U.S. Curtails Federal Election Observers (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: Federal election observers can only be sent to five states in this year's U.S. presidential election, among the smallest deployments since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to end racial discrimination at the ballot box. The plan, confirmed in a U.S. Department of Justice fact sheet seen by Reuters, reflects changes brought about by the Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down parts of the Act...

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday the Justice Department's ability to deploy election observers had been "severely curtailed" by the Supreme Court's decision... Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said federal observers are especially needed this year because 17 states have tightened restrictions on voting since the last presidential election.

Comments

Well, if it's good enough for Iraq, Turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerf said.

they just lost the ability to be bossy

[Anonymous Coward]

they lost no ability to send people to watch, they just lost the ability to take over and boss the local people around

Re: they just lost the ability to be bossy

[Anonymous Coward]

So you didn't get your way with votes and now it's time for rampant abuse? Can someone please watch this guy, pretty sure he's an ISIS recruit waiting to happen.

Re: they just lost the ability to be bossy

[queazocotal]

If you can be denied entry to a place, or asked to leave, you're not really an effective observer.

Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

When the government fails to help, we have to help ourselves. So get out your cameras and keep them rolling. On the other hand, the electronic machines with no paper printout kinda makes the issue moot. Too bad there is insufficient demand for real paper ballots. We never will really know the true count, mostly due to lack of interest.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

So get out your cameras and keep them rolling.

And don't forget your nightsticks — can't have the crackas voting the wrong way, can you?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Friday the Justice Department's ability to deploy election observers had been "severely curtailed"

Funny, how Obama's Justice Department dropped the only voter-intimidation/suppression case documented in recent history — as if that was curtailed by something too...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Link please.

The link was in the original posting. Here it is again, for the benefit of the slow children in the audience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh put it back in the deck. You Americans walk around like Rambo at these conventions whether you're white or black. You want freedom to push people around then get upset when you get pushed back. If you don't treat people with respect, don't cry hard when you don't get it back, dipshit.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, how Obama's Justice Department dropped the only voter-intimidation/suppression case documented in recent history — as if that was curtailed by something too...

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated, making the case difficult to impossible. And in fact, throughout the history of the act, prosecutions have been rare to non-existent.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist, as well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

But heck, even if we pretend all of that isn't a problem, the fact that voter turnout in 2014 was outright abysmal should make everybody take notice.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[queazocotal]

Federal observers have a right to be there, and cannot be denied entry or required to leave.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.

making the case difficult to impossible

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor. Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

well as death threats about a Mosque being used as a polling station in Florida.

Completely off-topic.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[0100010001010011]

Because so much happened to Clinton's camp when they were taped doing stuff like this during the primaries.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, yeah, we all know it's only evil when the *scary black man* does it. I would think you would be happy that your peeps are much more effective at this kind of thing...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

Unsupported and unsubstantiated accusations.

Yes, of course they are... to you. Your righteous indignation is duly noted.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, go figure, nobody came forward to complain that they were intimidated

I invite you to imagine, David Duke and friends standing in front of a polling place somewhere, pointing a weapon at non-White would-be voters and telling them: "You are about to be ruled by a White man." This is precisely, what happened in Philadelphia.

Ah, but such speculation would invite far too many problems without an actual voter complaining. Criminal convictions are rarely pursued simply on imagination.

Take here. Nobody did anything.

Why not?

Of course, I've had weird encounters at polling places myself. One time, a guy came up to me for some reason, and I still can't figure it out, but was somehow wondering why I didn't have my ID or voter card out. Given that I had yet to go inside the building, I'm still baffled to why I was even approach. I don't know how he acted towards anybody else though. Still, I can imagine somebody being bothered by it. I suppose I should have done something like called the police, but I didn't bother.

False. Says Wikipedia:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered

I'm afraid you aren't paying close attention, your example is a poll watcher, offering his opinion, not a voter saying "I was too intimidated to vote" which is what would make a successful criminal complaint.

He just made statements regarding his opinion. But again, the question of such speculation is a perilous path to walk, and well known to be circumscribed in legal courts. You didn't even quote him saying "And I saw somebody walk away" but he'd never be allowed to testify to his opinion in court, as that'd be grossly prejudicial.

The Justice Department has won their case already — and then asked the court to dismiss the default judgment in their favor.

Yes, eventually they refused to pursue a default. Because apparently for some reason, nobody responded to the DOJ. That meant that the DOJ had a problem since a court would be extremely leery as they had not won their case in a contested fashion. I can't even believe an attorney in a criminal case would try to do that. It's one thing if you don't show up to a bounced check claim, but a case like this?

Nope. Bad policy there. It'd just be appealed, and I can't imagine an appellate court not rejecting it. Hell, do you want the government winning legal cases against you in that fashion? I know I don't.

Whatever the problem was, it was not the difficulty of actual prosecution.

Maybe the problem was that elements in the DOJ wanted to make a prosecution out of nothing due to their own partisan biases, and they eventually got stopped, but remained bitter about it. Prosecutors can run rampant, you know?

Meanwhile, others examples of actual voter suppression do exist

Ah, and here we go redefining terms — as if asking for a proof of eligibility is "suppressive". Nice try, but fail...

You mean the documented and recognized practice of refusing to register people unless they comply with onerous requirements is not suppression in your book?

Even after a judge saw it in a court of law? With the opposing side given a chance to present evidence?

This sort of response raises my eyebrows. You freak out ov

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

Yes, of course they are... to you.

Oh, no, not just to me — Attorney General Lynch seems to concur. Otherwise, she would've been prosecuting those cases, would she not have? I mean, if she is actively complaining about being unable to send monitors to certain places, the issue of voting irregularities must be high on her list of priorities.

And yet, she is not prosecuting anything you (and that "stop Trump" site you linked to) rather indignantly list as manifestations of same.

Fail.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

Otherwise, she would've been prosecuting those cases, would she not have?

Political theater. The picture scared people into doing something to appease the radical right.

and that "stop Trump" site you linked to

Ah yes, kill the messenger because you don't like the message.

Are you being paid to be such a mouthpiece? Or are they going to put you on a boat if you refuse? What's your story?

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

Political theater.

Excuses, excuses...

Ah yes, kill the messenger because you don't like the message.

What's with the murderous rhetoric? No, not kill — merely suspect the messenger.

What's your story?

Ad hominem much, hypocrite?

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

Ad hominem much, hypocrite?

Ah, There ya go, you are hiding something. Makes perfect sense... thankyouverymuch

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[fustakrakich]

I'm not sure what that adds here since I don't single anybody out in simply saying that fraud will be more difficult to spot when nobody is watching over the process.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know, there wasn't someone who came forward that would say that their votes were suppressed. You can't just go ahead with a case because someone says that they saw something and there's no evidence. Hearsay isn't usually admissible unless it's a police officer or government official giving testimony.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[rtb61]

We have already seen the pattern of the fraud to take place. Electronic voting will be cooked, either at the vote or during file transfer or during the count. Reduced number of polling stations, especially in opposition areas with added things like no parking, no shade, not food or drink and no toilets, the longer the waiting line the better. Scrubbing of voter roles, to force uncounted provisional votes (really help to slow up the whole voting process to a crawl, and ensure those in bad lines never get to vote). ID games to stop people voting will be the smallest action taken. Not to forget of course the wild biases of main stream media, huge politically corrupt biases but then so what, the White House is just another media channel, with the decisions really being taken behind doors in corporate boardrooms and then passed onto the White House to disseminate to the public, with the US Congress and the US Senate than aligning with the corporate instructions (the chaos comes from different competing corporations forcing their own biases into the system and those biases destructively competing against each other, creating chaos).

Really what you have to do is empower the FBI to take on the top end of town and prevent the chaotically corrupt decision making (after the Hillary Clinton debacle that seems impossible, laws need not apply for insiders).

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Salgak1]

. . . and yet, when sketchy results are reported (example, electronic voting machines visibly changing ballots, or preventing votes from registering for a candidate. . .), nothing seems to get done about it .

This is why I take my phone into the voting booth. That way, I have an independently-corroborated record of what I am reporting to have occurred. (Note: I have not observed such results personally. But, if it occurs, I will damned sure get a record of it. . . )

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[davide marney]

You need to volunteer as a poll worker before you opine any further on this topic. The system does not work the way you imagine, at all. Literally every scenario you describe is impossible, because the people who count your votes are not idiots.

