10-30-2013 01:49 AM
229 ... 78910
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    If "99.99997% of votes are valid," then 0.00003% of voter fraud is 0.00003% too much. I agree, bring knowledge and an ID to vote. I am all for making IDs free by the way. I can understand paying for a drivers license as the money will got to the state's motor vehicle agency, but paying for an ID?
    Yes, .00003% is too much, but is that the highest priority to making elections fair? Or should we concentrate on creating parity between a votes and results? *shrug* We have to consider diminishing returns when thinking about the return on the investment to eliminate fraud. Just like in every other crime, preventative measures only go so far, there will be a tiny amount of people who go out of their way to break the law, on purpose. Is it worth $10 billion to eliminate .00001%? $100 billion? Do we have anything more important we could spend $100 billion on? (numbers for example, I haven't seen a plan that costs $10 or $100 billion).

    I'd have no objection to everyone being required to OWN (not necessarily carry) an ID if it's free, and to bring it to conduct civic business, such as voting, being a juror, etc. Also no issue with charging money for it to be a driver's license, or other special purpose ID.
    10-26-2013 06:54 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I still maintain that all fraud statistics refer to those caught. How would we ever know how many fraudulent votes there really are? They show up, they vote under someone else's name, they leave.
    10-26-2013 07:00 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    I still maintain that all fraud statistics refer to those caught. How would we ever know how many fraudulent votes there really are? They show up, they vote under someone else's name, they leave.
    They show up, they know the other person will not show up, they know the person's name, address and have a matching signature to that person and are not recognized by anyone in the community. They're willing to accept the identy theft and voter fraud criminal charges in order to cast 1 vote in an ocean of votes either for or against a candidate that is most likely predetermined in their most likely not a swing state, and therefore doesn't even need to be counted.

    I'm not saying that there are not people that do that, but as there is literally no upside to them, and a lot of effort for literally no return, I would assume those people are probably darwining themselves at an infinitely higher rate than they're impacting election results.

    Realistically, there are how many counties where your vote makes any difference at all other than statistical regression? You have to be in a swing state, voting in the narrowest of races, against the odds and have your state's votes actually counted prior to the concession of one candidate or the other, which nearly always happens on election night based on exit polls, prior to hardly any votes being counted.
    10-26-2013 07:05 PM
  4. Fairclough's Avatar
    In Australia it appears that If a person wanted to they could easily vote more than once..easily. I know here, there are forces trying to take advantage of our voting system in much of the way I described earlier. We've had counties and cities here that have more votes than citizens. So yeah I see no problem in requiring an id.
    Illegal voting perhaps matters less to you because I suspect you don't have a large illegal alien population. If we dropped 15 million non - Australian people there. Would you be anymore concerned about one of them or millions of them voting illegally? Or would you feel safer if every voter had to display an id?
    How do you get on the list of eligible voters in Australia?
    How is it easy when it detects who has voted twice considering EVERYONE votes?
    If there was 15 million illegal voters I can guarantee they would re do the election and modify it as it would mean everyone would be voting twice. To originally get on the list as I previously posted you show ID when registering your details with AEC I believe while your doing ATO (tax) details in high school. If you obviously didnt do that your register through the departments were you require photo ID to initially get on the roll.

    If you want to talk about actual potential damage, it takes 1 vote to win or lose an election. The winner(or in some cases looser) has the power to change many things. The more in powerful the office, the more ability that person has to change. Potentially for the worse. Adolf Hitler ring a bell? One vote can change the world. The minute you forget that is the minute that you relinquish all power to those above you. Every vote matters in a big way.
    So yes, the potential for a vote to cause more harm than a gun is greater. Just like the potential for a nuclear weapon to cause harm is more than a gun. To a lesser extent than a vote actually sense the elected official could have access to multiple nuclear weapons.
    Now statistically the odds are obviously in the vote's favor for doing less harm. But at the same time, legal limits only limit those that follow the laws. If someone wants to hurt people, they are going to do it. Gun or pressure cooker or car.
    I would say that if Australia had very similar gun laws to the US and had all these mass murders that there is or was some very serious societal issues going on. You see it takes a person behind a gun for those events to happen. I would speculate that the lack of mass murders sense the ban of firearms has much more to do with societal changes than it does with guns. When you raise awareness on a mass scale and change the feelings of a population, that is much more powerful than the right to own a weapon or not ever will.
    First - We run on a preference system not the main votes - so bit of a difference in our polling. Secondly glad you agree that 1 vote does less harm than illegal gun owner. I wont get into the policy of control as I have debated this before. The states already has access to nuclear weapons so I don't think 1 vote will change that.

