[2Cdo]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hell, if the US did just as much as Canada does to secure the vote it would be a vast imporvement.

Anyone care to tell me why the US adopting Canadian policies on vote security would be racist?

Anyone?

Because Trump,,,,,,, and it's 2017.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hell, if the US did just as much as Canada does to secure the vote it would be a vast imporvement.

Anyone care to tell me why the US adopting Canadian policies on vote security would be racist?

Anyone?

I suggested once that you should have a central federalized elections department that oversees and organizes the national elections so that a single countrywide standard is met and maintained. No more county boards rigging things in their favour. No more moronic state AG's interfering in favour of her own party like that one in Florida did in 2000 for Dubya. No more voting machines that haven't been maintained or calibrated since the Nixon years. No more embarrassment of "dangling chads".

Yes, I suggested this as a solution. Then you said "nope, elections fall under state's rights, end of discussion" and that was that for common sense, as usual.

[xerxes]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hell, if the US did just as much as Canada does to secure the vote it would be a vast imporvement.

Anyone care to tell me why the US adopting Canadian policies on vote security would be racist?

Anyone?

It wouldn't. but Republicans wouldn't win races anywhere nears as much under a fair system.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

No more moronic state AG's interfering in favour of her own party like that one in Florida did in 2000 for Dubya.

FFS how many times do I have to go over this?

When Florida was run by the Democrats their Democrat legislature passed a law (and Democrat Governor Lawton Chiles signed it) requiring all elections to be certified no later than seven days after an election. The law specifically prohibited recounts that took place after that period from having an effect on the outcome. Ironically this was meant to stop the Republicans in the Panhandle from using this tactic to fuck with the elections.

When it suited the Democrats they tried to ignore their own law. The United States Supreme Court didn't let them get away with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

$1:

Florida law also required all counties to certify their election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election,[8] and several of the counties conducting manual recounts did not believe they could meet this deadline. On November 14, the statutory deadline, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the seven-day deadline was mandatory

Changing the law by judicial fiat after the election had taken place is strictly prohibited in the US Constitution's ex post facto clause.

So if the Democrats didn't like the fact that they couldn't keep counting ballots until they got the result they wanted then they shouldn't have passed a law making exactly that kind of fucktardiness illegal.

[BartSimpson]

xerxes xerxes:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hell, if the US did just as much as Canada does to secure the vote it would be a vast imporvement.

Anyone care to tell me why the US adopting Canadian policies on vote security would be racist?

Anyone?

It wouldn't. but Republicans wouldn't win races anywhere nears as much under a fair system.

It's not the Republicans who are defending the current system and objecting to a system like Canada's.

[Robair]

I'm a large scale voter fraud denier

[BartSimpson]

Robair Robair:

I'm a large scale voter fraud denier

Funny, this is probably the first time the WINNER of an election has complained about voter fraud.

[xerxes]

This showing what a bad winner he is. And also what an overwhelming narcissist he is. It obvious mommy and daddy didn't love baby Donald enough because he constantly needs validation, either from others or by himself.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

BRAH BRAH:

Johnny Manziel is done with Twitter “distraction”

$1:

Not long after former Browns quarterback Johnny Manziel sent the President of the United States some advice about social media via social media, he deleted his social media account.

Now, he says he got out of the Twitter business because it was a “distraction” for him as he tries to get back to the NFL.

“Twitter has been nothing but a distraction for me. I’ve said all I can say,” Manziel told TMZ Sports. “Now I need to shut the hell up and work on bettering myself and my situation.”

http://soco.space/byEd58
__________________________

$1:

bigblue00 says:
Jan 24, 2017 2:18 PM
funny how your twitter career was longer, and more memorable than your football career

Twitter is the least of Johnny Football's problems while Trump will never give that shit up.

OMFG JOHNNY Manziel has abandoned Twitter how will I live now?

_______________

That's Johnny Football!

[BeaverFever]

What a load of crap a right wing lies. More alternative facts from the Luar in Chief

You Deplorables know that Trump’s own attorneys argued that there was no evidence of voter fraud when they were trying to block Jill Stein’s recount right?