For example, do you know that votes are counted by volunteers in this country? Did you know that voting procedures are written by volunteers, too, and that the authority to run elections isn't even vested in a locality or a state, but in volunteer-staffed local and state boards of elections? There are a few paid administrative people who run the back office, but your votes are counted by your fellow citizens, not by employees, and certainly not by political parties.

You think for a moment that we're going to try and make voting more difficult and less open? That's ridiculous. And insulting. You think there are smoke-filled back rooms where big-wig politicos "decide" everything? Maybe in a B movie. Not in real life.

I have been counting votes for about 10 years now. The procedures we follow in Virginia are intelligent and comprehensive. There are multiple, simultaneous contemporaneous records of everything we do, and everything is done in the open where the voting public can see it. I have read so many wild scenarios where someone opens up a voting machine during the vote and inserts some circuit board, etc. and that's all just complete BS. What, you don't think we have seals on our equipment? You don't think we keep them where everyone can see them, precisely so that kind of thing can't be done?

Go volunteer, and learn how we do it.

Re: Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

There laws against going armed or politicking near a polling place don't require an individual victim to come forward. The laws against conspiracy don't require the conspiracy to succeed. You're asking for proof that is not an element of the crime in question.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

oh don't worry.

the tea baggers will be out in droves to make sure minorities feel right as home as they try to vote.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

you'd be less ignorant (and less racist, but hey, thats probably a stretch for you) if you stopped to realize that while yes there was once case brought against the BP...none at all were brought against the good patriotic white folks who posted themselves at majority minority polling stations to ensure "the integrity" of minority voters. and then there's the cases of the polling stations that were moved or closed in majority minority neighborhoods.

or this list of incidents from 2008:

Voter Intimidation and Deceptive Practices

In recent elections, robo-phone calls and misleading flyers, often targeting minority and low-income communities, have spread false information regarding elections and voting qualifications. For examples of such documents, click here.
New Mexico. Two families reported visits by a private investigator inquiring about relatives that the state Republican Party alleges voted fraudulently in the June primary. The private investigator requested identification for relatives in question as proof of their eligibility, potentially in violation of federal law. The Bernalillo County Clerk confirmed both individuals' legitimate registrations. On October 27, 2008, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop further intimidation.
Virginia. A phony State Board of Elections flier was posted around the Hampton Roads area, stating that Republicans vote on Tuesday, November 4th, and Democrats vote on Wednesday, November 5th. The Virginia State Police determined that flier was an "office joke" and not intended to deceive voters.
Philadelphia fliers. Deceptive fliers about the consequences of voting were distributed in a predominantly African American neighborhood in Philadelphia.
Greene County, Ohio. A law enforcement officer in Greene County, Ohio sought the names of 300 voters who registered and voted at the beginning of Ohio's early voting period in a town made up largely of students. The effort, which was later withdrawn, was criticized as an effort to intimidate student voters and deter others from voting.
Hamilton County, Ohio. In a move that could intimidate and deter voters, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters recently requested, via subpoena, personal information for 40% of the voters who registered and immediately cast a ballot during the weeklong period in which Ohio allows same-day registration and voting.
California. Dozens of voters reported that a firm hired by the California Republican Party tricked them into registering with the GOP when signing a petition they believed to toughen penalties against child molesters. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder is reviewing 9,000 registration affidavits submitted by the firm to determine if any of the party affiliation changes were involuntary.
Travis County, Texas. County officials are looking for a man who may be providing misleading information regarding the state's straight-party voting option, telling voters that in addition to a straight-party vote, they must also select the name of the candidate they would like vote for president. In actuality, doing this would de-select the mark automatically made by the straight-party vote.
Madison County, North Carolina. Residents have complained of misleading calls that provide inaccurate information regarding absentee ballot deadlines. The State Board of Elections is investigating.
Kern County, California. A radio host announced that Republicans are being urged to vote on November 4 and Democrats on November 5. Although the host has said he meant it as a joke, the county elections chief has asked the radio station to stop providing misleading information.
Baltimore City, Maryland. In Maryland, people with felony convictions can register to vote when they have completed the terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. The Baltimore city elections board sent letters to 422 people with felony convictions who registered to vote asking them to verify that t

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

https://www.brennancenter.org/...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

and lets not also forget the facts of the case you mentioned:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...

The incident was investigated by the Department of Justice and, before Barack Obama became President

It turns out that the decision not to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party for it’s actions at Philadelphia polling places during the 2008 election was made when George W. Bush was still President.

(1) the original NBPP controversy really was small potatoes, as Abby Thernstrom and Jonathan Adler concluded. This was a tiny incident in a single polling place about which there was not proof of a single intimidated voter.

1 minor case as opposed to how many hundreds of polling places True The Vote showed up to, recording which black person voted, claiming to be security to check their ids and write down info? and how many "True The Vote" volunteers were investigates? Zero.

So once again: you ignore actual rampant intimidation, to point one case by the skin color you don't like.
And you claim youre not racist.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

except for the fact the case was dropped by the republican administration before Obama even became president.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[dywolf]

It is always evil, but no one other than Black men have done it in recent memory.

wrong again.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
http://investigations.nbcnews....
http://www.pfaw.org/media-cent...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Holi]

Funny how the Right did the exact same thing yet you fail to mention it, Why is that? Oh and their were guns involved. I am sick and tired of shitheads cherry picking their outrage. If you are outraged about these actions then be outraged by them all or shut your racist trap.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

Re: Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[riverat1]

The law against going armed near a polling place only applies if you are not white. Otherwise you're just exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. /sarc

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[mi]

If MediaMatters calls the circumstances of the crimes "identical", you can rest assured, the Right's "crime" is nothing but jaywalking compared to the Left's aggravated murder. Indeed, those Minutemen were "guilty" of:

• recording people in a public place;
• asking them, whether they are eligible to vote;
• possessing a weapon (one pistol for three men)

. Sorry, but there is just "no there there". No weapon was ever pointed at anyone, and no derogatory remarks about anybody's race were said.

Ah, and your link cites a bona-fide lie too:

the decision not to pursue charges amounted to "career people disagreeing with career people," which Perez said "happens very often."

Well, Ok, in May 2010, when the article you linked to was written, it was not yet known to be a lie. But in September-October of the same year the truth was already known. That MM keeps that blog-post unammended is further evidence of their bias.

shut your racist trap

Please, don't hate.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Amigo Van Helical]

OR and WA states both use mail-in paper ballots. This circumvents some types of voter suppression techniques such as sending out fictitious notices of polling-place changes and limiting hours and staff at polling places in certain districts. There is also a paper trail that can be audited in the event of concerns about fraud.

I heard on the radio this AM that Senator Wyden (D, OR) is pushing legislation to make mail-in ballots standard. In case you're interested, here's a URL for a news article about it: http://www.ktvz.com/news/wyden...

Interestingly (to me, anyway) the article claims that mail-in ballots reduce election costs.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[RKThoadan]

Why in the world does it matter that they are volunteers? Do you think people can't volunteer with malicious intent? This tells me that it's all being done by amateurs which makes me much less confident in this system than I was before I read your post.

Oh God. Virginia!? Seriously? It's pretty much guaranteed that your voting machines were hacked for most of the last several elections. You were using the least secure voting machines ever made (On the bright side you got rid of them last year). You didn't need to replace a circuit board, you could quite literally hack into them from a half mile away with a rudimentary antenna built using a pringles can! Please read this and weep: https://www.wired.com/2015/08/...

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the fact that Democrats stuffed so many ballot boxes in 2008 and 2012.

Re:Let's send out Independent Election Observers.

[Coren22]

1 minor case as opposed to how many hundreds of polling places True The Vote showed up to, recording which black person voted, claiming to be security to check their ids and write down info? and how many "True The Vote" volunteers were investigates? Zero.

How many true the vote members were pointing weapons at people and shouting racist remarks?

The questions that must be asked ...

[Alain Williams]

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

Re:The questions that must be asked ...

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

Vote fraud?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

The "winner"?

Re: The questions that must be asked ...

[cbeaudry]

#2 Democrats, because the know better than the populace.

Re:The questions that must be asked ...

[davide marney]

You're asking the wrong question. The question that must be asked is how do you expect the federal government to independently audit an election for federal office? That's not independent. Do you ever wonder why the federal government doesn't just run elections? What would the federal government gain by being able to control who gets elected? Everything. Which is why we don't let them do that. Not even the states run the elections. Elections are run by volunteers.

Re:The questions that must be asked ...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Other countries manage to have independent government elections monitors. It's perfectly doable.