    The fact is, which one is illegal? Purchasing a gun LEGALLY, or voting ILLEGALLY? You are the one who keeps bringing up illegal gun owners, not me.
    Good, because I intend to keep my current gun collection, and possibly add more. I am looking at an AR15, but right now cant justify the cost with my wife. Especially since itll also be locked in my safe at my parents house.
    Why though? Why trample on my RIGHTS to own a gun, but not care about all of the people who are illegally voting? I would be all for showing an ID for both honestly. But it would have to be both, NOT one or the other. Also, do you forget that cars kill more people than guns?
    Like I said, I would not mind if I had to show an ID to buy a gun and to vote. However, it would have to be both and not one or the other. For the record, I am a LEGAL gun owner and a LEGAL voter.
    Again, stop bringing up illegal gun owners. The issue is showing ID to purchase a gun, and not having to show any ID to vote. Keep it on topic.

    Hey, that is how it works for voting, so why not? I wish they would routinely audit the voters list and strike off deceased people and those who no longer live there.
    You said you need id to buy a gun - they should use id to vote - So I am running of your example.
    If you were to compare apples with apples you would say Legal Gun owners are not creating crime nor is legal voters but your saying illegal voters are and nothing about illegal gun owners. Does that make sense?

    Maybe you should just make it compulsory to vote and these illegal votes would be diluted more,
    10-26-2013 08:11 PM
  5. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I still maintain that all fraud statistics refer to those caught. How would we ever know how many fraudulent votes there really are? They show up, they vote under someone else's name, they leave.
    That is what I am getting at. The statistics are just those who are caught. Let me make an analogy: if I were to get drunk and drive around Virginia Beach and not get caught, I will not count as a statistic because I was not caught. Sorry, that is the best analogy that I could think of at the moment.
    10-27-2013 10:27 AM
  6. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Yes, .00003% is too much, but is that the highest priority to making elections fair? Or should we concentrate on creating parity between a votes and results? *shrug* We have to consider diminishing returns when thinking about the return on the investment to eliminate fraud. Just like in every other crime, preventative measures only go so far, there will be a tiny amount of people who go out of their way to break the law, on purpose. Is it worth $10 billion to eliminate .00001%? $100 billion? Do we have anything more important we could spend $100 billion on? (numbers for example, I haven't seen a plan that costs $10 or $100 billion).

    I'd have no objection to everyone being required to OWN (not necessarily carry) an ID if it's free, and to bring it to conduct civic business, such as voting, being a juror, etc. Also no issue with charging money for it to be a driver's license, or other special purpose ID.
    I would say that it is fair. After all, it would be to deter crime and fraud. As for everyone being required to own an ID, I am all for that. You do need a photo ID to get a job. Something else I just learned, and the democrats will love this, is that you are required to show photo ID to vote in a union election. I wonder why this is, because unions are democrat organizations.
    10-27-2013 10:31 AM
  7. JW4VZW's Avatar
    They show up, they know the other person will not show up, they know the person's name, address and have a matching signature to that person and are not recognized by anyone in the community. They're willing to accept the identy theft and voter fraud criminal charges in order to cast 1 vote in an ocean of votes either for or against a candidate that is most likely predetermined in their most likely not a swing state, and therefore doesn't even need to be counted.

    I'm not saying that there are not people that do that, but as there is literally no upside to them, and a lot of effort for literally no return, I would assume those people are probably darwining themselves at an infinitely higher rate than they're impacting election results.

