a decade after the other Doris Ablemeister died. Nearly every single case of "fraud" they find is just like that.

Felons voting has also been claimed to have been the reason that Al Franken won. It's true that a few hundred felons voted, and had 95% of them voted for Al Franken, the race would have been close. Do felons have an inherent lean? I'm not sure, that would be interesting to know.
 
Swaths?
Do you have a link for that?
The only people I know of that have been stripped Constitutionally guaranteed rights were victims of the Obama DOJ and IRS.
Now THERE were some swaths.
You saw "swaths" but missed "risks"?
 
Texas voter ID law could have disenfranchised 600,000 citizens

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/05/got-id

I think 600k in one state alone qualifies as a "swath." Don't you?

From your link:

"From 2000 to 2015, according to the New York Times, the 2011 voter-ID law could have prevented “no more than three or four infractions” qualifying as voter fraud. "

So, what is it? "three or four" or 600,000?

Seems like a pretty wide "swath" of hyperbole. On the one hand this will disenfranchise 600,000 and on the other it would only affect three or four infractions.

Which is it? Just trying to establish what is defined as a "swath".
 
First of all, this source you cite includes "false registrations", which doesn't mean voter fraud. Furthermore, of the first several cases of "false registration" listed, none of them has suggested the person voted under their false registration. In fact, several of them were to run for an elected position, not to vote. So your "1000 cases" already has a HUGE problem with integrity.

Second of all, I see at least one of the cases goes all the way back to 1991. That's over 25 years ago. In that time, in JUST presidential elections alone, the Republican and Democratic candidates have received over 775,000,000 votes (this doesn't include third party votes, which would push the total over 800,000,000 on Ross Perot's votes alone). This means, according to my math, if we accept as true your 1071 cases (which isn't true for reasons already mentioned) you're talking about .000138 percent of votes being fraudulent.

So yes, imagine what an in-depth investigation would reveal...MAYBE it'd get up to .000139%. Who knows? :roll:

Right On, Good Job! What we need to spend time and energy on is updating some of our voting machines, computer systems and things along this line.
 
There have been very well documented abuses of the voting systems. Any reasonable person accepts this.
Any reasonable person recognizes that there have been very few cases of voting fraud.


There have been various instances of more votes cast than registered voters, people voting at various polls and so forth.
Uh, hello? Again, Heritage dug up every single case it could find, and it averaged less than 30 fraudulent votes per year, or approximately 0.000024% of all votes were fraudulent.

That is nowhere near enough of a problem to justify the disenfranchising of hundreds of thousands (if not potentially millions) of voters.


It is understood that there are abuses, but the winners NEVER investigate and the losers can't.
Except that the winners often DO look for fraud. Numerous Republican state administrations keep looking for fraud, and rarely find it.


Disenfranchising voters? Seriously? You're dreaming.
...no, I'm just paying attention to the news.
 
From your link:

"From 2000 to 2015, according to the New York Times, the 2011 voter-ID law could have prevented “no more than three or four infractions” qualifying as voter fraud. "

So, what is it? "three or four" or 600,000?

Seems like a pretty wide "swath" of hyperbole. On the one hand this will disenfranchise 600,000 and on the other it would only affect three or four infractions.

Which is it? Just trying to establish what is defined as a "swath".

This seems to be discussing two related but different categories.

One is acts of voter fraud—there were three or four which could have been prevented

The other category is people who're at risk of being disenfranchised—600k

So you see, it's not an either or the way you're presenting it.

It's actually two different number for two different categories
 
From your link:

"From 2000 to 2015, according to the New York Times, the 2011 voter-ID law could have prevented “no more than three or four infractions” qualifying as voter fraud. "

So, what is it? "three or four" or 600,000?

Seems like a pretty wide "swath" of hyperbole.
Your reading comprehension skills leave a bit to be desired.

The Texas voter law could have prevented up to 600,000 citizens from voting (as they are voting-age citizens who don't have photo ID) -- and probably would have only blocked three or four cases of voter fraud.

Get it?
 
Back
Top Bottom