No, the issue here is that the Constitution doesn't specify how the states vote, so there's not much for the Feds to monitor.

Well, the REAL issue here is that the US system didn't work out the way it was intended, and has evolved into a weird chimera system of 'independent states' with a powerful Federal government. But you get my point.

aren't there 5 "swing" states?

[turkeydance]

swing low

Re:aren't there 5 "swing" states?

[ChrisMaple]

Your version of this standard doesn't scan properly. There aren't enough syllables in the first line of each verse.

Re:aren't there 5 "swing" states?

[Zontar The Mindless]

I just sang the first couple of stanzas aloud to test your theory. Worked perfectly well for me. If you'd like, I can record it and send you an MP3.

Not a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hillary machine is well oiled

Re:Not a surprise

[WindBourne]

and yet, it is the in the GOP areas that the observers are being denied.

Re:Not a surprise

[sumdumass]

No observer has been denied. What happened is that a state changed it's voting laws and the justice department said they couldn't. The state took them to court and it was ruled that so much has changed that the feds have to justify preemptive interaction. They have not done so either by inaction or inability to demonstrate a pattern of discrimination that would meet the legal definition.

What this means is that they can send only voluntary observers and court appointed observers. The voluntary observers are fed employees who can be kicked out. The court ordered observers have full reign of the polling operations. What the article is talking about is that so far, the justice department has only been able to meet the legal requirements for court ordered observers in five states to date.

No observer has been denied access to anything yet. And it certainly hasn't been denied based on any political party affiliation or political party's safe areas.

Hey Government!

[Calydor]

If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind severe scrutiny and observation!

Right? Isn't that how it works?

Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

(1) what have they got to hide by not being transparent ?

(2) who gains by restricting observers ?

At a guess, from recent political decisions (disjoint from the election), it will benefit Republicans. Indirectly, that means Trump. I'm not suggesting that Trump has anything to do with this, only Republicans in general.

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic.

This election there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, lots of voter fraud, but nothing will be done about the election results. The people in charge will publish boilerplate politically correct statements about things being "regrettable", no one will take responsibility or blame, everyone will promise to fix the problems for the next election, and the issues will be dropped.

Such as the Democratic primary voter fraud (unrelated to Hillary or her campaign).

I remember 8 years ago, people wanting to vote fro Ron Paul in my state were told that he'd dropped out of the race (this was for the actual election).

Then some town published vote tallys showing 0 votes for Ron Paul, seven people called in and complained that they had voted for Ron Paul, the town released a statement saying "oops, it was a typo, the correct number is seven".

There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud.

At least, statistically that seems like it's *probably* the case...

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups.

What restrictions would those be? I'm not American, but from a quick google, it seems that all you need are:

1. Citizen of at least 18 years old
2. Driver's license # or last 4 digits of SSN

Why would this be troublesome for any particular group of people?

Re:Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups.

What restrictions would those be? I'm not American, but from a quick google, it seems that all you need are:

1. Citizen of at least 18 years old
2. Driver's license # or last 4 digits of SSN

Why would this be troublesome for any particular group of people?

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.

When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.

Re:Probably Trump

[blindseer]

"There's a ton of voter fraud in the US, and the only reason it stays anywhere near fair is because the winner wins by more than the margin of fraud."

Which makes me wonder why a political party would work so hard to commit fraud. Are they so afraid that the people are so opposed to what they stand for that they cannot win by compromise? The art of compromise is an entrenched aspect of our political system. One might argue that every law ever passed is due to the art of compromise.

Let's assume that these people do get the people they want in office by fraud. Do they expect this to continue indefinitely? In a less connected world it may have been possible to win with fraud by small margins and get away with it. Now we have polling with considerable accuracy. People can communicate with an ease and speed that has been unheard of before.

For such fraud to go unnoticed it must be at such a small margin that it can be explained away by a margin of error. If that margin is that small then would not the energy expended on fraud be better spent on making their case to the people? Or, compromising on small matters that people vote on so that larger matters can go their way?

"Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic."

Everything in life affects the poor and minorities disproportionately. That's effectively the definition of what it means to be poor and/or a minority. That does not mean we should make elections in a way that they are open to fraud. I believe that it makes a case to make elections as fair as possible. If the poor and minorities want to make sure that their vote counts then they should want to know that their vote counts just as much as any other vote.

What party they vote for should be irrelevant.

Re: Probably Trump

[bsDaemon]

I'm sorry, what state do you live in that charges you $35 a year for a license? I've had one in VA and MD, they are good for many years, and it is a one-time fee. Cost-average it out to like $6-$7 a year tops.

Re: Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

New Hampshire DL renewal costs $50, and lasts 5 years IIRC (couldn't find the expiry term in a quick search).

Note that presidential elections happen every 4 years, so that comes out to $40 to vote in any one election.

Using your numbers, voting in any presidential election would be either $35 for that year, or $7 x 4 = $28 for each election.

Re:Probably Trump

[sjames]

They will not accept SSN, often they won't accept SS card.

And if those go missing/stolen, good luck getting them replaced. They want SS card to replace license.ID and they want ID/licnese to replace SS card. If you don't have those, they want a recent medical record. If you're poor, you may not have seen a doctor in a very long time. So, no vote for you!

Re:Probably Trump

[reboot246]

The same poor people you are whining about seem to have no problem providing an ID when signing up for government aid. Or renting a movie. Etc, etc, etc.

Just how many poor people don't have a driver's license? And in a lot of states a state-provided photo ID can be had for nothing. Hell, they'll even come to your house and take your photo and make you an ID card if you have no way to get to them.

Tempest in a teapot.

Re:Probably Trump

[ChrisMaple]

Ask Jeb Bush how effective trying to persuade people to vote for him (using money to buy advertisements) was. He spent about $150,000,000.00 and got 286,634 votes. That's $523 per vote.

By way of contrast, pay a bunch of people on welfare $20 each, load them onto a bus, and cart them around to voting centers where the staff is all friendly. With a bit of planning, they might each vote 10 times in a single day.

Everything in life affects the poor and minorities disproportionately.

Lumping together "poor" and "minorities" shows that you're just parroting the standard leftist line, and not thinking. U.S. citizens of Asian heritage tend to be more intelligent and more polite than the average citizen, and consequently most people treat them better. They're a minority.

Re: Probably Trump

[LynnwoodRooster]

Using your example of NH an ID card is $10 and lasts for 5 years. That's $2 per year for voting. That's really cheap. And to go further, how does one live in a modern society WITHOUT a Government issued ID? I guess you never travel on an airplane. You do not set up utiltities. You never rent a car or tool. You don't have a bank account. You have no cell phone nor mailbox. Basically - you live in the woods as a hermit - probably not too interested in politics to start with.

Re:Probably Trump

[TroII]

Why would this be troublesome for any particular group of people?

Consider you're a relatively poor person who doesn't own a car. You rely on public transportation (riding the bus) to get around. Now suppose your state decides to close down a bunch of its DMV offices due to "budget constraints" or "low demand." Coincidentally, the ones being shut down are almost exclusively in areas with a population that's mostly poor and black. Suddenly, the closest DMV office where you can go and renew your photo ID is 30 miles away. Even if the public transportation would take you there, which it won't, it would be a 3 or 4 hour round trip, which is time you don't have because you're working two 35-hour-a-week jobs for minimum wage and no benefits.

Re:Probably Trump

[TroII]

There's a ton of voter fraud in the US

You've got that right. This guy voted 7 times in one election and at least 12 times in total over two years.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Then voter ID isn't the problem. A lack of routes to the DMV is the problem. Fix that, and stop messing with legit voter ID laws.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

It worked for JFK supporters who orchestrated voter fraud in Illinois and Texas:

http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/924747880/how-exactly-was-jfks-victory-in-1960-suspicious

It almost worked for Gore in 2000 when he tried to force a bunch of bogus ballots through the system. Took the Supreme Court to stop that nonsense. Hanging chads, good grief.

You make "hanging chads" by stacking punch ballots and punching the same candidate through all of them at once.

Re: Probably Trump

[tsotha]

It's ten bucks. The idea ten dollars every five years is some kind of unbearable hardship is laughable given what other things cost.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could take the example of the two people convicted in Virginia for voter fraud during the 2008 elections.

Just two people - hardly enough to make a difference, detractors say. But those two people cast more than 1,000 votes each. This is in line with most major voter fraud cases, such as the Daley Machine, where 63 people cast at least 100,000 votes, or Miami, where 18 people cast 30,000 votes.