Shameless but entertaining.

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

xerxes xerxes:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hell, if the US did just as much as Canada does to secure the vote it would be a vast imporvement.

Anyone care to tell me why the US adopting Canadian policies on vote security would be racist?

Anyone?

It wouldn't. but Republicans wouldn't win races anywhere nears as much under a fair system.

It's not the Republicans who are defending the current system and objecting to a system like Canada's.

Yes, but it's also not the Republicans who are trying to move forward with a system like Canada's. A large amount of what the Canadian system includes, such as a centralized body that handles federal elections, unified voter ID laws (which provide the broadest possible definition of ID available), allowing criminals the vote, allowing for transgender ID changes, non-partisan non-elected officials, universal registration at the polls, unlimited national funding, and limited control of non-federal actors in drawing electoral lines, are not on the books for Republican policy.

I'd also like to point out that sources used by yourself and used by Pew, as well as others in this thread, all draw very similar conclusions; the largest risk to the voting system is not voter fraud, but voter disenfranchisement and an aging, bureaucratic system loaded with inefficiencies. Any process with millions of useless files is going to be slower and less efficient, and most of the issues come from a lack of sharing data across state lines. Voter fraud can still be tracked, it's just a huge pain in the ass.

I've worked with Elections Canada in the past in a few roles (including handling their database!), and if you want the system we use up here, I strongly encourage it. That is, in part, because "rolls" wouldn't be purged, but simply consolidated. Purges have the capacity to easily drag a lot of actual voters with them, whereas consolidation allows us to move voters after each election (you can opt out but would have to re-register each time). IDs should be a lot easier to get -- ID cards with pictures on them are relatively easy and cheap to get in Canada, and even if you don't have photo ID you can bring in other forms of ID to get in the voting booth. Although we have ID laws in Canada they are quite lax; when we did an on-campus initiative to make it easier for students to vote, a lot of people were surprised when we'd accept pill bottles or a time table or their online banking on their iPhone as ID. If you don't live off the grid in an illegally built shack you've likely got at least six or seven acceptable pieces of ID.

Additionally, those who show up at the polls with sufficient ID should be allowed to vote. We allow for people to register literally on the spot at the polling station. There is no real gain to stopping the registration process at any point before you go in to vote.

The body doing it should be non-partisan and not subjected to funding caps. Such caps are how long lines frequently occur in the US, or how stations run out of ballots, etc. Oversight from citizen, rather than partisan, bodies should mandatory. The role of partisans is to scrutinize the vote, and not play an elected role in it. Nor should states be allowed to draw their own lines; the whims of any particular party in a state should be irrelevant, and has caused enough issues with gerrymandering down in the USA.

The problem with both parties being against this goes against partisan concerns, but into the way the American psyche works; excessive pride in the current (supposedly superior) system, distaste of federalization, and a need to vote in everyone down to the dog catcher, regardless of technical proficiency or dedication. Systems like this work (and by your own commentary and sources, work well) because it's run fully by the Government of Canada with oversight by civilian sources and with tertiary viewing by scrutineers and partisan sources (who cannot give orders to Government staff).

However, when Republicans call for stricter photo ID laws, or keeping the federal government out of the process, they are looking at the opposite of the Canadian system. It's not just a Democrat problem that's limiting new laws that would make the system more efficient, accessible, and secure -- it's quite literally a universal American issue.

Moreover, and I really have to stress this, people who believe in voter fraud really do need to read the sourced studies. Most of them do deal with voting rolls and provide straightforward and easily understood methods of identifying if there were fraudulent votes. There have been incredibly few cases that have been found, and there is enough data for these studies to actually conclude whether or not there have been cases of voting fraud. Consistently, whether dealing with a macro view or a micro view, studies by a full spectrum of researchers, independent or otherwise, have failed to find any significant evidence of voter fraud (as in, a literal handful of cases in millions of votes).

[martin14]

xerxes xerxes:

It wouldn't. but Republicans wouldn't win races anywhere nears as much under a fair system.