    Realistically, there are how many counties where your vote makes any difference at all other than statistical regression? You have to be in a swing state, voting in the narrowest of races, against the odds and have your state's votes actually counted prior to the concession of one candidate or the other, which nearly always happens on election night based on exit polls, prior to hardly any votes being counted.
    Wasn't there also some people getting an absentee ballot and going and voting in person? I am not one hundred percent certain, but I do remember hearing something about this.
    10-27-2013 10:32 AM
  8. JW4VZW's Avatar
    You said you need id to buy a gun - they should use id to vote - So I am running of your example.
    I personally think you should need an ID for both. However, fraud is fraud.
    If you were to compare apples with apples you would say Legal Gun owners are not creating crime nor is legal voters but your saying illegal voters are and nothing about illegal gun owners. Does that make sense?
    It does make sense, however you keep taking what I say about legal gun owners and illegal voters, and adding in illegal gun owners. The point that I am trying to make, and you seem to be ignoring, is that why make me show an ID to purchase a gun, which by the way is protected by the Second Amendment, but not require an ID to vote. Which leads to more fraud? Why trample over my Second Amendment Rights, just to let people vote fraudulently? There needs to be accountability somewhere, actually in both places. In a perfect world, you would need an ID to vote and to purchase a weapon. I mean you do need one to get a job after all. I have absolutely no objection to issuing state IDs for free. Why should someone pay the states motor vehicle agency if they will not be driving?
    Since it is slow at work, I will address the illegal gun owner issue that you keep bringing up. Like illegal voting, owning a gun illegally is just that, ILLEGAL. I hate the stereotype that is given to gun owners just because someone purchased a gun from a street corner and committed some crime with it. My guns have NEVER been used to cause harm to anyone, and would only be used for that purpose if someone were to attack myself or my family. I believe that most illegally owned guns were stolen from their legal owners, however please correct me if I am wrong. For the record, I am against people owning guns illegally, just like I am against people voting illegally. As I said earlier, both illegal voting and owning a gun illegally are just that, ILLEGAL.
    Maybe you should just make it compulsory to vote and these illegal votes would be diluted more,
    That could be a double edged sward. If people do something because they are required to, they usually dont take the care to do so properly. I would have ten people vote with an educated vote than I would have ten thousand people vote and not care. That is just my thoughts though. But if people are required to vote, I would hope that the register is audited periodically.
    10-27-2013 10:49 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    Wasn't there also some people getting an absentee ballot and going and voting in person? I am not one hundred percent certain, but I do remember hearing something about this.
    I know there were at least two people arrested for that in the last election. Really, the way we handle elections is absurd for a lot of reasons. Absentee ballots are a good example. Most states don't count them at all until a couple weeks after the election is over (and the concession has happened), I remember when I was in Korea the ballot they sent me wasn't even due until December 15th. Good luck getting that ballot to go 6 weeks back in time to be counted!
    10-27-2013 06:46 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    I remember seeing news coverage of elections in Iraq. After people voted, they would dip their finger into a bottle of semi-permanent ink to indicate that they had voted (and would be ineligible to vote again in the same election). Would something like that work in other elections?
    10-28-2013 05:28 PM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Now that you mention it, I remember those stories too. Certainly something worth looking in to, but I know there will likely be a fair bit of push back for something like that. Some legit like allergy/health concerns for some people. Others from the conspiracy groups like the people that think Obamacare is going to require universal microchip implants in us (not to drag that law debate in here, just using as an example).
    10-28-2013 06:12 PM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    Now that you mention it, I remember those stories too. Certainly something worth looking in to, but I know there will likely be a fair bit of push back for something like that. Some legit like allergy/health concerns for some people. Others from the conspiracy groups like the people that think Obamacare is going to require universal microchip implants in us (not to drag that law debate in here, just using as an example).
    It possible that there would be health concerns with applying semi-permanent ink on a person's body. Perhaps it should only be an option. For example, the first option would be to show ID to vote. If you don't have ID, you can choose the ink instead.

    Are there any concerns with microchip implants? They use those in dogs and cats, right? Could implants be a viable third option?
    10-28-2013 09:34 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Are there any concerns with microchip implants? They use those in dogs and cats, right? Could implants be a viable third option?
    One question. Are you ok with the forced implantation on everyone? (Btw, the conspiracy is based on a bastardization of some wording in a version of the ACA that was stripped out before being passed into law and so the microchip idea isn't even legal anyway)
    10-28-2013 10:02 PM
  14. llamabreath's Avatar
    One question. Are you ok with the forced implantation on everyone? (Btw, the conspiracy is based on a bastardization of some wording in a version of the ACA that was stripped out before being passed into law and so the microchip idea isn't even legal anyway)
    How do we know for sure that we haven't already been microchipped?

