dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5808
share rss forum feed

Oedipus

join:2005-05-09
kudos:1
reply to Blogger

Re: Guilford Co. voters say ballot cast for Romney came up Obama

If they cheat equally, as you say, then it is not a problem.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

2 recommendations

said by Oedipus:

If they cheat equally, as you say, then it is not a problem.

That's nonsense, and no basis on which to build our elected government.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

said by Krisnatharok:

said by Oedipus:

If they cheat equally, as you say, then it is not a problem.

That's nonsense, and no basis on which to build our elected government.

The only real way I can see to get control of this cat herding we call elections is to create a non-partisan, independent, and national elections commission that is responsible for setting up and running elections nation wide. Add to this universal enfranchisement and continuous voter verification to ensure that as people move between jurisdictions, that they are automatically removed from their od districts and added to their new districts.

If we can do this with driver's licenses and taxes, we sure as *** can do it with voter registration and verification...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

By law only American citizens can vote, and they are only allowed to vote one time in each election. They also cannot have someone acting as their proxy vote for them.

That means:

When a person registers at the very least for the first time it probably would be a good idea that they provide verification that they are citizens.

Also, when or wherever they vote they should show proof of address as that will determine the polling location where they may vote at if they vote in person instead of by absentee ballot. This is to insure that voters actually vote just one time in an election.

When they go to the polls their names are on the list those registered to vote for that polling place. It probably would b a good idea that when the Frank Q. Voter shows up, and gives his name he show proof that he is in fact Frank Q. Voter.

Well we can't do or implement any of that nonsense! Don't you know it will disenfranchise the voter and interfere with democracy! I mean those procedures, requirements or steps ranks right up there with denying people to vote based on race and gender.

Seriously, the fact you have people strenuously opposing or fighting over that listed is pathetic. It is also some of the many reasons why cheating or fraud in various forms will continue to thrive as it has in the past.


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by Blogger:

When a person registers at the very least for the first time it probably would be a good idea that they provide verification that they are citizens.

Side question: what is such proof, for a natural-born American? I think only your birth certificate would suffice.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by dave:

said by Blogger:

When a person registers at the very least for the first time it probably would be a good idea that they provide verification that they are citizens.

Side question: what is such proof, for a natural-born American? I think only your birth certificate would suffice.

Or perhaps a secure document that itself requires a birth certificate to obtain (such as a passport or a Fed-compliant driver's license).
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to coldmoon

said by coldmoon:

The only real way I can see to get control of this cat herding we call elections is to create a non-partisan, independent, and national elections commission that is responsible for setting up and running elections nation wide. Add to this universal enfranchisement and continuous voter verification to ensure that as people move between jurisdictions, that they are automatically removed from their od districts and added to their new districts.

IMHO the biggest problem with contemporary elections is - it's not the people, who vote, it's the money. It especially becomes vivid after infamous citizens united ruling... As a result of the ruling, huge amount of money now is allowed to skew any decisions we make. Here is example. In CA past several months there was a huge stream of ads bought by lobbies and directed against proposition, that required to put a label on food, made with genetically modified products. With huge amount of money provided for ads from lobbies people have decided - no, we don't want to know what we eat... I guess next time some interests will propose to remove the "Nutrition Facts" label and with big money provided we probably will decide to remove it too. Or may be "Made in USA" will go next, to allow flood of products from China come here and replace our own products unnoticed. Under the money influence we start going backwards, don't you think?

The only solution to make our decisions wise is to remove money from its ruling position in election process. Lets allow any person, any corporation to donate any amount of money to election process. Then candidates will get fair share of the money from that election pool to spend to promote their ideas. We, The People, should decide what is better for this country, not the money...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by OZO:

said by coldmoon:

The only real way I can see to get control of this cat herding we call elections is to create a non-partisan, independent, and national elections commission that is responsible for setting up and running elections nation wide. Add to this universal enfranchisement and continuous voter verification to ensure that as people move between jurisdictions, that they are automatically removed from their od districts and added to their new districts.

... The only solution to make our decisions wise is to remove money from its ruling position in election process. Lets allow any person, any corporation to donate any amount of money to election process. Then candidates will get fair share of the money from that election pool to spend to promote their ideas. We, The People, should decide what is better for this country, not the money...

Which is where it all breaks down. What is a "fair share"? The exact same payout for each candidate, or for candidates from just the two big parties? Or a proportional payout to any candidate based on... what? His affiliated party's turnout in the last prior election? (In which case a minor third-party candidate will always get a minor share of the payouts, remaining forever locked into a minor-party class.) What about an independent candidate with no party affiliation, or those attempting to mount write-in campaigns? And on referendums, who qualifies to receive a "pro" or a "con" positional payout?