Ahh so you are quite happy to admit the voting system is being played with,
it's just your normal left wing delusions that only Republicans do it;
the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow.

ok.

Robair Robair:

I'm a large scale voter fraud denier

That's OK. But didn't you admit to being wrong about something a couple of days ago ?

Is it possible that **coughcoughyoucouldbewrongagaincoughcough** ?

[herbie]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Putting the argument aside for a moment the matter of making sure that the vote is secure is a matter of national security.

The solutions are simple:

1. Make sure that every person who votes has a legal right to do so.

2. Regulary purge the voter rolls of people who have died, moved away, are not entitled to vote, or who do not even exist.

It's not that radical at all.

No it's not that difficult at all. And doesn't require accusations massive of voting fraud.

$1:

* Approximately 24 million—one of
every eight—voter registrations in the
United States are no longer valid or
are significantly inaccurate.

* More than 1.8 million deceased
individuals are listed as voters.

* Approximately 2.75 million people
have registrations in more than one
state.

Meanwhile, researchers estimate at least
51 million eligible U.S. citizens are
unregistered, or more than 24 percent of
the eligible population.

Not one of which claims or proves voting fraud, just as you say - the records need to be cleaned up.

As for your comment about canadian voting rules, I always assumed they were the same in the USA. You register to vote (check box on your income tax here), get a voting card and go vote. If your poll is staffed by people from the neighborhood they cross you off the list and give you a ballot when you give them the card. If they don't know you or aren't sure, you show ID. If you aren't on the list but get vouched for, your ballot isn't counted unless there's a recount or something.
The last couple times I voted, they looked at everyone's ID, I don't know if that's law now or done out of rote so all voters are treated the same.
I mean as far as I can see, if they're dead or moved away they won't be showing up to vote will they? And that would explain 30 cases of people showing up claiming they were something else. MILLIONS would be a total mockery in a country that claims it's the bastion of democracy, and a President saying otherwise is just fucking dangerous!

[martin14]

Khar Khar:

I've worked with Elections Canada in the past in a few roles (including handling their database!), and if you want the system we use up here, I strongly encourage it. That is, in part, because "rolls" wouldn't be purged, but simply consolidated. Purges have the capacity to easily drag a lot of actual voters with them, whereas consolidation allows us to move voters after each election (you can opt out but would have to re-register each time). IDs should be a lot easier to get -- ID cards with pictures on them are relatively easy and cheap to get in Canada, and even if you don't have photo ID you can bring in other forms of ID to get in the voting booth. Although we have ID laws in Canada they are quite lax; when we did an on-campus initiative to make it easier for students to vote, a lot of people were surprised when we'd accept pill bottles or a time table or their online banking on their iPhone as ID. If you don't live off the grid in an illegally built shack you've likely got at least six or seven acceptable pieces of ID.

Additionally, those who show up at the polls with sufficient ID should be allowed to vote. We allow for people to register literally on the spot at the polling station. There is no real gain to stopping the registration process at any point before you go in to vote.

Pill bottles and online banking.. cool.
We have a member here who lives in Canada but is not a citizen;
with your example, she could go vote. But is it fair that she votes ?

Also, it needs to be said that Canada does not have an illegal migration problem... yet.
We do not have the situation where 5 - 10% of the people in the country are there illegally.
The rules we set up reflect that.. it is way too trusting.

Try to get anything done in Europe without government issued ID, forget it.

Most US states will issue government ID for $10, so your arguments just don't hold water.
Now when you have States that give illegals things like driver's licenses, and when they are using that or nothing in non ID states to vote illegally, then you have a real problem.

[Khar]

She could vote, but she likely wouldn’t. For the record, she could have a driver’s licence as well, or several other forms of government issued ID (many of them with photos) from the Canadian government, without actually being Canadian. It’s why we ask people if they are Canadian citizens at the polls and impose stiff fines if someone votes who should not – because it’s incredibly difficult to demand all voters prove their citizenship at the poll to a bunch of people who got three hours training max on how to do their job and who aren’t government employees. However, suspected cases can still be tracked and investigated when needed. American systems and most other systems worldwide, unless you require the use of your passport or birth certificate or something similar, would have similar pitfalls.