When you allow fraud, it doesn't matter which side does it - all the normal people lose.

Re:Probably Trump

[tsotha]

Voter restrictions of various stripe tend to affect poor and minorities more than other groups. Those groups typically vote Democratic.

The illegal aliens and dead people tend to vote Democratic as well.

Re: Probably Trump

[Alypius]

A photo ID is used for much more than simply voting (e.g. banking) so it's not quite accurate to make "per election" charges.

Re:Probably Trump

[dfenstrate]

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.

When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument. Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.

Re:Probably Trump

[will_die]

So explain people fighting the states that paid for the license and provided free transportation for the poor.

Re: Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your example of NH an ID card is $10 and lasts for 5 years. That's $2 per year for voting. That's really cheap.

And yet, if it were a poll tax, it would be outright illegal.

And to go further, how does one live in a modern society WITHOUT a Government issued ID? I guess you never travel on an airplane. You do not set up utiltities. You never rent a car or tool. You don't have a bank account. You have no cell phone nor mailbox.

Hmm, I have to ask, why does one need a government issued ID to use a mailbox? A P.O. box, maybe (though I'm not sure, I've never secured one), but a mailbox? My mailman delivers mail, I open the box, nobody asks for ID. Not even for my absentee ballot. And for that matter, I can easily get a cellphone without ID. Tools I can also buy without ID, I suspect a rental company would let me post cash for many of them, though I suppose some exceptions might apply. And airline security is already severely questioned as to its merits.

But all of those things, none of them are directly constitutional rights, though I am leery about bank accounts and utilities not available without ID. That seems a severe potential for trouble. Not that my bank asks for my ID when I go in, mind you.

Still, let's stick to voting. If you're going to require ID to vote, it should be simple to require the state to provide the ID, and to bear as its own burden the effort to seek out any documentation or verification the state claims it needs. This would satisfactorily address the concerns, so why don't you just agree to do it? Is that so hard for you to accept?

Basically - you live in the woods as a hermit - probably not too interested in politics to start with.

Doesn't matter, it's not for us to judge, it's for government to meet its obligations. When it comes to voting, the mandate is properly on the state.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

Tell me, why do you want to control who is allowed to participate in the electoral process? Is it because your platform depends on restricting who is voting, and too many people reject it?

I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument.

The "joke" such as it is, works both ways. See above, and I could as easily assert that you're actually interested in promoting electoral discrimination and covering for that fraud with any available argument. In fact, such arguments were previously asserted when even more outright discrimination was present.

Hence the real concern is protecting us from that.

Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

You'll note that there are no places with intelligence tests for voting, at most you get the ability to make a defined choice, but no question is asked of voters if it's informed. Besides, it's not a matter of personal capacity anyway, it's the state which can impose requirements that are difficult to meet, including acquiring a birth certificate that may not even exist, or spending hours to get one. Or traveling quite a far way to get it.

*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.

Oh good. You know what I've asked people before? If they would support making it a mandate upon the state to provide the ID, by acquiring such documents and expenses at its OWN burden, rather than the person in question. And , you know what happens? Somebody stomps off and fumes about that being too expensive. I simply do not recall anybody agreeing, ok, if we are going to require ID, we'll do it that way.

But if you're willing to commit to it being an absolute mandate on the state to do it, then all you need to do is be sure of it. Because, of course, it has to be effective, not simply ostensibly provided.

Of course, I would like other electoral reform, but that's another story.

Re:Probably Trump

[Okian Warrior]

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.

The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.

[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"

Re: Probably Trump

[c.s.carlson6]

He's still right overall though. He didn't mention information accuracy standard that can accompany identification requirements yet, but this is a major deterrent to voters as well. In my state, your ID must have your current address on it. A wealthy person can easily afford to maintain a permanent address, but people without land of significant resources end up having to move for all kinds of reasons. College students can be a victim of this too. Hard times got you down? You couldn't make rent and you just had to move? Well I'm so sorry buddy, but we can let you vote if your drivers license has wrong information on it.

Re:Probably Trump

[Texmaize]

Even when it is proposed that the ID be offered for free, the democratic party still opposes the idea. See, that would be political compromise between two rational groups, the way the founders intended. This has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with tampering with the election. The sad thing is, you are so busy playing team sports instead of honestly pursuing ideas for the betterment of all, that you will likely not see or understand what the modern democratic party has turned into--until it is too late.

Before reflexively lashing out like a tribal two year old, the above statement in no way forgives the republicans of their sins. Instead of merely looking for evil and being skeptical of one side, haven't current events shown that perhaps, just perhaps, you may want to be paying attention to both sides? How about demanding honesty from everyone?

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, you can't point to prosecutions and evidence or lack thereof of voter fraud. It' extremely difficult to catch in the act. It is almost always only detected long after the fact when voter rolls are carefully gone over. But by then it's too late to identify, let alone catch the actual individuals committing the act of vote fraud.

The onsite election judges try their best but if ID is not required they must take the word of the individual saying they are Joe P. Snuffy, and do not know that Mr. Snuffy actually died three months prior to the election.

Simple verification of ID is all that is needed to greatly cut down on the potential for fraud.

And many states allow for a variety of ID's. My state will verify you with two recent Utility bills in your name at your registered address.

Re:Probably Trump

[davide marney]

Please do not go to a Department of Motor Vehicles office to register to vote. Go to your local Board of Elections Registrar instead. The DMV just forwards whatever it gets to the Registrar, because it is not responsible for registering voters.

Re:Probably Trump

[davide marney]

In Virginia, voter fraud is a felony with a penalty of up to 10 years in state prison, or up to 5 years in a local jail plus a $2,500 fine. Do the math on that 10 times, and get back to me on how frequently you think your scenario happens here.

Look, the people who run elections are not stupid. We have an opt-in registration system where you have to prove identity and residency to even be allowed to cast a ballot. We check everyone showing up to vote against a list of registered voters.

No doubt some people are able to slip through the cracks, and especially in states with lax voter laws, those cracks can be pretty big. But voter fraud is not a high-value crime. Huge risk, for what reward? $20 bucks? Against 10 years in jail?

I hope no one is that stupid.

Re: Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume, incorrectly, that the fraud goes unnoticed. See, for example, the election of Al Franken to the US Senate, which required roughly a half-dozen recounts to reach the "correct" result -- and after which we found that more disenfranchised felons voted than made up Frankel's margin of victory. That result allowed the Democrats to pass PPACA without a single Republican vote in favor of the law. That's the kind of outcome that motivates them to cheat so much.

Re:Probably Trump

[Salgak1]

Most states have free ID card programs for those unable to pay. Quite a few states have programs that will pick you up, deliver you to an ID-issuing location, and take you home. . . for free.

Re: Probably Trump

[eumoria]

I'm sorry, what state do you live in that charges you $35 a year for a license? I've had one in VA and MD, they are good for many years, and it is a one-time fee. Cost-average it out to like $6-$7 a year tops.

NY. Either 35 or 40 for a replacement but that's not yearly and you need one when it expires after 3? years. So more like 35 every 3 years.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

How misdirection like this gets modded informative, I'll never understand.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

So, hypothetically, in your ID-less world, I could fly over to the US, from my home, then vote for the person I think should be running the US, then fly home again, and you are cool with that?

Id's in my state do not cost no fucking $35 either. where are you from? The Soviet Socialist Republic of California?

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Probably Trump

[dave420]

Why are you putting an entry price on the democratic process? Don't you see something inherently wrong about that?

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

>The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35

Annual? Look, as someone who has lived VERY poor before I can tell you that $35 once every ten years is acceptable. One can even 'save up for it' if one has the goal of getting the ID. But here's the rub: you need the goal ahead of time or else opportunities slip by.

And passports? That expense is on the back burner for almost everyone.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know this, and is useful information. Double-plus good to you!

Re: Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume, incorrectly, that the fraud goes unnoticed. See, for example, the election of Al Franken to the US Senate, which required roughly a half-dozen recounts to reach the "correct" result -- and after which we found that more disenfranchised felons voted than made up Frankel's margin of victory.

Actually, one would expect a lot of things to exceed Franken's margin of victory, as it was 312 voters, which is rather small. People with the same names as felons, for example, or people who had been wrongly accused and convicted of a felony.

But no, actually, some of the first recounts swung the initial margin, which itself was only 215 votes. Very tight. Small enough that even the slightest error could sway the results.