We the People do decide what is better for the country. It's just that many of the "we" don't always choose wisely, being swayed by everything from massive campaign or 'position' advertising to free cell phones (or bus rides, or even hamburgers) to whatever scheme d'jour is conjured up by various party politicos and their ad agencies or affiliated lobbies in each election. But, wise or not, the choice remains ours. What is actually most-needed are some critical thinking skills and a willingness for voters to sift through all the nonsense to some basic truths... but those are a lot harder to come by than simply conjuring up more rules and regulations that end up really accomplishing nothing.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
reply to dave

said by dave:

said by Blogger:

When a person registers at the very least for the first time it probably would be a good idea that they provide verification that they are citizens.

Side question: what is such proof, for a natural-born American? I think only your birth certificate would suffice.

That may be correct. Does one during the process of and upon completing the naturalization process and upon taking the oath not get some type of documentation to confirm that they are citizens? I don't know but I would guess they must considering the intensity of the process. But even if they do not certainly it would be a minor effort to insert that result into the process for the future. There are many options but why not in the process include provisions for them getting a passport upon completing it. Just a suggestion. I'm not limiting the concept to it must be a passport simply offering it up as one of many possible solutions. But look at also the benefit to the new citizen of in the process of getting that citizenship at the end they also have a passport. That is potentially a great benefit to them.

Then of course there is the federal government struggling to implement the Real ID Law that if successfully implemented or some off shoot version of it would solve that problem.

The bottom line is that the nation should and has been over time with increasing efforts been working toward seeing that every one is this country have proof that they are who they say they are and their citizenship or for non-citizens that when necessary can show that they are here legally. (For instance if applying to a work position with an employer.)

Certainly, our ID technology is evolving but needs improvement. We are one of the few if only Western or First World countries that do not have some form of ID that functions as a national ID card.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Blogger

You miss the point of what I am saying. Our current ad-hock process is a chaotic joke. Each district sets its own process guided by State rules that have no standards to refer to or guide anyone through the process. We spend time yelling at others to get their act together while we can't find our shoes in the middle of an empty room.

There needs to be one consistent national standard that all districts must follow or be fined/face jail time for not following. This process in turn needs to be staffed with non-partisan professionals whose only focus is to run and police elections where local, corrupt party machines have no say in how they do their jobs...period...
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

No I didn't miss it. I simply didn't respond to it or comment on it directly. (No insult or disrespect intended.)

The fly in the buttermilk for your proposed solution as stated is there is no national jurisdiction for many voting procedures and ballots. The jurisdiction is by state, county, municipality, etc.

That is why the federal National Real ID law has floundered so badly. The feds lack the authority to implement it. The states have to voluntarily agree to the what the feds would like them to do and many of the states are for differing reasons refusing to do so.

Heck, even at the simplest of levels there has never in the history of this country been a ballot that didn't confuse 20 percent of the people using it.


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

What is a "fair share"? The exact same payout for each candidate, or for candidates from just the two big parties? Or a proportional payout to any candidate based on... what? His affiliated party's turnout in the last prior election? (In which case a minor third-party candidate will always get a minor share of the payouts, remaining forever locked into a minor-party class.) What about an independent candidate with no party affiliation, or those attempting to mount write-in campaigns? And on referendums, who qualifies to receive a "pro" or a "con" positional payout?

The exact same payout for each candidate. In other words, all candidates accepted by election committee should have equal amount of money spend on campaign. You try to overcomplicate the thing and it's the best way to loose clear vision on what is important here.

We the People do decide what is better for the country. It's just that many of the "we" don't always choose wisely, being swayed by everything from massive campaign or 'position' advertising to free cell phones (or bus rides, or even hamburgers) to whatever scheme d'jour is conjured up by various party politicos and their ad agencies or affiliated lobbies in each election. But, wise or not, the choice remains ours. What is actually most-needed are some critical thinking skills and a willingness for voters to sift through all the nonsense to some basic truths... but those are a lot harder to come by than simply conjuring up more rules and regulations that end up really accomplishing nothing.

Again, keep it simple. As you've mentioned, people are bought and sold. Those, who flood our elections with their money, make decisions directly or indirectly benefiting them. Their money rules the elections now.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by OZO:

... You try to overcomplicate the thing and it's the best way to loose clear vision on what is important here.
... Again, keep it simple. ...

I don't need to "try to overcomplicate the thing"... it 'overcomplicates' itself. You're assuming the "election committee" itself will live in some abstract, ivory tower that's unaffected by the political persuasions of its members or those who select its members. Case in point: in most locales, getting on the ballot (and presumably qualifying for a payout) is very dependent on being a member of either of the two major political parties, in large measure because most of those who make ballot determinations (the current "election committee") game the system in favor of the two political parties. I have no expectation this will change, particularly when including "outside" candidates reduces the available pot size for the two major-party contenders. In the same manner, when a non-partisan "issue" referendum (as you described in California) makes it onto the ballot, how would an election committee ever determine exactly "who" is the best recipient of funding for the pro and con sides? These are not trivial problems, and they are not overcomplications - they are logical consequences of setting regulations to limit outside financial involvement in favor of some amorphous "committee".

More significantly, how do you legitimately prohibit the Constitutional exercise of free speech by telling somebody or group of somebodies that they're suddenly not permitted to independently voice their election concern or opinions via their own paid participation in various media? That's no idle "overcomplication". It goes to the heart of the issue.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Blogger

said by Blogger:

Does one during the process of and upon completing the naturalization process and upon taking the oath not get some type of documentation to confirm that they are citizens?

Perhaps you missed my point. It's probable that a naturalized citizen can lay their hands on paperwork to prove their citizenship, but what paperwork would someone born here have available to present as proof?

Yeah, 'the same requirements as for a passport application' sounds reasonable - I was overlooking passports. The requirements are:

said by »travel.state.gov/passport/get/fi···ep3first :
- Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
- Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state
- Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
- Naturalization Certificate
- Certificate of Citizenship

If you can't come up with that, there's a secondary verification, which requires you to present documents which don't necessarily prove you're a citizen, and appear with a citizen or resident who can vouch for you, and then sign an affidavit. Ultimately it appears to rest on someone's word.

--

So should that sort of thing going to be acceptable proof of 'ability to vote' in the event that a citizen can't get a copy of his birth certificate? I'm asking this as a practical matter of implementation, nothing more.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by dave:

... If you can't come up with that, there's a secondary verification, which requires you to present documents which don't necessarily prove you're a citizen, and appear with a citizen or resident who can vouch for you, and then sign an affidavit. Ultimately it appears to rest on someone's word.
--
So should that sort of thing going to be acceptable proof of 'ability to vote' in the event that a citizen can't get a copy of his birth certificate? I'm asking this as a practical matter of implementation, nothing more.

Aren't there really two elements involved - proving a certain-named person is a citizen and proving you're that same person? I believe that proving one is a citizen should be done well before election during a "registration" process, and should require more formal documentation (and possibly co-citizen affirmation and affidavit in a few cases). That record then becomes a certified part of the voter registration rolls.

Proving you're who you claim to be on voting day should be another issue entirely, in which case you merely have to prove beyond doubt that you are who you claim, and that claimed person must be present in the voter registration lists. Secure photo-ID works very well for this; mere possession of a utility bill or a purely verbal claim does not.

In any case, a voter's citizenship need not, nor should not, ever be an issue at the poll itself... as long as he can prove he's somebody already known to be a citizen who is registered to vote.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

I don't need to "try to overcomplicate the thing"... it 'overcomplicates' itself.

Yeah, right...

You're assuming the "election committee" itself will live in some abstract, ivory tower that's unaffected by the political persuasions of its members or those who select its members.

Where the committee lives is not important at all. What they do and how do they do it should be strictly defined by law. I assuming nothing less and nothing more...

Case in point: in most locales, getting on the ballot (and presumably qualifying for a payout) is very dependent on being a member of either of the two major political parties, in large measure because most of those who make ballot determinations (the current "election committee") game the system in favor of the two political parties. I have no expectation this will change, particularly when including "outside" candidates reduces the available pot size for the two major-party contenders. In the same manner, when a non-partisan "issue" referendum (as you described in California) makes it onto the ballot, how would an election committee ever determine exactly "who" is the best recipient of funding for the pro and con sides? These are not trivial problems, and they are not overcomplications - they are logical consequences of setting regulations to limit outside financial involvement in favor of some amorphous "committee".

I'm not looking for problems, I'm looking for solutions. Two parties are representing in basically the same - the financial oligarchy. They only differ in some details, which they make to seems to us very important, while they're essentially not.

With reducing pressure from the money on election process (e.g. with the way I described earlier) the strict "necessity" of two parties status quo will diminish. We'll see more broad representation of different groups of people. Which is, IMHO, is always good thing...

More significantly, how do you legitimately prohibit the Constitutional exercise of free speech by telling somebody or group of somebodies that they're suddenly not permitted to independently voice their election concern or opinions via their own paid participation in various media? That's no idle "overcomplication". It goes to the heart of the issue.

Everyone is welcome to independently vote and express their opinion. But with regards to election campaigns and their pressure on media we already have limitations and working triggers right now
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Blackbird

Agreed with all that - this is all a follow-on from Blogger See Profile's requirement that voters prove elegibility to vote at 'first registration' - with me wondering what authenticating documents people would have (does no-one lose a birth certificate?)



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

1 edit
reply to dave

Dave, I hear where you are coming from and I don't dispute any of the facts that you state.

The thing is the country in certain ways has not adjusted or adopted to changes over the past 40 or so plus years in the changes in immigration and its huge impact, advancing technology, and general societal changes in numerous areas. In the area of adequate proof of identification in general and for voting or citizenship specifically we are stuck with the current situation. As a nation we suck.

The federal and state governments need to come together and do that better. Many of the states have done a pretty good job in valid ID's for everything but citizenship and proof of right to work. Those two tend to fall under the feds responsibility. However, rather than take an active leading role in that they have without regard to the DNC or the GOP been that way across the board. The only effort they've really made so is the previously mentioned which is the Real ID Law do to go into effect in January of 2013. Unfortunately, the law is not enforceable by the feds because the ID documents they want adjusted in part revolve around drivers licenses and it is only the states that have the right and authority to decide what to do and not to do with how they issue them, etc. Since numerous states are outright refusing to comply with the feds request we are as I type this stuck dead still in the mud and the law in January as written will not be enforceable because it depends upon all 50 states complying. Probably, I'm just guessing at the numbers now up to 20 states either of said flat out they are not going to comply or they will not comply by the January deadline but they will consider complying down the road.

The thing is those with authority must act. That starts with a national acknowledgement of the problem and the seriousness of it. Then with the understanding that correcting will take years we can start on the path to the goal we will decide on as what would be at the end of the road. A national ID of some type for all citizens and proper ID for all non-citizens. The Green Card would be a good mini-example of that--it of course applies to non-citizens that have immigrated here legally and been verified and checked. Actually, as I think about it the Green Card actually is all most exactly the same as a National ID Card for non-citizens here legally with the right to work here. I wonder how many people have had the idea occur to them. (Hey I have to take credit where I get a chance.)

ADDENDUM: Voter ID requirements vary by state and then even in terms of enforcement varies within some states. But in most, not all, you just have to show an acceptable regular ID with a DMV license or ID card the most common and swear that you are a US citizen. That's it. Hey what go wrong with that system?



fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 recommendation

said by Blogger:

The thing is those with authority must act. That starts with a national acknowledgement of the problem and the seriousness of it.

An acknowledgement of the problem can't happen until the problem's demonstrated to be a, um, problem. And most of the allegations of voting fraud are vague, alarmist, unproven, and coming from one particular political party. The "solution" of heightened requirements for voting is also pushed basically by that particular political party, knowing that one effect it will have is lessening the number of votes cast by the opposing party.

This gets argued to death on the internet and talk radio, but the bottom line is that most people in the country aren't up in arms to implement heightened voting requirements that seem designed more to eliminate valid votes than to eliminate invalid votes. There are millions and millions of people to convince --- out there, not here on an internet forum. Real people who really vote. Stating over and over that voter fraud is a problem doesn't demonstrate it.

This is a political tactic right now, and not a demonstrated problem worth "solving" in a way that makes it more difficult for legit voters to vote.
--
my pants are parched and thirsty


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

The politicians, the "government" and the political extremists are nothing but a pain in the ass regarding the general topic of solid all around ID in general and then ID that is adequate too for voting.

When I say extremist that is a broad brush label that encompasses both "good" and "not so good" people that in one capacity or the other sees politics as a religion to be fervently practiced. (Whether they realize it or not.) Combine that with the fact that politics has also evolved in the last twenty years to be so inflammatory partisan and demonizing of political "opponents" in the worse ways.

There are plenty of people that want fair election and proper identification at all levels that require it in this nation and those people, like myself, have absolutely no political agenda or motives behind it. Our only motives is just proper fair complete non-politically based ID to permit its use in those area require it.

I'm old enough that I will never see the problem solved or properly addressed if it ever is. I'm also old enough to have seen when politics all though adversarial was not so hostile and polarizing with people of opposing political views often looking upon those that don't share their views a some sort of genuine enemy and bad or evil. I can remember when the main difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" was that all though for the most part they agreed how things were they just disagreed on how they should be fixed. "Extremists" or the fervent political types were a very much smaller percentage than now.

I sometimes wonder what event or series of events will it take for it to happen. Naturally I would prefer the event to be common sense and people of all types without regard to any agenda, especially political or pseudo-political to act together in good faith to solve the ID issues and the issues related to them that permeate society in the US. The ONLY goal is to see everyone has accurate ID and accurate ID is required where appropriate.