The aim is to provide the capacity to investigate and punish where necessary. Demanding increasing levels of ID and security literally only makes it harder to vote in the status quo. As I’ve pointed out before, even with the American system, any credible study done by pretty much any source has consistently failed to find more than a handful of cases of voter fraud, something you still haven’t replied to, and a definite pre-requisite to any sort of corrective action. Any effort by Trump using any reliable research apparatus or method will likely turn up the exact same result.

The problems pointed to by Bart and by his articles within this thread use the more common perceived issue with the system, relating to voter rolls not being up to date. Most allegations of voter fraud have directly related to this kind of issue, and our system is set-up specifically to handle that by tracking voters and actively working to remove old records where possible and necessary. As an aside, the current apparatus also makes it much easier for those with citizenship to vote, because it’s easier to track where they live and instantly register them come election time.

We have a system in place where we register and re-register the majority of residents within each riding before election day even comes, so we easily cross-reference most people in the system. A lot of our information comes from existing government lists or registrars, including the folks who you pay your taxes to (there’s even a box on it that allows you to be registered, and most accountants select that for you unless you direct them otherwise). We track who has voted and who moved where, and have used the same database for several elections now; I moved some people who had moved a few times and had a record of all those prior moves, and why.

On removals; if you look up an address, there are few names associated with it because all I need to remove someone from the list is someone, with ID and proof of residence, telling me someone else no longer lives there. All this is coded into the system to make it easily traceable.

The primary role of ID has always been to identify where someone lives and to ensure they vote once in that riding. By having someone’s name and address from a recognized institution which requires a legitimate home address (health authorities, banks, utility bills, universities, and government offices) it proves that they do live in that location. All information used on polling day to register gets put into the system, and, yes, people do get caught if they tried to vote in more than one riding, because for the purposes of the election we list everyone who is voted (we then remove the names of those who don’t want to be on the register for the next election, often out of privacy concerns).

For the record, the UK also allows you to vote with something like a utility bill. In Germany you only need your polling notification, much like Switzerland. In Ireland you can use your bank books, your credit cards, etc. Denmark still doesn’t even require ID. Those that do require more provide them automatically to citizens, such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and so forth. So yes, “try to get anything done in Europe without government issued ID” and, in the case of voting, it’s fine in a lot of cases. It’s also a lot easier when ID is much easier to provide. These “way too trusting” systems continue to have very low levels of voter fraud.

When you say “most US states” then you know that, even at the most basic level, my arguments hold water. It’s also a combination of factors that you are not talking about here; first, that in many cases ID (such as state college ID) are not accepted when other forms of ID are (such as closed carry cards), making an additional barrier for certain citizens. To get a new ID in Texas if your old one has experienced requires something like your birth certificate; if you got married or your parents did since you were born and your name changed, it’s a $250 fee to get the information you need, for example, because your birth certificate is no longer correct. The elderly, who are less likely to have those documents, and the poor, or those who were victims of national disasters that ruined their homes (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, etc) are all somewhat disenfranchised and have to spend a fair chunk of money to get IDs (which, after a quick google search, run at minimum between 28-52 dollars depending on what the card is being used for).

Even in states like Wisconsin, where they will provide you a free ID card for the purposes of voting (reflecting that no one should have to pay a de facto tax to vote), what you need to get to obtain that card, if you don’t have it, can easily cost hundreds of dollars. Again, it’s a situation where the Canadian (or European) system is better, where IDs are easier to obtain, and government bodies are able to provide that information on a quicker basis.

I don’t think this is a problem with the voting system, however. I don’t think we should change the voting system to reflect that. I think we need to change the ID system in the States to reflect the needs of the people and, if that’s not possible, make use of the bevy of other forms of ID that are usable. Much like Canada’s system, which allows a broader array of access

Non-citizens already hold many forms of what you would likely consider acceptable ID, and many of them are in the US legally.