That result allowed the Democrats to pass PPACA without a single Republican vote in favor of the law. That's the kind of outcome that motivates them to cheat so much.

A deeply unpopular law, that was mostly a Republican plan, and cost them majorities in the House and Senate? I'm not entirely impressed.

It'd be one thing if the US had got universal healthcare, but as motivations go, your suggestion isn't much of one.

Re:Probably Trump

[dfenstrate]

Why are you putting an entry price on the democratic process?

I'm not. To quote myself:
"I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking."

Re:Probably Trump

[dfenstrate]

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.

The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.

[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"

They can speak for themselves. I stated above I'm fine funding programs that pay for the expenses associated with getting ID's.
If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud. End of story. You can make any excuse you like (and toss in some claims about being conservative, too).
I see no reason to believe anyone who is making the same arguments as the administration, what with it's star liars Gruber, Rhodes, and the chosen successor Clinton.

Re:Probably Trump

[HornWumpus]

People do get caught, they are _never_ punished.

It's always 'poor illegal immigrant didn't understand...' or some such lie.

Prove identity and residence? By presenting any old bill with an address?

Re:Probably Trump

[qeveren]

Poll taxes are illegal for a reason, you know...

Re:Probably Trump

[TechnoJoe]

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

Every state that implemented those voting "restrictions" allowed poor people to get free ID's (not drivers licenses, but ID's).

Due to federal regulations, you are required to present ID when opening a bank account, getting a loan (house/car), filing for government benefits, and buying the good cold medicine. My state (WA) even goes so far as to require ID to by COUGH SYRUP. I don't see anyone complaining that those restrictions are keeping poor people from cold medicine.

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud.

That statement would make a lot more sense if there were any evidence of significant voter fraud of the type that such ID would prevent. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary expense on the voter.

Go ahead and try to find evidence of such voter fraud. It doesn't exist.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you are arguing about a problem that doesn't exist. SCOTUS made it very clear that if you are going to require ID to vote, that it has to be provided for free, otherwise it is a de facto poll tax. The day after the ruling, Texas did exactly that. Free, as in beer.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

> When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Oh my no. When you're poor, you're eating Rice & Beans. That $35 could feed you and your children for a MONTH! Even canned beans, a luxury, would feed you for 3 weeks.

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

The proper ID for voting is a voter registration card and the proper time to vet whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote. On election day the only ID you should need is your voter registration card (or your signature).

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

People do get caught, they are _never_ punished.

I'd like to see you back that statement up with some actual evidence. I see people making the claim of voter fraud all the time but I never see any actual news stories about it. The GW Bush administration made finding voter fraud a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found Jack Shit.

So put up or shut up. Prove that voter fraud is anything more than rare in the USA.

Re: Probably Trump

[riverat1]

IOW, accusations of fraud are code for election results I didn't like.

Re:Probably Trump

[locketine]

Let's assume that these people do get the people they want in office by fraud. Do they expect this to continue indefinitely? In a less connected world it may have been possible to win with fraud by small margins and get away with it. Now we have polling with considerable accuracy. People can communicate with an ease and speed that has been unheard of before.

For such fraud to go unnoticed it must be at such a small margin that it can be explained away by a margin of error. If that margin is that small then would not the energy expended on fraud be better spent on making their case to the people? Or, compromising on small matters that people vote on so that larger matters can go their way?

Even though we've made great strides in providing information and means of communication, people themselves haven't changed. They still have their in-groups with similar opinions to their own. They still have their favorite news sources with particular slants that they may never notice. Many still have an inherent trust in the system so they will ignore occasional anomalies of vote fraud as just distractions and not real problems.

And then there's times where the evidence simply gets buried by other news stories or is only covered by fringe, pseudo news organizations that most people will ignore because it's coming from an unfamiliar source.

So yes, theoretically, the increase of information we've during the Information Age should give us perfect elections. The reality is that we'll never have them thanks to human psychology. Let's still try to have legitimate elections though and remain vigilant of fraud wherever it may occur.

Re:Probably Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as many instances of that as direct voter suppression - black people or poor people turned away by inadequate security at or even existence of polling facilities in proximity to work places.

Re:Probably Trump

[eaglesrule]

Yet oddly, the requirement to provide identification in order to purchase alcohol beverages poses no issue that I've heard of. I guess the poor don't consume alcohol or are all elderly enough not to be requested identification.

More likely, providing ID in order to vote is onerous to those with no legal status in the US; who just happen to mostly vote for the DNC, the party which just happens to be against voter id laws.

Re: Probably Trump

[silentcoder]

Apparently he thinks hermits don't have a right to vote... I wonder who ELSE he thinks should not have the right to vote ?

Re:Probably Trump

[silentcoder]

Of course voter fraud of the "I went and voted twice" variety does exist - it's just extraordinarily rare -as in single digit cases across an entire election. There's a good reason it's rare too: the risks are massive and the rewards are uselessly small.
You're never going to change the outcome of your state ballot by voting more than once - you would need thousands of people in just your own polling area to do it, and there's no way to cover THAT up (the odds of success of a conspiracy is exponentially disproportional to the number of people in it - successful conspiracies involve less than 5 people who all have everything to lose by talking).

So since it won't help you achieve your goal in any measureable way - and the punishment if you are caught is massive - only a few crazy people ever attempt it.

Successful electoral fraud can only be committed by individuals with the power to change the balance of an election without being arrested, like the current elected officials - who have the power to do things like gerrymander the district lines to their own benefit (take all the areas that vote against you - split them up and join them into surrounding areas that vote for you where they will be outnumbered), or instituting onerous restrictions to keep people less likely to vote for you from being able to vote.
It's not a conspiracy theory that republicans make these rules SPECIFICALLY to prevent black people voting - they've publicly admitted it ! More than one official has, in interviews, said that the reason for these rules are 'to ensure the democrats cannot win here' - which you do by preventing as many potential democrat voters as possible from being able to vote.

You want voter fraud dealt with ? Deal with the republican officials who commit nearly all of it. Or, better yet, remove political parties and elected officials entirely from the process of running elections. The rest of the world has long since figured that out. Elections are run by independent agencies without elected officials in them - who are accountable only to the court system. Parties can bring a court challenge if they believe the agency acted in a partisan way and a court would weigh the evidence - but a party has no influence whatsoever on any part of the election process up to and including no say in where district lines are drawn or what requirements voters have to meet.

Now think about this - you may not like that republicans have been the committers of 99% of all voter fraud for the better part of two decades, but the REASON is that they have been in charge of most state and local governments - and doing it kept them there. Instead of defending this - imagine the very likely scenario that thanks to Trump we see another goldwater level avalanche in this election and a huge chunk of those downballot areas swing democrat. Do you want the democrats to have the power to split white neighbourhoods into tiny subsections of surrounding black neighbourhoods - effectively negating their votes ? If you don't trust the other guy with a power, you can't have it for your own guys.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

How would we know if there was voter fraud if anyone can walk up and vote.

I know my dad isn't going to vote, so I go out to his polling place and vote as him for who I want to vote for. How would anyone even know I was not my father?

Also, in places like TX that institute voter ID laws, they attach free ID programs to the laws. Frankly, how anyone can survive without an ID, I cannot imagine though, as you need on to buy Ciggs, Alcohol, rent things, get state financial aid, even to cash a check. Frankly to survive in today's society, you need an ID.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

The funniest thing was all the bellyaching by Democratic Party supporters, while many Democrat controlled states already had voter ID laws.

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

All but 17 states require ID to vote in some manner. I don't agree with those 17 even, as I know that in my state (Maryland) you have to provide information that matches to the voter registration, such as birth date, or address (can't remember exactly what they asked, but they did verify my identity), yet Maryland shows not requiring any ID to vote. I wonder how many states require ID to register to vote though, as it is probably all of them.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

Alcohol and Ciggs as well.

But yeah, you cannot survive in this world without an ID. You can't get a job without ID, and you can't cash checks without one, so you don't get anything but under the table work which never pays much.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

They are against voter ID in states they don't control, but are just fine with voter ID laws in states they are in control of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

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

It depends on the state. Photo ID is only required in 18 states.

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

I know my dad isn't going to vote, so I go out to his polling place and vote as him for who I want to vote for. How would anyone even know I was not my father?

Have you actually done this? If not I'd like to see you try.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

I live in Maryland, how hard would it really be? No ID required to vote, minor authentication of the person done, they don't even have pictures tied to the voter registrations.

Of course I haven't, I am an honest person, but it isn't to say that in 17 states with no ID required to vote that it doesn't happen, and arguing about a lack of detection doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

I live in Oregon. We have vote by mail. The signature on the outside of the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration application. That works fine for me. Don't you have to sign the poll book when you go to vote? Are you going to be able to match your father's signature well enough to get away with it?

Arguing about lack of detection doesn't mean that it does happen either. There's a lot of speculation about that kind of voter fraud but until someone demonstrates that it's anything other than rare requiring ID at the polls is just an onerous requirement for otherwise eligible voters who don't have a need for such ID. If you're going to vet whether someone is eligible to vote it should be done at the time they register to vote and their voter registration card should be the only such ID required at the polls.

Re:Probably Trump

[Coren22]

An ID is required to register to vote, so how is it an onerous requirement at the polling place?

No, I don't believe any signature is required to vote in Maryland, but it has been 4 years since I last voted, so I could be misremembering.

Re:Probably Trump

[riverat1]

Here's the Maryland page on voter registration. It talks about your "official voter registration signature" which makes me think you are signing a poll book when you vote. If you need an ID to register then why should you need anything other than your Voter Notification Card to actually vote?

I also found this here.

Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:

A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or

A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.

So some first time voters are required to provide identification but are able to use things other than picture ID. I couldn't find anything about signing a poll book but maybe that's part of the county's elections procedures, not the state's. You could contact your county elections board and ask them what steps they take to prevent voter fraud.

But again I have to say that until someone provides actual evidence of anything other than occasional voter fraud by individuals I just think the ID requirement for election day is not needed.

This is exactly how voter suppression works

[macsimcon]

First, remove federal observers so any irregularities go unreported.

Second, make sure there is no paper trail.

Third, the fewer votes counted, the more likely Republicans will win. The more votes are counted, the more likely Democrats are to win. With the polls this close, it doesn’t take much cheating to ensure Trump wins The White House.

Remember, every Republican president after Ike has cheated to win, and this time will be no exception. Thanks, John Roberts! Clearly racism is gone in your white world, and we can just throw the Voting Rights Act on the trashheap of history.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

> every Republican president after Ike has cheated to win

Exactly. When our rulers called Kerry a loser and told him to go to hell and that Bush would rule us for even longer, I gave-up on life. That act make all thinking people want to die.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the VRA worked, we don't need it. That seems to be the logic.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

First, remove federal observers so any irregularities go unreported.

Second, make sure there is no paper trail.

Third, the fewer votes counted, the more likely Republicans will win. The more votes are counted, the more likely Democrats are to win.

Access to voting should be uniform and everyone should be able to vote in about the same amount of time, within reason, including the time it takes to get to the polling place. You should be automatically registered to vote when you do things like get a drivers license. It isn't that difficult to work out the details. The presumption should be on allowing someone to vote. Actual cases of voter fraud by people say walking into two different polling booths appear to be very low, and just a bit of database searching can make sure you're only one one roll.

The second part is information. We are inundated with utter crap. Ballots can contain some basic information that is reasonably agreed upon. It is a start.

The third part, as sad as I am to say it is to get rid of any party affiliations on the ballot and maybe randomize the choices. The reader can still easily identify which form variation you had. If people end up picking randomly on some things, then that will mostly cancel each others. If people want to bring in a 1 page sheet of notes, that is fine. You have to be reasonable, even if that is your party telling you what to pick. At least you have to think a bit. Of course you can't leave your 1 page sheet of notes there.. Basically the government should not enable the perpetuation of political parties. They can live well enough on their own.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is how vote fraud works in the state of CO:
Anyone can show up any any voting location and state they live in the area. They provide a name and address that is not checked against anything; No identification is required and no verification is performed. They are given a regular ballot and allowed to vote. I'll repeat that because it is important. Anyone may show up at multiple polling locations and claim a regular ballot that is put in the same box as the rest and counted like any other.
This was proven in the 2014 elections. An activist went to multiple locations and claimed a ballot which was then torn them up to avoid committing actual fraud.

Last I checked CO is a swing state. Care to guess which party enacted these procedures? Hint, it is not the one accused of cheating in your post.

Verification that the person attempting to vote is really allowed to is required to prevent fraud. By all means allow anyone to come in and vote but they get provisional ballots that are not counted until they can prove they should get that ballot. Someone has no ID? They can find a neighbor/child/fiend with ID that can be a sworn witness to their identity.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[ChrisMaple]

You should be automatically registered to vote when you do things like get a drivers license.

Legal residents who are citizens of foreign countries can get driver's licenses, generally speaking. You are proposing that they automatically be allowed to vote.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be automatically registered to vote when you do things like get a drivers license.

Legal residents who are citizens of foreign countries can get driver's licenses, generally speaking. You are proposing that they automatically be allowed to vote.

Let's assume that we don't hire the guys who setup the obamacare web site, and that we test things to avoid obvious stupidity. Its been awhile since I've been the DMV, but I recall having to get a certified proof of my birth certificate, which I'm pretty sure is also proof of citizenship.

Actually now that you mention foreigners, I do have one nit to pick there. H1Bs should have a limited term of a couple years at best. After that they need to apply to become a citizen to remain. Basically, I just don't like seeing second class people with fewer rights but all the same responsibilities, especially ones somewhat linked to a particular company.

Re: This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting illegals vote here isn't fraud, it's paying them while driving them to multiple stations that's the beautiful fraud. Nice thing about paying illegals to do that is that they're smart enough to say nothing.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Zontar The Mindless]

Lots of countries allow resident non-citizens to vote. I know this because I happen to live in one of them.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[davide marney]

You can't let the government audit the vote, because it would be auditing itself. You can't have an audit without independence.

Fortunately, we already have the answer to this problem: votes are counted by voter-volunteers, not by government employees or politicians or appointees. Were you aware of that? Every single vote that is counted is done by one of your fellow citizens. It's hens guarding the hen house, not foxes.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[tomhath]

Democrats have been fighting voter ID forever. Do you have to ask why?

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats have been fighting voter ID forever. Do you have to ask why?

Nope. It is fairly well studied. The voter ID laws, while not helping prevent actual vote fraud in a significant way, do help prevent actual voting in ways that favor republicans. It would be common sense that democrats would fight that, since it hurts their poll numbers. That it is also the right thing to do is a bonus.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[Rockoon]

Democrats have been fighting voter ID forever.

Funnily enough, they don't fight them in solidly blue States like Connecticut, which has required voter identification for more than a few decades.

Its only in red States that they have a problem with it.

Re:This is exactly how voter suppression works

[wyHunter]

First, remove the federal observers so irregularities go unreported. Second, make sure there is no paper trail. Third, the fewer votes counted the more likely the Democrats will win. After all, ballot stuffing was practically invented by the Chicago Democrat machine and the sitting President is from...where? Remember, every Democrat has cheated all the time, by stuffing votes, intimidating the voters, and promising voters things that cannot be done, then railing that they are being constrained by reality.

Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Voter ID is a GREAT thing! It helps keep people who are NOT legally allowed to vote in this country from voting. Oh I don't know like ILLEGAL ALIENS! Or to keep people from voting multiple times in different states..... Yes that happens.... It's Chicago style voting - vote early and vote often!

Re:Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Voter ID is a GREAT thing! It helps keep people who are NOT legally allowed to vote in this country from voting.

But voter fraud isn't a problem because that asian girl that was just here said her name was Angus McDoogal and I've got an Angus McDoogal on my list right here.

I think the only reason nobody really cares about voter fraud is because turnouts are so goddamned low, at least someone is showing up to vote.

Re:Voter ID

[TroII]

It's Chicago style voting - vote early and vote often!

That sounds more like Wisconsin Republican style voting to me.

Re:Voter ID

[tsotha]

Then you should have no problem supporting a voter ID law. Right?

Re:Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

And then Angus McDoogal shows up, sees someone cast a vote in his name, proves his identity, and there's now a witchhunt for Ling Huang.

Re:Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

And when they find her, it's gonna be Bang Ding Ow.

Can you cite a source or reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your post got modded down because you didn't provide any proof of what you said is true or not.

Was it a rant or was it the truth?

Back it up with something.

WTF?

[blindseer]

[quote]In Sandoval County, New Mexico, federal observer reports showed that Native-American voters had difficulty getting voting information in their native languages during the decade between 1994 and 2004, according to a 2011 court order in a case the United States brought against the county.[/quote]

To me "Native-American" means that this person descends from a people that lived on the land now known as America before it became known as America. America has since the beginning been a place where English has been spoken. Any place that is now America is a place that has been speaking English for decades, if not centuries. In America the road signs are in English, the schools teach English, television and radio broadcasts are in English. Every product sold in America will have English labels, manuals, etc. While I'm certain that certain local newspapers might be in some language other than English the regional and national ones are in English. Someone not capable of reading and/or speaking English will be largely ignorant of what is going on in the world unless someone is there to translate for them.

I find it very difficult to believe that someone that has lived in America for so long has failed to grasp enough of the English language to perform as simple of a task as to identify the people they wish to vote for on an English language ballot. Even so, there should be someone they trust available to translate for them. If neither are true then can someone explain how they would even know who to vote for? Or, even know an election was happening?

I have to wonder what language these Americans were speaking while living inside America for so long? What sort of a bubble did they live in where they isolated themselves so much from the American culture that they did not care to learn the language and yet connected enough to the nation at large that they cared enough to vote at all?

I call bullshit on this.

Re:WTF?

[blindseer]

That's what I get for hitting "submit" before "preview".

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder what language these Americans were speaking while living inside America for so long?

Keres and Navajo, according to this.

I call bullshit on this.

That's nice, but they went to court, and provided evidence.

Re:WTF?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Which is insane given that the Navajo language was not put into written form until the 1930s. Well after English was "standard" throughout the US.

Re: WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Navaho?

Re:WTF?

[techno-vampire]

The Cherokee tribe adopted a written form of their language (a syllabary, not an alphabet as such) developed by Sequoyah in 1825, and their literacy rate rapidly outpaced that of their European neighbors. The really remarkable thing about this is that he was completely illiterate when he started, although unlike most of his people he didn't think that reading and writing were a form of sorcery.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is insane given that the Navajo language was not put into written form until the 1930s.

Not an issue, the order specifically mentions providing instructions orally, and training of poll-workers.

"In the case of historically unwritten Native American languages, a jurisdiction covered under 203 “must furnish oral instruction, assistance, or other information relating to registration and voting.”

Well after English was "standard" throughout the US.

Doesn't matter, it's not a question of when English was "standard" for anything, but the voter's rights. Given that as a community, they pre-dated the US by far, it's not an unreasonable consideration, but then that's why tribes retain native sovereignty.

Obama admin acting consistently

[Anonymous Coward]

They have imported MILLIONS of people into the US and put them onto various government benefits programs, and in places like California have given them driver's licenses and also put in place "motor voter" systems, while they have blocked all efforts to look for vote fraud under the banner of "civil rights". Every vote by an eneligible voter displaces the vote of a person whose vote was supposed to matter. It's easy to say "there's no evidence of fraud" when you work very hard to not look for any and use government to block attemtps to look for it.

They refused to prosecute BlackPanthers who showed up at the polls in paramilitary uniforms and armed with billy clubs. If ANY other group in America showed up at the polls with weapons and in paramilitary uniforms to intimidate people, they would have gone to prison.

They destroyed e-mail that were required by law to be preserved as government records as the State Dept, the IRS, and other agencies, thus setting a string of precedents about destroying evidence about Federal government policies and slective enforcement of law. Hillary's e-mails were only the tip of the iceberg. The IRS servers were in government custody when they were degaused while the IRS commissioner smirked his way through a congressional hearing, which is why congress is currently considering impeachment hearings for him. The only thing that may save him is that he will be gone in a few months anyway.

They have used justice department to sue states that try to ID voters with the bogus claim that minorities are incapable of getting photo IDs..... which is silly given that you need photo ID to ride on a plane, drive a car, or buy beer and this will only increase in response to terrorism. The last time I looked, minorities were having no more trouble buying beer than whites.

They have used Justice Department to sue states that try to look for voter fraud, and to bury actual cases that are forced upon them by the states. In 2013 just one county in Virginia (hardly ground zero for illegal immigration) discovered that several hundred illegals had registered to vote, and over 100 of them had in fact voted. According to law, they were given a chance to show that they were citizens - they did not. The cases were handed over by the election board to Eric Holder (then Obama's A.G.) who refused to act and who later held press conferences in which he claimed there was no evidence of vote fraud in America. In 2015 the Obama administration spent more money importing illegals into the country (under the guise of "family reunification" where they FLEW illegals INTO the US to unite them, rather than deporting the ones whho were here) than they spen looking for vote fraud. The Democrats have endlessly demanded that there is "no evidence" of vote fraud, as they have done everything they possibly could to block any attempt to look for it and to ignore it and destroy evidence of it when offered. They work very hard to not see what they claim does not exist. EVERYBODY knows full-well that poor immigrants and the 1st generation kids of poor immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats when they are given the chance. If this is a mystery to anybody, they need their head examined.

One cannot find what one refuses to look for and refuses to see.

Re:Obama admin acting consistently

[riverat1]

The GW Bush administration had the US Attorneys looking for voter fraud and they didn't find jack shit. If they couldn't find anything what makes you think there is anything there? Your stories sound like a collection of urban legends.

SIDESHOW DISTRACTION

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter that much because what if they had 100 people at each poll booth, do you know them either?

Find out who the 2016 electoral college representatives are. There you will find the actual votes that count. The voting booths will be filled with many uninformed wishful thinkers anyway.

Ask Al Gore about voting against George Bush, son of George Bush Sr. head of the CIA. The spy agencies dictate to the president still in USA. They are not afraid of Obama killing them but Obama is afraid of dying.

The CIA want Hillary Clinton and she will say anything they tell her to. Expect garbage from her that is so far fetched you think she's on drugs.

what about dead people who still on the rolls

[Joe_Dragon]

what about dead people who still on the rolls some times for years.

Re:what about dead people who still on the rolls

[Anonymous Coward]

what about dead people who still on the rolls some times for years.

Ah, so you have a case of people voting using dead peoples names in a way that is statistically significant in a way that actual affected the outcome of a non trivial election? Proof please? I'm pretty sure they can and should be prosecuted.

More seriously, if a person is dead, it is not unreasonable to, well, notify the DMV and such. It would have to be an official notification, possibly by a hospital, police, etc, not just a partisan group. The same notification would delete them from the voter roles.

At any rate, yes if you auto add people when they interact with an official office such as the DMV, you also need to setup the provision to auto remove them when they die, and of course reasonable provisions to fix mistakes. None of this should be helped or assisted by anyone partisan or directed by anyone partisan. Heck that kind of thing is kinda necessary to prevent abuse of tax and benefit fraud anyway.

I've not seen any real proof that voting fraud is a serious issue, unless your talking the process of counting the votes. All manner of crap is possible there, particularly without some kind of verifiable audit trail. I'm of the opinion that it is worth the dead trees to keep a log of actual votes, that a person can see before they leave, but obviously not who voted for whom.

Re:what about dead people who still on the rolls

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK's election in 1960. Daley handed Chicago over to Kennedy. On a silver platter.

Re:what about dead people who still on the rolls

[Anonymous Coward]

JFK's election in 1960. Daley handed Chicago over to Kennedy. On a silver platter.

Hmm. From slate article that one doesn't even seem clear cut, but even if it was, would not the guilty party be a guy and those in his organisation?

I suppose the real question, was there really any evidence of masses of people pretending to be dead people and voting twice? That kind of conspiracy is basically impossible to keep secret. I can buy corrupt officials influencing tallies, and maybe, if they were clever they could use be subtle enough to shift some results without being noticed, but this doesn't really seem to be a problem purging voter rolls is going to fix, although again, purging people that are really dead is fine with me. We just need the controls not to screw it up and of course it shouldn't occur right before an election, but rather right after they actually die.

The vote fraud the concerns me are as follows:
1) First anything that can be done to change the tallies in subtle ways, particularly with voting machines without an audit trail.
2) The hyperpartisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering
3) indirect voting fraud such as conspiring to limit voting machines or purge rolls right before an election, while at the same time making it harder to fix the mess.

but yah, if anyone actually commits voting fraud, I say prosecute them. The actual problem appears to be rare. vote fraud rare

Re:what about dead people who still on the rolls

[riverat1]

The vote fraud the concerns me are as follows:
1) First anything that can be done to change the tallies in subtle ways, particularly with voting machines without an audit trail.
2) The hyperpartisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering [buzzfeed.com]
3) indirect voting fraud such as conspiring to limit voting machines or purge rolls right before an election, while at the same time making it harder to fix the mess.

Technically speaking those are election fraud. Actual vote fraud would involve the actual act of voting.

Re:what about dead people who still on the rolls

[silentcoder]

>More seriously, if a person is dead, it is not unreasonable to, well, notify the DMV and such

Well, as it happens - the OPPOSITE seems to be more common. The social security department gave figures for how often living people get misfiled as deceased - and it comes to around 480 people every month.

That's rather a lot of people who are believed dead by the state long before they actually passed away. So it's actually very likely that the vast majority of those 'dead people voting' were never dead in the first place.

Not annual fee, mistake

[Okian Warrior]

Sorry about the mistake. There is no "annual" fee for driver's licenses in NH, there's a one-time fee every 5 years.

It was a mental typo - I mentally confused car license with driving license when typing.

Re:Not annual fee, mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. You tried to be mis-informative and failed. You want to be informative, but dont know shit, so this is your next best option.

The change in the law makes sense

[KenHansen]

The change in the law was to require the DoJ to actually have a current factual basis to micro-manage and oversee elections in that state. That there were problems in particular states pre-1965 doesn't mean the federal government will forever observe elections there. Basically the law inserted federal officials into state elections based on historical events that occurred prior to the signing of the bill, once signed into law, there was no path for a state to come off the 'watch list'.

Just Like Turkey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy? That SI So... 20th Century.

The 21st is all about Dictatorships!

Isn't this a sign of success?

[Anonymous Coward]

One should expect that, if effective, oversight would eventually lead to states absent racial bias. Isn't this a sign that has been achieved? Make no mistake -- removing racial bias does not equal voting the way you want. But a law to address an injustice should eventually fade away as the underlying problems are solved, right?

BTW: I live in the South, when I go to the North I am astonished at the racism I find. It's pernicious and overt. Fix your own house before insisting I haven't fixed mine.

The Timing

[nehumanuscrede]

is most amusing.

Easily going to be the most controversial election in the history of our country and we're going to further limit the ability to catch any bullshit that is likely to happen.
Not that it matters, no matter who wins, ( Ego A or Ego B ) we all lose anyway.

I think it would shock folks more if the election happened without any sneaky, underhanded bullshit.

Re:The Timing

[Pascoea]

Not that it matters, no matter who wins, ( Ego A or Ego B ) we all lose anyway.

You realize there are more options than Hillary or Trump, right? I understand that any of those candidates or parties are an absolute long shot for the presidency, but if you think we're fucked if either Hillary or Trump get in, why not "waste" your vote on one of the other candidates, and get a few of your friends and relatives to join you. It may not happen this election, but if the "outsider" parties start gaining traction we may be able to get out of the two-party-system hellhole.

Re:The Timing

[Anonymous Coward]

This supposes that the two party system is not just an inevitable consequence of a first-past-the-post voting system.

I'm less convinced. I think the only way out of the two-party system is a more representative system of vote-counting.

Re: Hillary wins

[Anonymous Coward]

President's annual salary is $400,000, plus $50000 expenses, housing, free medical, security detail, and use of a nice airplane. Plus a $200,000 lifetime pension. Then there's that most-powerful-man-on-earth thing...

If you're not doing anything wrong crowd:

[Anonymous Coward]

silenced.

these days are over

[prof_robinson]

It's not 1965. There is no racial voter discrimination anymore. The first black president has been elected twice. States with voterID elected him, and had increased black turnout, as well. Now, the problem isn't KKK members requiring poll tests...it's black panthers standing outside voting booths and lecturing "crackers" on the coming "reign of the black man". Even the UN's election website lists voterID as a requirement for certifying an election as "free and fair". It's 2016 - and time to move on.

Trancend yourself

[Texmaize]

In a world after the FBI ruling on Clinton, where it basically says she is guilty, but the government basically refuses to prosecute people in her pay grade, don't you think you should really start re-evaluating your world view and perspective some?

Do you honestly still think that the actions of this very same government are not suspect in other legal matters? You may want to reconsider the possibility that the throwing out of the black panther racial intimidation lawsuit had nothing to do with legal merit.

Re:Trancend yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world after the FBI ruling on Clinton, where it basically says she is guilty, but the government basically refuses to prosecute people in her pay grade, don't you think you should really start re-evaluating your world view and perspective some?

No, because I was more than aware of that problem decades ago. What? You thought this was new? If so, you should start your own evaluation of the world, and your perspective on history. Start at the beginning.

Of course, that's just the US, but I hardly want to list EVERY country.

Do you honestly still think that the actions of this very same government are not suspect in other legal matters? You may want to reconsider the possibility that the throwing out of the black panther racial intimidation lawsuit had nothing to do with legal merit.

Are you honestly under the impression that your hyperbolic hysteria about today's problems are somehow convincing? You may want to consider your own approach. Trying to make mountains out of molehills is just as common as sweeping things under the rug, and the more you freak out over this inconsequential incident, while showing no interest in the other real problems of today, the more you convince me that you don't really care. You're just trying to make political hay.

Stop, sit back, and consider that for a bit.

Re:Trancend yourself

[Holi]

So wait, Are you talking about the 2 guys at the 1 polling place in Philadelphia? Because I can't really see that as wide spread voter intimidation and even the guy who took the video said it was a non-story. https://mic.com/articles/18580...

jagoan5555

[Anonymous Coward]

agen judi
agen bola
bursa bola
bursa taruhan
bursa judi
agen bola deposit murah
agen bola deposit 25 rb
agen bola cashback 10%
agen bola terpercaya

Re:Don't Worry

[SadButResolved]

Guciffer 2.0 released that 2 of the top doners to the Hillery campaign are voting machine vendors.
There are several studies showing that in states where there is no paper trail, Hillary was overwelming as the winner.
The Exit poll company didn't even go into California and the last couple states when people started asking for the raw data from the previous states
The U.S. Considers any exit poll deviating more than 2% as fraudulant. Many of Hillary's states she won were off 10-22%.
Rules changes such as in Nevada causing anarchy where very common.
The shear lack of media coverage for the several lawsuits into election fraud during the primary is Telling
The Media give 0 coverage to Bernie is obvious, once you notice whom of the companies are top donors to Hillary campaign. (all but fox)
When you look at the 1996 law that let these media companies gobble up all the smaller news orgs, was actually changed by Bill Clinton, and you guessed it, Hillary
The Obama administration's inability to be either Black or White through the Political appointies Lynch and Comey, fresh off their HSBC board positions, where they also failed to prosecute is interesting.
Now the whole of America's Black population distrusts our rules of law bullshit that president is spouting, when obviously he doesn't think it applies to him or his, is going to make it much better.

Yea sure, lets have less people observing the VOTE as we know as you watch it literally get shipped to spain,then sent back to america, Hillary is already the clear winner.

The country is at the point of no return soon, all we need now is some great Trade Deal like Nafta to insource and outsource the remaining jobs in America, and make sure anyone left has to work for poverty wages.
We have that TPP, which is so wonderful you do not need to look at it, just give up your rights to some random non elected board like the Europa group....

Country of laws, ruled by law, is gone. It is now 100% grab what you can before the building burns down.

Who's watching then?

[SlithyMagister]

Doesn't every polling place have observers? In Canada (and other British Commonwealth countries), every political party is entitled to have an volunteer observer called "scrutineer" present at the registration table, and that person also assists in the ballot count.

Does this happen in the US?
If not, it seems reasonable to have somebody watching what goes on.

Without neutral observers asserting that the process is fair, it seems pretty certain that it isn't.

Re:Who's watching then?

[Rockoon]

Doesn't every polling place have observers?

With the exception of maybe absentee ballots, yes.

...but dont tell the SJW's. They dont like to hear facts.

They sure have "tightened" standards

[whitroth]

Just like Jim Crow. Even when they couldn't even show 0.01% of the votes were fraud. Even when they only had 17 cases the previous year out of several million votes.

Maybe the Carter Foundation will send out observers.

              mark

Wtf?

[mysidia]

Our federal government has One Job. Defend the public, and adhering to the constitution ensure the sacred institution of government for the people by the people remains as such.

Elections are fraught with voter fraud attempts.....

How is it that there are BILLIONS to throw away on the most absurd things..... and yet not a single Million$ or two to spare to make sure there are eyes on every single polling place: and abuses or interferences are not occurring that could undermine election processes?

Of course they don't want oversight

[DrStoooopid]

How else can Hillary steal the election?