|
|
Post by Stetto, man... on Oct 22, 2014 3:35:38 GMT -7
Naw, no possible voter fraud here...I'm pissed enough that they've closed my polling place and force me to vote by mail. Once CO figures out the environmental impact of thousands upon tens of thousands of home-printed ballots (ten per envelope please, but all the envelopes full you want!), they'll venture into the vote-by-Twitter or 1-900 numbers, a la 'Merican Idol... I have many far-left friends in the music business up here, most of them "folkies", who magically and instantly transform from the most genteel of folks into wild, teeth-gnashing psychos upon hearing or reading the words "voter fraud". They obviously know better, or wouldn't react so violently. Talk about clinging to their guns and religion. I think we're about to see some amazing, even impossible election outcomes in a couple weeks, and there will be NO opposition. The mid-term of 2010 won't be repeated because the bad guys have made adjustments (remember 100% of precincts in Philly?) and there's no legal controlling authority...
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Oct 22, 2014 5:28:17 GMT -7
I think whoever crafted this law, if they really thought it would help illegally cast vote totals, must not have been alive during the hanging chad lawsuits in the 2000 election. The thing about ballots printed on home PC printers is that they all leave a telltale identifying mark that can be traced right back to individual printers. If an election went off the rails and was challenged in court, every one of those ballots could be potential evidence. If someone tried stuffing the ballot box with them, they would first have to have the names of registered voters whom they knew would not otherwise vote. Then they'd have to explain why thirty seven separate citizens all printed their ballots over at Mary Jone's house. It would be a simple matter to prove the forensics of multiple votes rolling out of one home printer. I'm not sure they'd really want to end up in court with such an easy way to show egg on their faces. They would have to find a way around turning over the actual ballots to the court for a recount, and I don't know how they'd manage that.
There's a group here in FL that have started videotaping polling places in some of the more blue parts of the state (the southeastern large cities in FL) and they are doing it clandestinely. By that I mean from adjacent properties with the cameras inside vehicles, lawn ornaments, etc. Their goal is to examine footage after the election and look for people voting more than once. They claim they've done this in a testing phase in some past elections and have ID'ed some people showing up at multiple polling places. I'm not sure how much that proves since they can't film the actual vote, but I'd think if someone was traveling to more than one polling place alone and they weren't an election official, I'd have a hard time believing they weren't there to vote if I was a juror.
They've had good success using the Minnesota Missing Ballot scheme. Seems a lot easier just to suddenly find some "missing" ballots in the trunk of a car somewhere. In FL, you have to sign for your ballot at the polls, so every vote there can be counted against signatures, making it unlikely an extra few hundred votes can materialize out of nowhere.
No one really wants an honest system; if they did, they'd make you go to the registrars office to register instead of using a box top from cereal or having the DMV register you, and they'd make you go vote unless you had a valid reason to not show up, such as illness, needing to be out of state on election day, etc. This idea of people can't produce an ID because it's too hard to get one yet they have to have one to get any government benefits is flat ridiculous and they all know it. Nothing is going to change until an election gets stolen from the major parties by a grassroots candidate or a third party, THEN all hell will break loose and you'll have to provide a DNA sample to vote.
Seems to me an easy and painless way would be to have one of those systems like a convenience store uses when you cash a check; you put your fingerprint on the check so if it's fraudulent they have the fingerprint of who cashed it. It would not be identifying any citizen with their votes because the only time a fingerprint would come into play is to see if more than one ballot was cast by the same fingerprint, not necessarily who belongs to the fingerprint that voted a certain way. A simple computer scan for identical fingerprints and rejection of all those multiple ballots would be easy and cheap to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Oct 22, 2014 6:07:35 GMT -7
It wouldn't matter if a hundred were printed on the same printer as long as they match the voters registered. And there has to be an investigation for that to be found, how many are going to be investigated to start with? not many.
I see no reason to not require ID to vote, you can get one for free, and as said about everything else requires you to go to a place, present ID and wait in line do do it, when it comes to govt that is with everything you try to do, except voting.
I remember all the whining about going to a electronic voting machine and how that was going to cheat the dems for ever because Bush would call the company and have it rigged. Well that was idiotic, it prints a ballot as I vote, no hanging chads to worry about, or use. But the system itself is not compromised, and was before there even was electricity, you have to trust the people running it, and I don't, they have earned distruist after all thats gone on.
|
|