    Just a late-night, spooky thought.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-28-2013 10:15 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    How do we know for sure that we haven't already been microchipped?

    Just a late-night, spooky thought.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    No need, cell phones.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-28-2013 10:19 PM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    No need, cell phones.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    More specifically, SMARTPHONES, and thanks, I've mentioned this in recent months too.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-28-2013 10:22 PM
  17. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    How do we know for sure that we haven't already been microchipped?

    Just a late-night, spooky thought.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    Hmmm...

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    10-28-2013 10:24 PM
  18. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I know there were at least two people arrested for that in the last election. Really, the way we handle elections is absurd for a lot of reasons. Absentee ballots are a good example. Most states don't count them at all until a couple weeks after the election is over (and the concession has happened), I remember when I was in Korea the ballot they sent me wasn't even due until December 15th. Good luck getting that ballot to go 6 weeks back in time to be counted!
    Two people arrested does not mean that there were only two people who voted both in person and by an absentee ballot. Yes I think that the way that absentee ballots are handled needs to be improved. When I was stationed at Spangdahlem having my absentee ballot due long after election day. Granted, I did get it as soon as I was able to and had it mailed out the next day. Still, how can you call an election and not have all of the votes calculated?
    10-29-2013 01:03 PM
  19. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I remember seeing news coverage of elections in Iraq. After people voted, they would dip their finger into a bottle of semi-permanent ink to indicate that they had voted (and would be ineligible to vote again in the same election). Would something like that work in other elections?
    I am sure that someone will somehow find a way to remove the "semi-permanent ink" and vote again.
    10-29-2013 01:06 PM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    One question. Are you ok with the forced implantation on everyone?
    I would be okay with that. Throw in bluetooth, GPS, and LTE, and I'd be a happy camper.
    10-29-2013 03:03 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    I am sure that someone will somehow find a way to remove the "semi-permanent ink" and vote again.
    I'm sure if you dipped your finger in acid, you could remove the ink... but then you would also remove your finger. It's not exactly a smart idea.
    10-29-2013 03:04 PM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    I did communications in the Air Force, fun job btw. While the behavior was not typical of the whole military, I would say that it was typical amongst the black community, as I have heard from family members the same thing. I have a family member who's a police officer in Philadelphia, and he told me that he heard the same thing being said there.
    Did you ever work with forward air controllers (FAC)? I believe those are air force personnel who call in close air support (CAS).

    As for the people who voted for Obama, what if Herman Cain and Joe Biden were running for president in 2016? Would the people who voted for Obama suddenly vote for Cain, even though Cain has different policies than Obama? Or would they vote for Biden because he has the same policies as Obama?
    10-29-2013 03:41 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    As for the people who voted for Obama, what if Herman Cain and Joe Biden were running for president in 2016? Would the people who voted for Obama suddenly vote for Cain, even though Cain has different policies than Obama? Or would they vote for Biden because he has the same policies as Obama?
    The only Democrats that ever voted for a Republican Presidential candidate en masse were the Reagan Democrats. I think in your scenario, they would still vote Democrat.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-29-2013 04:47 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    When I was stationed at Spangdahlem having my absentee ballot due long after election day. Granted, I did get it as soon as I was able to and had it mailed out the next day. Still, how can you call an election and not have all of the votes calculated?
    You can end an election without counting the absentee ballots if there are so few of them that the results of an election won't be affected either way. For example, if all the votes are cast and one candidate is leading by 1000 regular (non-absentee) votes, they won't count the absentee ballots unless there are at least 1000 of them.
    10-29-2013 05:06 PM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    If I'm not mistaken, there are states where the electoral college votes are split based on how the popular vote goes in the state. So even if counting absentee ballots can't change the popular vote winner, it could affect how the electoral college votes go and still have an effect on the presidency. But if I am mistaken and have my facts mixed up, feel free to ignore this. It's been a while since I've heard how those states work.
    10-29-2013 05:21 PM
229 ... 78910

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-25-2015, 02:19 PM
  2. Getting Rid of Touch WIz, Mobile ID and or Virgin Mobile's Essentials
    By WereWolves_Bite in forum Android 4.1 / 4.2 / 4.3 Jelly Bean
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 05:55 AM
  3. Caller ID question...
    By Jason Mau in forum Motorola Droid MAXX
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 03:39 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2013, 12:34 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD