Privacy Watchdog Sues Trump's Election Committee Over Voter Data (engadget.com)

From a report: When the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity sent a letter to all 50 states seeking personal, identifying information on all voters in the US, at least 44 states refused in some part. Trump signed an executive order last May to create this commission while claiming that millions of people had voted illegally. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has taken issue with this request, as well, and has filed a lawsuit accusing the Commission of violating the privacy of American voters. EPIC also asserts that the original request asks states to send the data to a non-secure website, making the data vulnerable to identity theft and financial fraud. Not to mention political agendas. EPIC is also seeking information about "the failure to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment," and has filed for a temporary restraining order "to block the Commission's efforts."

Comments

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with a suspicious mind might think that these people have something to hide.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with a suspicious mind might think that Trump has something to hide by not releasing his Tax returns. At least that situation has some reasoning behind it (conflicts of interest, foreign investments/liabilities, etc), this "election committee" is pointless. Election fraud is about as rare as finding a winning lottery ticket fluttering in the wind.

Re:Hmmmm

[sexconker]

Someone with a suspicious mind might think that Trump has something to hide by not releasing his Tax returns. At least that situation has some reasoning behind it (conflicts of interest, foreign investments/liabilities, etc), this "election committee" is pointless. Election fraud is about as rare as finding a winning lottery ticket fluttering in the wind.

Where are your tax returns? Do you have something to hide?

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone with a suspicious mind might also think that Trump isn't being honest about why he wants the data.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that doesn't wash.

First, every President for the last 40 years has released his tax returns as a matter of good faith.

Second, when Trumpkin was demanding Obama's Birth Certificate (his fucking BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Like someone could get that far in the election without anyone bothering to check that they're a citizen first?!?) he said - more than once - that he would release his tax returns if he got elected. For the last 6 months we've been waiting and he's been pretending he didn't say a thing. To boot, when he's demanding that other people pay "their fair share" he turns around and says, "I use the tax laws to my advantage". At BEST he's a hypocrite.

Third, as has been established many times in this thread, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with elections - this is established in our Constitution (you should probably read it since your President can't be bothered to)

Fourth, the current administration has made no bones about taking personal action against someone that they simply don't like. Do I want my information given to these underhanded douchbags? No, the answer is (and will always be) NO.

Re: Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think Obama had it the entire time and just used the kerfuffle to ridicule his opposition, which backfired on Hillary first and on the GOP afterwards. At any time, any one of the 50 states could have released a statement saying they had received a complete and vetted application and petition to be included on the ballot. If any state felt they had an incomplete application, they could have denied his candidacy.

Re: Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly there were over 100 elections Obama competed in (primaries and national) many with republican SoS, but surprise! Not one of them had a single problem with his eligibility. Somehow they're all in on the conspiracy.

scientists and statisticians on the job, you thin?

[supernova87a]

I'm not as concerned about voter privacy (which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on) as the likelihood that whoever in this administration tasked to do it is some part time Republican committee-connected programmer bro (maybe not even that lowly skilled) who hacks together some shitty piece of analysis code that comes to wrong conclusions, is misused for political purposes, and is vulnerable to hacking.

This is the flavor of the week for the administration. It's one thing they are putting out there to see if it flies, and that's about how long their interest and dedication to doing the job right will last. There are people (secretaries of state, registrars, data scientists) whose entire lives are dedicated to maintaining and verifying and analyzig voter rolls. Who do you trust to handle and come to conclusions about this kind of data conscientiously?

As the Republicans say, when the Federal Government comes knocking with the line "I'm here to help" you should be scared. They're right in this case.

For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

requesting that all the states turn over all this voter information and then imagine sputtering rage that would have ensued from the GOP.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, given that the GOP has been pushing for Voter ID laws since forever, I doubt they would mind it much if the result was a crack down on voter fraud, which they claim happens at every election.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

Evidence...? ...crickets...

  Also "hundreds"? That sounds like big problem which could seriously impact elections. In Tuvalu.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

848 documented criminal convictions, and this is just a sampling. Or perhaps you'd like to hear from the Pew Trusts and their finding of "Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.", not to mention millions of dead still registered to vote... Is that enough evidence for you? How much is needed before it becomes a concern - is it only dismissed because it tends to overwhelmingly break one way?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

"registered to vote" and "cast a vote" are NOT the same thing. Not even remotely close.

It's relatively easy to register to vote after you move. Most people do it while updating some other service that also needs to be updated after moving.

What most people do not do is, request to be removed from the prior voter role. They also don't vote in that prior location either. They'll eventually be removed, once stuff catches up, but it make take a while.

This is by design in most systems. Better to have a few extra registrations that haven't caught up that also don't actually vote than to disenfranchise legitimate voters by pruning the register to aggressively.

As a side note, wasn't it reported that some of Trump's own campaign was registered to vote in multiple locations? I'm sure they only voted once though. For 2 reasons, first it's what normal people do. Second, it would be a huge scandal if they voted more than one time. Mostly for the first reason though. :)

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[AC-x]

848 documented criminal convictions [amazonaws.com], and this is just a sampling.

Only 6 of those are from the 2016 election.

Or perhaps you'd like to hear from the Pew Trusts and their finding of "Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state." [pewtrusts.org], not to mention millions of dead still registered to vote... Is that enough evidence for you?

Steve Bannon, Tiffany Trump, Sean Spicer, Jared Kushner and Steven Mnuchin are all registered to vote in more than one state. Does that prove they committed voter fraud? Or could it be that being registered twice doesn't mean they tried to vote twice? How many of those 2.76 million registered in multiple states voted twice? Or even know they're registered twice? How many dead people voted? Given that records of who voted are publicly available it should be incredibly easy to show any massive voter fraud... <crickets>

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

848 documented criminal convictions [amazonaws.com], and this is just a sampling

A meaningless number if unaccompanied by the number of fraudulent votes actually cast in a given election. Also, how many of these would actually have been prevented by measures the GOP is asking for?

Or perhaps you'd like to hear from the Pew Trusts and their finding of "Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state."

Because they moved. How many actually voted in more than one state? By which I mean not "voted in State A, moved to State B, voted in State B", which is legitimate, but "moved to State B, voted in State A despite not being entitled to vote in State A elections"? In the absence of evidence, the number is zero.

not to mention millions of dead still registered to vote

Because (brace yourself for a shock here) bureaucracies are inefficient, and for some reason informing the election board is a low priority for people who've lost loved ones. But how many of them are actually voting?

You're throwing out Big Scary Numbers that you KNOW don't mean what you want people to think they mean.

This makes you a liar.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

You may want to actually read the links you post. I know the Heritage foundation thinks you are stupid enough to read the first few pages and think that they are all "dead people voting" but you should have more respect for yourself than they do.

These convictions run the gamut from idiots trying to run for office by pretending to live in a different district, people being payed to collect petition signatures or voter registrations who tried to scam their employers instead of doing the work, politicians outright buying votes, election officials tampering with ballots, and people on absentee voting drives improperly turning in ballots for other people which is a crime even though those other people filled the ballots out themselves. And other such technicalities:

XXX admitted to improperly assisting voters in
completing their absentee ballots in the 2005 Americus mayoral
election. XXX was a candidate in that election, and on at least six
occasions, he helped voters fill out information on their ballot mailers
without signing the requisite oath indicating he had provided the
assistance. He was ordered by the State Election Board to pay a
$600 fine

Your contention that it "only breaks one way" is also false. Plenty of news articles of Trumpkins trying to double vote.

Which is dumb. As the convictions show, it is very easy to catch you doing this. Only a few fools each year try it, the rest are dissuaded by us actually enforcing existing laws using existing precautionary mechanisms.

To start screwing around with people who *should* be allowed to vote for the sake of a teeny tiny number of people to are trying to defraud the system will get us less accurate results than doing nothing at all.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LifesABeach]

Dumb ass, not even those who agree with you are smiling. Why are you grinning?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

How many do you want to allow, each election? How many convictions are required before you are concerned about it? How much fraud do you accept?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, read the link. Duplicate votes. Ineligible (illegals!) voting, fraudulent use of absentee ballots. How much fraud do you want to accept? What is your limit for illegal, fraudulent votes?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Something less than the margin of error.

And, no I didn't look at a link to a random PDF hosted on a random AWS instance. How about an actual news source?

From this comment about 2002, does that mean this trove of 848 issues covers a 15+ year time span? For the entire country? That's statistically nothing at all.

Did you even READ what you wrote? At the same time you said "Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.". Those aren't fraudulent votes. Those are voter rolls behind when people have moved.

OR, is what you really want to do confuse the small number of actual issues (that are already caught and insignificant to the outcome) with the bigger number that's meaningless on it's own and shows no issues at all? Totally deceptive in nature.

I stand by the voter rolls being slower to remove people than add as by design in most systems. Better to have a few extra registrations that haven't caught up that also don't actually vote than to disenfranchise legitimate voters by pruning the register to aggressively. Someone registered in multiple locations that still only votes in one causes no harm. Someone removed from the roll incorrectly by aggressive clean up causes immediate harm and disenfranchises them.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

How much fraud is "acceptable" is a matter of how many legitimate disenfranchised voters would result from the proposed remedy for said fraud. We've made this perfectly clear, so why ask yet again? Also, these particular people have made it amply clear that their primary goal is to disenfranchise voters, not prevent fraud. So again, why do you ask?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

Huh? Your answer makes no sense. You wanted proof of fraud - here it is. Apparently it's not enough. How would voters be disenfranchised by solving voter fraud? I assume those bastions of Conservatism, WI and MI, are terrible for requiring proof of ID at the voting booth, right?

How much fraud is acceptable to you?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent answer was perfectly clear.

Things to prevent voter fraud will also tend to prevent legitimate voters too. Errors, mistakes, burdens that create obstacles that are hard to overcome for legitimate people, etc...

I could prevent 100% of voter fraud today for $0 cost. Simply eliminate all voting completely. Bummer of a side effect though, it also eliminates all legitimate voters too.

The answer for acceptable fraud measures is keeping it a level that is low enough to have no impact and also does not eliminate legitimate voters. Measures that eliminate more legitimate voters than actual fraud are more harmful than helpful. It does no good to prevent 1 person from voting fraudulently and at the same time prevent 10 or 100 people from voting legitimately.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

Not only does my answer make sense, it's friggin obvious, unless you are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb. And yet you ask again, so I am going to assume the former.

No your "proof" is not *nearly* enough. Not even a start.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Most cases of "Fraudulent use of Absentee Ballots" result from amateur volunteers not knowing that there are very strict rules about how absentee ballots must be filled out and delivered. In fact a huge number of the cases in that document are against (n00b) candidates themselves and many in minor off-year elections because that is where idiots think they can get away with it and it might make a difference. Barely anyone bothers in large elections... there's no way to pull it off.

See, what happens is this: Since ballots are usually counted in precinct, one of the little old ladies making bingo money running the roles, counting absentee votes or serving as a judge for one of the parties, bless their gossipy souls, has a very high chance of having personally known the dead person you try to vote for. The more dead people you try to vote for, the greater the odds she'll call the policeman over from the corner to ask you a few questions, or send one to the address from which the absentee ballot was requested.

So you cannot hang your hat on the number "848", as puny as it is, especially when averaged out over a dozen election cycles.

D.C. political operatives trawling through a giant list of voters are going to make huge mistakes because they lack this local perspective. They'll claim a bunch of dead people voted, and we'll find them mowing their lawns, yet again. And since their only intent is to cause chaos in the first place, they'll care even less. They might as well just pretend they went and got the data themselves and go publish their results now, since they'll make up whatever shit they feel like anyway.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[skids]

It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others

That logically does not follow.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual source is from the Heritage Foundation, and it lists names, crimes, and jurisdictions.

So you allege. Did they sign it with PGP or some other authentication method?

Laziness is just an excuse to not face the fact, that voter fraud DOES happen, and in at least one case (Compton, CA - Mayor Bradley's re-election) the election results were overturned because of documented fraud.

So do tell us exactly what specific matters occurred in that election that will be remedied by the solution, the only solution, you have suggested, forcing voters to procure ID?

So how much fraud do you want to allow? It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others...

So how many voters do you want denied their lawful right to vote? It's been proven to happen, which means it influenced elections.

How many fraudulent elections are acceptable to you?

How many discriminatory denials of the right to vote are acceptable to you?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[sexconker]

Most people vote by mail. If you move to another state and are on both voter rolls and a forwarding address. Boom, 2 ballots. I'd wager a lot of people would vote twice. Certainly a lot more than would report to jury duty in their old state.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

There is another case, in Connecticut, where a non-citizen fraudulently voted, then later ran - and won - a seat in State Government. He was charged, tried, convicted, and removed from office. At least two elections overturned from fraudulent voting. How many more do you want?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[LynnwoodRooster]

At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud. How many more do we need? What is the downside of stronger screening for voting? And why is that different from 2A rights?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Bartles]

Lets say 1% of those 2.76 million people voted twice. That's 27,600 Illegal votes. Is that too many for you? Considering a large portion of those 2.76 million people are registered in Florida as one of the states, that would easily have been enough to tip the 2000 national election one way or the other. Wake Up.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Bartles]

Every time an illegitimate vote is cast, it cancels a legitimate vote. If you are concerned about disenfranchisement (you're not) you would be completely for an investigation.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Areyoukiddingme]

How many do you want to allow, each election?

Very few.

How many convictions are required before you are concerned about it?

Thousands, per state, minimum. Tens of thousands in high population states.

How much fraud do you accept?

Approximately 0.01% is perfectly acceptable. The actual rate is less than that, year in and year out. 6 out of 136,628,459 is 0.0000000439%. I'm perfectly fine with a rate 100,000 times worse than that. Fortunately I don't have to settle for that.

Existing voting controls are quite good, most places. The only precincts I'm suspicious of are those with purely electronic voting, and the only part of that I'm suspicious of is the vote results. The actual voting controls are still quite good, even in places like that.

I like my state's method best. Scantron sheets, so there's a paper record that's electronically tabulated, with the tabulation happening right in front of you. The scanner rejects your ballot if you screwed it up somehow. Much better than any paper punch system, and far better than any purely electronic system.

Why, when someone objects to blatantly obviously politically motivated bullshit, do you immediately conclude that a) the objector also objects to any voting controls at all; and b) that there are no existing voting controls? You are 100% wrong in both cases.

Re: For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you'll be calling for the prosecution of this woman?

She committed the crime, shouldn't she be punished?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud.

Not one single case where you have documented any of the fraud was related to your only offered solution, of voter ID, in fact, you have been remarkably imprecise and inexact about the specific details of those elections.

I wonder why you are so evasive.

How many more do we need?

I would start with documenting one, where your only solution, will work.

What is the downside of stronger screening for voting?

The disenfranchisement of citizens through improper screening, whether accidental or intentional, and unfortunately, as you well know, the intentional has been quite well documented.

You know, this, of course, because you've been told it before.

Really, LynnwoodRooster, you don't accomplish anything with your own willful obtuseness. Like your tendency to lie and prevaricate, it harms you by showing a severe lack of credibility.

And why is that different from 2A rights?

I'd start with the basic fact that the state isn't obligated to provide you with a firearm.

Feel free to advocate for that, of course. You won't win a lawsuit, but you can pursue a law requiring the state to provide citizens with firearms.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

How many discriminatory denials of the right to vote are acceptable to you?

Whats discriminatory about wanting people that are voting to have an ID? Or for asking for public voter records?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

There is another case, in Connecticut, where a non-citizen fraudulently voted, then later ran - and won - a seat in State Government. He was charged, tried, convicted, and removed from office. At least two elections overturned from fraudulent voting.

So let's see, voter ID would help in that how? He won the seat based on the other voters, not himself.

Seems to me that was a registration as a candidate issue, not a voter problem.

Much like Thad in Michigan. How would seeing his ID have helped? And are you prepared to invalidate a decade of Congressional Action? Is that it?

How many more do you want?

Start with providing one, where Voter ID would make a significant difference that is sufficient to outweigh the burden you seek to impose on the public.

After you've gotten beyond zero, you should be wary though, we can't have any laws passed if the people are, as you allege, fraudulently elected.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats discriminatory about wanting people that are voting to have an ID?

The documented behavior in North Carolina is one place for you to find numerous examples of the discriminatory practices that occur.

Are you so ignorant of the situation that you don't know what has happened when it was proven in a court of law? And North Carolina wasn't' the only one. Alabama, Texas, Pennsylvania, had lawsuits they lost as well.

Or for asking for public voter records?

I think you are confused, the issue with the actions taken by Trump's "commission" is related to the objectionable nature of it, as it includes demands for information that cannot be shared. Furthermore, it was also improperly done, as it was not compliance with the proper procedures, and there are concerns about how the data will be stored.

Of course, knowing Kris Kobach (threatened with contempt for his discriminatory actions regarding voters already), he might well end up engaging in some misconduct.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[AC-x]

Tell me, do you believe that Steve Bannon, Tiffany Trump, Sean Spicer, Jared Kushner and Steven Mnuchin committed voter fraud?

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[AC-x]

Show me a single shred of evidence that voter fraud is anywhere near that high, voting records are public so it should be very easy for you to do.

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they overturn the results of every position he voted for in every election he voted in? Because if not, then the voting wouldn't seem to be the cause of the election being overturned. Might have something to do with his eligibility to run for office...

Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats discriminatory about wanting people that are voting to have an ID?

Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. The devil's in the details. Some of those details may include:

• - Requiring a fee for an ID and/or having a non-obvious or complicated process for obtaining a fee waiver.
• - Disqualifying many commonly held forms of ID.
• - Requiring travel to distant offices and/or limiting hours of ID processing locations ("only open the 5th Wednesday of the month") to make obtaining the proper form of ID overly burdensome.
• - Not synchronizing voter rolls with ID databases and rejecting voters when details (name, address, etc.) don't match.
• - "You don't look like your picture."
• - Or basically any issue that can't be resolved on-site at the time of the election. Because who doesn't love casting a provisional ballot that may or may not ever be reviewed, if casting a provisional ballot is even allowed?

Any ID system would need to have fewer false positives than fraud cases being prevented. Otherwise, it is causing the exact problem that it claims to solve. So either you need to show evidence of massive levels of fraud or you need a system so permissive that it wouldn't prevent much of the fraud in the first case.

Re: For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Bartles]

Show me evidence that it's not.

Re: For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[KGIII]

Sorta off-toic; why do you think you were moderated down?

I am not actually sure. It says 'troll' but that doesn't seem accurate. Even if I didn't agree with you, I see nothing trolling in your response.

To be clear, fraudulent votes do happen. We don't actually know precise numbers. We do know (have every reason go believe, more accurately) that they don't occur frequently enough to have changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

I also will add that I have no problems with them investigating this. Finding more precise numbers is good.

Re: For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[KGIII]

Not that it matters, but I see no confirmation that those six people only voted twice.

In an ideal world, anything less than 100% legitimacy is unacceptable.

Re: For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary

[Areyoukiddingme]

In an ideal world, anything less than 100% legitimacy is unacceptable.

In an ideal world, love is forever, there's peace in the Middle East, and puppies don't pee on the floor.

If you find that ideal world, let me know. I'll come and take the crack pipe out of your hand.

The liberals asked for this investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

The liberals asked for this investigation after Trump suggested their might be voter fraud. The media and liberals responded that if he was serious he should investigate. So he did, now they make a big deal about the necessary information requests to perform such an investigation. Maybe they should instead suggest how we can perform the investigation within their 'bounds of acceptance'.

Re:The liberals asked for this investigation

[laie_techie]

The liberals asked for this investigation after Trump suggested their might be voter fraud. The media and liberals responded that if he was serious he should investigate. So he did, now they make a big deal about the necessary information requests to perform such an investigation. Maybe they should instead suggest how we can perform the investigation within their 'bounds of acceptance'.

You forget that we're talking about Trump. Trump can't do anything right according to mainstream media.

Re: The liberals asked for this investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're fine with submitting personal information over insecure Http?

That's what the committee is under fire for. They're not telling them to stop. They're telling them to do it right.

Re:The liberals asked for this investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

So he did, now they make a big deal about the necessary information requests to perform such an investigation.

The necessary information is a matter of public record. They're asking for information that isn't necessary at all, which means at best they're incompetent and at worst they're lying about what they want that information for.

So why do you want to give Americans' private information to people who are either too incompetent or too malicious to be trusted with it?

Re:The liberals asked for this investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound bitter. As a Libtard Cuck, I should say that there are some things that Trump does VERY well.

Lie
Swindle
Steal
Withhold Payment
Manipulate Tax and Bankruptcy Laws
Lie
Avoid the Truth when it might make him look bad
Avoid the Truth when a lie is more interesting
Avoid the Truth when he's speaking
and Lie.

I can give credit where it's due, but this man should not be President because of these credentials; how he made it despite them still baffles me (and 55% of the American voters).

Re: The liberals asked for this investigation

[laie_techie]

So you're fine with submitting personal information over insecure Http?

That's what the committee is under fire for. They're not telling them to stop. They're telling them to do it right.

No, I am not ok with passing sensitive information over insecure channels. I wrote a pro-Trump joke which got modded troll, while seeing other instances favoring liberals being modded funny.

I voted 3rd party because I couldn't put my name behind either Trump nor Clinton. I lean Conservative, but am disenfranchised with the Republican Party.

Re:The liberals asked for this investigation

[laie_techie]

You sound bitter.

It was meant as not-so-tongue-in-cheek that anyone from the other party can't do anything right. George W. Bush was judged for results of previous administrations (as were Clinton and Obama). People get so loyal to their party that nothing else matters. Yes, I'm Conservative. No, I don't self identify with the Republican Party or Tea Party.

Do you want fair elections or not?

[SuperKendall]

The Democrats raised the loudest stick about elections being hacked. The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states...

Well then lets check, lets check everywhere the full extent of votes really being hacked, of votes really being cast illegally. What is the issue with not checking this? They claim voter privacy but there is no such concern in regards to the federal government which owns all of the results of a national election anyway and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.

Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit, and they do not want it uncovered - and here I'm speaking for both parties. This is yet another glimpse of the Deep State disliking being exposed to sunlight.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[bugs2squash]

I thought the states ran their own elections to choose electoral college members and the EC members voted at the national level for president. It's the presidential election that has triggered the most concern, but I'm sure there is concern about house and senate, perhaps even state level seats too, but these are all issues that affect how each state is represented and are proper matters for a state to research (perhaps with support from the federal gov).

This attempt by the administration to fish for anything they might use to bolster their fantasy that Trump won the popular vote has nothing to do with a search for the truth.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit

Sources? Voter fraud is not problem in the US.

>legally free and clear to demand any information it likes

What the actual fuck did you just say? That's not even remotely true, and counter to everything The Constitution of The United States stands for.

Hacking the election is not voter fraud, so not sure how this all fits together.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

14 states, not 44. But why bother with facts. And the data is publicly accessible by anyone, and parties among others routinely collect this data. So the feds can just get it via public accessible means if they want. What the feds have are their own databases that they can run these voter rolls against that might be telling. And very interesting that its never been done. Me thinks certain parties protest too much.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice how you worked in the 'both parties' line. I'm sure you were posting similar comments to Slashdot when Trump opposed the recounts after the election.

There actually is a pretty good rationale for voter privacy. Can you guess what it is?

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your google-fu is weak AC.

https://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf

And an article discussing that research, a response to it, and then a response to the initial response. So through the conversation you can see each side point out the other's weaknesses.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit,

Well then obviously there is obvious evidence of a crime that can obviously be prosecuted. Why aren't all these crimes being prosecuted?!?! We have a "law and order" justice dept so why isn't Jeff Sessions enforcing the law? Obviously they are protecting all of the fraudulent voters and are now accomplices to election fraud! We need to "lock him up" for allowing millions of fraudulent votes! The commission is just election integrity theater. Out of "3-5 million" illegal votes only a handful have been prosecuted! WTF! The calls are coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Especially with what they are requesting...military status, felony status, per-election voting results. I can see this being used as propaganda: each state has their own rules for felony voting. Some never let a felon vote again, some do after 2x time sentenced, etc. However, it's highly likely that this commission will "freak out" on Fox and Friends screaming about all the "felons voting!", and how that is "illegal", etc. They won't go into how it's illegal only in specific states, or that the states where felons are voting it isn't illegal...nuance like that is not usually fitting for Breibart, Fox, etc. All we will hear is is about "rapist, murderers, and pedophiles voting!" or such. They will probably just match up the last four SSN, take a list of dead people's last 4, and claim that ALL these people are "illegally voting dead people". Then, lawsuits from groups like "Voters Outreach of America" will start rolling in on those states, costing taxpayers millions and exposing even more voter information.

We all know that all this info will be rolled up into a highly insecure database and just behind-the-scenes handed over to companies like Cambridge Analytica. Or there will be some "cyber intrusion" and the data will be leaked...AND this cyber-incident will be used by "lawmakers" to clamp down even more on our distinguishing online freedoms.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that after all this worry over our elections being "hacked" in spite of evidence, you now refuse to allow anyone to study the issue. Not surprising given the videotaped admissions we saw, but still.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the issue with not checking this?

And if you happen to need brain surgery then why bother with a brain surgeon? Just find a drunk homeless guy, give him some kitchen knives and a hack saw, and lie down on the sidewalk and let the magic happen.

Well, sure, and if you're worried about someone breaking into your house and stealing things while you're away then why not just head on over to a part of the city where there are a lot of people standing around with not much to do and give out some copies of keys to your house along with a note detailing the dates that you will be away from your house? I'm sure they'll do the right thing. :)

Yes, it would be nice to know about problems with the last US presidential election. But, for a credible investigation, you need competence and integrity. And Trump and his fellow Republicans are ridiculously low on both competence and integrity.

I mean, suppose Russia really had hacked into the voting machines and changed the totals in favor or Trump. Would Trump or his fellow Republicans have even anywhere near enough competence to figure it out? Obviously not. But even if they somehow did figure it out, would they actually be honest enough to admit it? Would Trump be willing to resign if it turned out that Hillary would have won in the absence of Russian hacking? Obviously not.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[squiggleslash]

The Democrats didn't raise any sticks about the election itself being hacked, you just made that up. The Russia issue relates to things they did to influence the election, such as releasing Clinton's emails without releasing Trump's, and some peripheral issues relating to the possibility they might have been planning to disrupt the election itself by manipulating voting lists, not actually changing the results.

But yeah, let's check them. Let's get an independent commission to investigate, made up on non-controversial experts who aren't pushing an agenda, and have a documented history of lying and bad faith when pushing that agenda in the past. Let's make it legal, and ensure that requests for data come with guarantees that data will not be misused.

In other words, let's do the exact damned opposite of what Trump's investigation is doing.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Rockoon]

So what your saying is that now that Republicans are in full control of the Federal branches, that Democrats suddenly rediscovered States rights?

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Rockoon]

The Democrats didn't raise any sticks about the election itself being hacked, you just made that up.

Please... they screamed it very loudly. They are still screaming it.

In fact, the Democrats were calling the Republicans "unpatriotic" for not blindly believing it.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[bugs2squash]

This isn't about changing position on anything, it's about pulling together data to cherry pick over to support a predetermined outcome.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[bongey]

Russia influence? GTFOH, the MSM attempted much more to influence the election. How many anchors were crying on election night? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I thought the states ran their own elections to choose electoral college members and the EC members voted at the national level for president.

They do. That doesn't alter the voting requirements specified in the constitution.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Dog-Cow]

There's no such thing as a national election in the US. One votes for ones state's electors.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Train0987]

Right, but by using the phrase "hacked the election" they are ensuring that a certain segment of their base will forever believe The Russians! actually logged in and changed vote totals. That phrasing is a tactic and done completely on purpose.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[skids]

The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states...

No, the Green party raised millions to have actual elections officials double-check the ballots. That's a world apart from having a bunch of D.C. hacks run amateur database searches until they get something that they think looks fishy, but isn't, and then go tweeting around that the system is rigged despite not actually having any evidence for it... and, in the meantime, getting themselves hacked by every identity thief in the world because it is plain they do not know the fuck of what they do with computers.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[skids]

you now refuse to allow anyone to study the issue.

Not anyone. These people in particular. The head of the committee should have been too embarrassed to show his face in public after he made a big issue about one dead guy voting and they found said "dead guy" mowing his lawn. And Ken Blackwell? Please. It;s a rogues gallery of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our electoral system.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia influence? GTFOH, the MSM attempted much more.....

Dodgy and corporatist right wing as they are, the US "main stream media" are actually primarily made up of Americans who have every right to attempt to influence the elections, especially if they do it through (first amendment protected) free speech on their networks.

That you can't see the difference, or even that you believe that you can trick others who won't see the difference is scary.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EC members didn't "vote". Many are mandated by law to vote with their party, thus negating the entire damned purpose of the EC

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[HornWumpus]

We've heard from the purple sky people now...

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[CanadianMacFan]

There are bigger problems than voter fraud in the US. Mainly the gerrymandering of ridings (districts) and creation of laws to disenfranchise certain groups from voting. The fact that politicians are allowed to set their own districts is so baffling to me. In Canada ridings are determined by an independent body. They have to follow a set of rules such as trying to create the simplest shape (or at least it can't go and try to pick out separate blocks or houses) and should try to use boundary lines such as rivers, major highways, and railway lines.

Having impartial people draw up your districts instead of the politicians would go a long way to making your elections more fair.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[CanadianMacFan]

If you know who the people are and when they vote your gerrymandering of the districts can get a whole lot more effective. Just saying.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the issue with not checking this?

The same issue behind verifying immigration status for the census.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Archangel Michael]

It's the presidential election that has triggered the most concern

Yeah, democrats don't give a shit about elections, until they lose. Just ask Bernie about being "electioneered" out of a chance to win.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know who the people are and when they vote your gerrymandering of the districts can get a whole lot more effective. Just saying.

It's the state legislatures that do the gerrymandering, and they already have access to plenty of data.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.

Stop right there.

Oh sure, Trump can demand any information he likes. The states can tell him to fuck right off.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Swamp wants swamp to stay swampy.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

>No, the Green party raised millions to have actual elections officials double-check the ballots.

No, Jill Stein raised millions to spur recounts and only succeeded in Wisconsin, where Trump increased his votes by 131. . Top Green Party members penned a letter to her distancing the party from her efforts which was likely bankrolled by Democrats since the funds raised for the recounts actually exceeded what Stein was able to raise for her campaign. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-29/green-party-rebels-against-jill-stein-we-do-not-support-recount.

But hey, she's got enough to pay off her election campaign debt, and despite her initial promise to refund donors if the recount initiative failed, she's funnelling the money into vague "election integrity efforts". Yeah, there was a con artist in the election and her name is Jill Stein.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who, specifically, has been claiming that the Russians altered votes? Let's have some names and actual quotes, not "the Democrats" or "the Republicans".

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[bongey]

National Voter Registration Act , along with the states SELLING basically the SAME information to ANYONE. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.

Stop right there.

Oh sure, Trump can demand any information he likes. The states can tell him to fuck right off.

US DOJ: Hey States, are you abiding by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the National Voting Registration Act of 1993? Let's see yo docs!

States: Fuck off, copper!

Yeah, right.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Democrats raised the loudest stick about elections being hacked."

The government agencies, most of which Trump badmouthed, raised issues about attempted systems access in multiple states. You're not looking at that with voter rolls. You're looking to go after people and private citizens and to build your own database.

To use what the Republicans often used and now the Democrats are throwing back at them, election issues are up to the state.

"The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states." ...which Trump and his supporters repeatedly blocked in several states. Why the reversal? Trump's own team put out a statement shortly after the election noting there was little to no fraud. You threw dirt on the shiny things, now you clean them up and pretend they are new shiny things.

"Well then lets check,"

As in "let us check." Who is us? Because it sure as hell is not me and I'm a US citizen. You don't speak for me. Trump's motivations are to prove something he said didn't happen, which he then changed course on and lied about happening, then couldn't prove, so now he's going about a fish expedition.

"They claim voter privacy but there is no such concern in regards to the federal government which owns all of the results of a national election anyway and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes."

The state certifies their election results. The electoral college voters comes from the state. The feds certify the electoral college results. Where do you get off stating the federal government owns the national election results? I mean, it's fine if you agree the electoral college is a formality and that we should go by the popular vote from the states, then we both agree that he's a fraud of a president. But until then, if you want to say he won the electoral system, the popular vote counts belong with each state.

"and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes."

And the states, each, can legally deny any demand the executive branch asks for. You can ask. They can say no. Both legal.

"Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit, and they do not want it uncovered - and here I'm speaking for both parties."

Again, you don't speak for me, much less the party you are affiliated with, which amounts to more than "both" parties. And Trump's team already admitted there was no fraud, before backtracking when Trump got his feelings hurt when people repeatedly pointed out he lost the popular vote count more than the other 3 times the electoral college stood over the popular vote.

"This is yet another glimpse of the Deep State disliking being exposed to sunlight."

dafuq? You're going to go out on that gullible "deep state" tangent? Let's put it another way--if Trump can't get over the so-called deep state while being in the executive branch, controlling both houses of Congress, and conservatives in all positions of the various 3 letter agencies, maybe it's really his incapacity to understand and, more so, inability to GOVERN than any "deep state." We are a Republic, not a monarchy.

More to the real point, these are the STATES each and individually telling Trump to f himself. Those states include multiple RED states, including traditionally conservative states. Trump wants the data for spin and propaganda purposes, to appeal to his base by making up shit that there was fraud against him (as opposed to against Hillary as is currently being criminally looked at), not to improve the system. This all about his ego and his twitter lies about the election, evidence he said he would provide months ago he now is asking to search for. Another shiny thing for you to believe he's doing the right thing, eh?

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

There will also be an implicit assumption that anyone who voted "illegally" was a vote against Trump.

The only thing that can prove the election results is a recount, and that is not what they are asking for (in fact Trump already moved to block that in at least 3 states). They just want to cast doubt and to use the collected "evidence" to justify voter suppression measures in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[skids]

I am glad she did. At least now we know it wasn't systematic in-house fraud instead of having to wonder. And frankly, had I given, I'd not want a refund if it could be applied towards election protection, since I support that anyway.

Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look up the scientific studies of it. The fact is that Democrats are concentrated into urban areas, so basically any reasonably drawn map will concentrate them into a limited number of districts, reducing their representation proportionately. That map of counties won by Trump is actually a fairly good illustration of the effect, even though it doesn't match voting districts.

They requested publicly-available information

[Anonymous Coward]

There are even websites right now that host internet-accessible, unsecured, voter registration data. What's the problem here?

Re:They requested publicly-available information

[Anonymous Coward]

The New York Times published the exact responses of the elections officials here: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/30/us/ap-us-voting-commission-state-responses.html

Almost all of them are along the lines of "we'll gladly turn over the information that our state considers public if the commission just fills out the standard paperwork for requesting it, but we aren't turning over the substantial amount of non-public data the commission is requesting without a court order".

voter registration records are public

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the brouhaha. Save for SSN#, voter registration records are public. There's plenty of websites that provide names, dates of registration, political party affiliation, home addresses, phone numbers, and even dates of last elections they voted in. And even if a state doesn't provide a public search interface for its voter registration database, plenty of PAC'S, party officials, etc. can request the records for a nominal fee. You could also get personal information from a database of people making campaign contributions. That latter is how gay marriage activists were able to harass people like Brendan Eich for their support of California's Prop 8.

Didn't hear much from EPIC then.

Re:voter registration records are public

[Anonymous Coward]

Public-ish.

Some states allow you to download the list straight from their website, others require varying degrees of fees and residency requirements for access and make it as difficult as can be, such as requiring the request to each county for their list (and a separate fee for each).

Re:voter registration records are public

[Anonymous Coward]

>make it as difficult as can be, such as requiring the request to each county for their list (and a separate fee for each).

Which is really only and impediment to the individual and not for politcal parties, PAC's, funded activist organizations, or commercial ventures. And I doubt there's anything that prevents anyone of those parties from releasing the data themselves since it's all public.

Re:voter registration records are public

[Kierthos]

The problem is, this is being seen as a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to purge voter rolls of properly registered voters. Unlike Trump's claim of having won the popular vote, this doesn't come out of thin air.

Kris Kobach, the vice-chair of of the Commission of Election Integrity, tried to purge Kansas' voter rolls of 20,000 properly registered voters. He had to be threatened with Contempt of Court before he put them back on the voter rolls.

Then there's Ken Blackwell, another member of the Commission of Election Integrity. During his tenure as Ohio Secretary of State, his office fucked up TWICE, accidentally releasing private data on millions of Ohio voters, including SSNs.

Then there's Hans von Spakovsky, another member of the commission, who, while at the Justice Department promoted voter ID policies in Georgia that would disproportionately affect African-American voters. He had previously published a law review article supporting that policy under a pseudonym, and should have recused himself from the Justice Department decision. He also tried to inject partisan politics into FEC policy during his short time there. And he's no stranger to making wild claims about voter fraud either, claiming that 1400 votes were illegally cast during the 2008 Minnesota Senate election won by Al Franken. (No evidence of this was found.)

Not exactly a stellar cast of characters.

Re:voter registration records are public

[gtall]

Yes, but how will Trump make mountain out of molehill if his silly commission is only reporting from data that can be easily checked? Rather, they intended to get their "secret" data, report their Trumped up findings, and then fail to release any data because they'll argue it contains PII including SS numbers.

There are two rules of Trump: (1) he does everything only for himself, (2) he destroys everything he touches.

Re:voter registration records are public

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is really only and impediment to the individual and not for politcal parties, PAC's, funded activist organizations

A painful fact I have run into when doing some research as an individual.

or commercial ventures.

Most states are rather explicit that the use of the lists for commercial purposes is prohibited, though it would be interesting to try to discover if they have honey-pot people on it to try to catch those who do.

And I doubt there's anything that prevents anyone of those parties from releasing the data themselves since it's all public.

Most states *try* to prevent that by setting up restrictions on use, though it is clearly not an easily enforceable thing.

Re:voter registration records are public

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most states are rather explicit that the use of the lists for commercial purposes is prohibited,

I know California does, but the other entities that they will give the information to are fairly numerous:

California Elections Code Section 2194
(3)"Shall be provided with respect to any voter, subject to the provisions of Sections 2166.5, 2166.7, and 2188, to any candidate for federal, state, or local office, to any committee for or against any initiative or referendum measure for which legal publication is made, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State."

As I read it (IANAL), a for-profit media organization could conceivably get the voter information and publish it on their website, yes? Not exactly making money directly off of the data, but, I dunno.. if it ads appear on the relevant pages of its website? Point is, its not difficult to get the public data from states except as an individual. And even as an individual, if your willing to fill out the necessary paperwork, you could start your own PAC, non-profit, bloggi-er, news site, and request the data that way.

Re:voter registration records are public

[radarskiy]

The best part is that Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State has denied in part the request from Kris Kobach as vice-chair of of the Commission.

Even he doesn't think responding on total is a good idea.

Re:voter registration records are public

[Jiro]

The problem is, this is being seen as a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to purge voter rolls of properly registered voters.

And if you look at the lawsuit, it doesn't say this anywhere. In other words, if this is true, you have a "watchdog" suing using a technicality to get something that they would be laughed out of court for if they actually claimed.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[lbmouse]

No one is protecting anything except Trump's fragile ego. This whole Advisory Commission action was set into motion because Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. Total waste of time and money... plus it apparently jeopardizes voter privacy and security. So don't try to politicize Trump's grandiosity, malignant narcissism, impulsivity, maniacal insecurity, or hypersensitivity to slights & criticism.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to post AC

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

>voter records

Define.

Records of voter website preferences? Medical Records? Sexual history?

What is ok and what isn't is the question.

And this is why we need Voter ID

[zerofoo]

If you need to produce ID to buy a gun (which is a constitutionally protected right), then you should need to produce an ID to vote.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[spire3661]

Ostensibly, it is 100% illegal to require id to buy a gun while the 2nd Amendment stands. Quite simply the federal government doesnt have the power to deny me. However fools like you allow them to overstep.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[enjar]

The big problem with Voter ID is that many proposals violate the 24th Amendment against poll taxes. A voter ID would need to be free of any financial charge and also free of other logistical barriers, e.g. "you can only get them at the DMV next to the statehouse on odd Tuesdays between the hours of 10 and 11 AM, and you need to provide an in-state birth certificate, social security card, blood sample, passport, pass a citizenship test and submit to a DNA swab".

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

In some states after passing such laws, they shut down most of their DMVs. Of course, that wasn't "planned" to disenfranchise in any way.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[LynnwoodRooster]

So then, how do we prove you are a citizen, and thus have the privilege to vote?

Re: And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want minorities to vote then make an IQ test a requirement.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Rockoon]

All the Blue States I know of have voter I.D. laws.

So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK, but in States that arent Blue yet, voter I.D. laws are racist.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[bongey]

Slashdot lawyers think they know more than the Supreme Court justices. Note it has been decided since 2006 that even photo voter ids are completely legal, you just have to sign a sworn statement that you cannot afford a photo id, see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Pretty much every other democracy requires a photo id to vote or the ability prove your identification in some other form.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[enjar]

This is the tough part of implementing such laws. People will say things like "just use your driver's license". Not everyone has a driver's license, and they cost money. "Just make driver's licenses free". State doesn't want to spend the money, and also a barrier to entry is set up: you have to be able to get to the DMV. States have been closing DMVs to save money ... and if $party wants to make it hard for $other_party to sign up voters, they close DMVs where $other_party has more voters. Not to mention that DMVs don't always have fantastic hours for people that work, and you'd potentially need to take time off from work (lose wages) to go get your ID card. Other initiatives, such as a national ID card, have been suggested for decades but inevitably get killed by 1) state's rights 2) privacy concerns 3) "It's a first step towards Armageddon / tool of the devil / Mark Of The Beast" (google "national ID revelations" if you don't believe me) 4) loss of state revenues from driver's license fees. The current solution of showing up and stating your name and address is simple, cheap, cost effective and able to be implemented with voter roll printouts. Various studies and audits have shown that it's actually quite effective and voter fraud is astonishingly small. Smaller than people seem to believe, and when people want to spend public money on any of this, everybody cries poor.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[schwit1]

If you need to show ID to buy a beer, why is it an outrage to require the same when voting?

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

So then, how do we prove you are a citizen, and thus have the privilege to vote?

As Obama said before the last election, potential voters should not worry about their citizenship status as no resources have been provided to the state department for the investigation of lawful voting status or the prosecution of violators.

Funny how just a few sanctuary cities cast millions of votes that dramatically changed the popular vote outcome of the last election. What an odd coincidence. Now the states in which those cities reside do not want to provide voter information to the federal government for a federal election and the party that benefits from this outcome are throwing a national tantrum to ensure that the political capital expenditure is too great to make an investigation effective.

Mysteries abound how this series of events could come about.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the above ever happened.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

The state puts together a big book with all of the registered voters in it. All checks for voter eligibility are done before someone is added to the book. Anything that causes someone to be ineligible to vote results in an update to the book. When you go to vote, you tell them who you are, they check you off, and you vote. If you try to vote as someone else, there's a pretty good chance that you won't get away with it undetected. If you try to get a lot of people to vote as other people, it's a near impossibility for it to go undetected. Adding ID checks at the voting site doesn't really get you anything, it's the maintenance of the voter rolls that is key. That's also where most of the actual fraud takes place.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[LynnwoodRooster]

So why do I have to pay for a firearm license (2A), but I have the right to a free voter card? Why do I have to pass a "test" to show basic competency in handling a firearm but I do not have to show even the first shred of evidence about any knowledge whatseover about civics? I assume since you're opposed to any and all costs related to proving citizenship, you would be open to free, unregistered purchase and carry of firearms without any license fees, and with no restriction regarding competency...

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[enjar]

2A says "a well regulated militia" as part of its text, which has been interpreted by courts to include training. It doesn't just say "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", the two statements are coupled together. The 24th says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election ... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. So the "poll tax or other tax" is the bit that says "no poll tax" and then becomes broader to include "other ideas you may dream up, e.g. "you must provide a copy of your tax return" or "you have to have paid property taxes". Civics "tests" common under Jim Crow were pretty much impossible to pass, so those have largely been thrown out since they were proven discriminatory. An example is here. The test is designed to disenfranchise. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcr.... If you smashed up 2A and 24A, you might end up with the interpretation that would give you free, unregistered purchase and carry of firearms, e.g. "The right of citizens of the United States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax", where the "other tax" could apply to courses, FID cards, competency, possession of a criminal record and other restrictions on purchase and ownership of firearms

FWIW I have zero problems with gun ownership, I learned firearms safety and operations at an NRA class a long while ago and have used a firearm in both a recreational and sporting capacity.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Ostensibly, it is 100% illegal to require id to buy a gun while the 2nd Amendment stands.

You'll need to provide proof of U.S.citizenship, that right only applies to citizens, just like voting.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Blue States I know of have voter I.D. laws.

I can only assume you don't know of many blue states, because a quick check shows the Republican run states have the strictest laws. The bluest and most hated state by conservatives, California has no law. I guess you don't know of that state.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

NY state is a Blue state, and we don't have voter ID laws

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[radarskiy]

"So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK"

No, what we can take away is that some states seem more likely to try to implement a poll tax via voter ID, which is illegal, and other states are just implementing identification of properly registered voters, which is legal.

Protip: if you wan't to hide the fact you are implementing a poll tax, don't go on record that having fewer poor and minority voters is a goal.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
A "Well regulated militia" has not been held to include any measures on training, experience, or anything like that. In fact, it's been held to be an an almost meaningless phrase, explaining WHY "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead, training and licensing requirements have been upheld only because the courts have found them "reasonable" restrictions. Yet any of the SAME restrictions applied to voting or registration are considered "unreasonable". Almost as if there was a bias by the government against the 2nd Amendment that dates back over 100 years...

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[sexconker]

It's so bad in CA that illegal immigrants can officially get CA driver's licenses now. CA is one of the states that stands to have its citizens be fucked next year when it comes to flying. You'll need a passport or other decent ID to fly even on domestic flights - a CA state ID or driver's license won't cut it.

Unless CA is granted yet another extension or magically pulls out a new ID program out of their ass in the next few months, there's going to be chaos.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Altus]

Yes its odd how cities where enough people oppose Trumps policies that the Mayors feel confident defying him mostly voted against Trump... There simply must be something to that

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Illinois doesn't have a voter ID law. DMV always asks you if you want to sign up, with no other documents than what a stateID needs. Granted, I may be grandfathered in from before REALID laws came in, but it's a very simple process for us.

And as far as your sig goes, yeah, imagine a world where Internet Explorer on a Mac was the best Mac browser out there. Weird but true.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

First, 44 states oppose it, including the state (Kansas) that the head of the initiative is from. 44 states is a good blue/red balance.

You do realize how the city thing actually hurts liberals/Democrats. There is a small state bias in the electoral college. Find somewhere that does Electoral College Elector vs Voter ratios and you'll see Red states with most of the helpful ratios and Blue states with some of the most harmful. The high concentration of Democrats in a small area also makes them easy to gerrymander. Austin TX is probably the best example - their solid blue cores are added to solid red suburban districts to make sure fewer Democratic Texan Congresscritters.

That's even ignoring that DC has "Taxation without Representation" but will never get a congressional seat because they're too solidly Democratic for a Republican congress to let them in.

Democrats have headwinds. Republicans tailwinds. That's partly the Dems' fault - too much staring at the Presidency, not enough time looking at the system and downballot offices and how winning those affects fair districting.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

That's silly. All that is needed is for Congress to amend the federal REAL ID act to tie federal funding to states for whatever to require REAL ID identification standards for voters. Do that and you have a defacto voter ID system.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[bongey]

In some states after passing such laws, they shut down most of their DMVs. Of course, that wasn't "planned" to disenfranchise in any way.

Citation needed.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

>First, 44 states oppose it,

NO, they don't. Some state oppose specific items like the partial SSN, mostly because of their own state law prohibit disclosure.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.
From the CA DVM.

This is a special driver's license that:
May NOT be used for identification purposes.
MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law.

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Sure thing. This is from Alabama. This is a list of acceptable photo voter ID that is acceptable. Here is an article about the closure of 29 different county DMV offices. Here is proof that the "mobile ID centers" on make a single stop in each county, and only for two hours at a time. A federal lawsuit will start in September of 2017.

Now, one could claim that it's all due to budget cuts, or such. That it's not some type of voter disenfranchisement plan. Perhaps if this wasn't in Alabama, that might be believable. I'll let you find the numerous citations on Alabama's long history of racism, segregation, and so on...shouldn't take you too long. Hanlon's Razor should always be considered...but when it comes to Alabama and racism, so should Heinlein's Razor:"...but don't rule out malice."

Re:And this is why we need Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I feel that any fees for gun ownership should not exist either. Any background check fees should be covered by the state or federal government. But those fees are not illegal because the constitution only guarantees your right to bear arms but not that there cannot be fees associated with it. However the 24th amendment specifically bans fees for voting. So as far as the constitution is concerned fees for guns okay but fees for voting not okay.

I also have no problems with voter ID laws as ong as IDs are free and easily obtained and there is sufficient time to obtain the ID before the requirement goes into effect. In fact I really thing we need to push for free and readily available IDs so that this non issue of in person voter fraud can go away.

Re:Because OF COURSE they did.

[Anonymous Coward]

RI found 150k+ illegal voters a week or so ago.

Um, no, no they didn't. They found inaccuracies in the registration lists and cleared them away (which happens when they didn't vote for the past 2 elections) or marked them inactive (when election mail is sent back as undeliverable). It's normal and part of maintaining accurate voter rolls. The names cleared didn't actually vote, by definition, you understand that, right?

You fucking losers just hate being wrong, so you lash out, call people names, threaten them and in some cases try to assassinate them. At some point you wankers will either grow up or being wiped off the map. Either way, everyone wins.

I don't know who you should contact for the hypocrite of the year awards, my apologies.

Perhaps with support...

[SuperKendall]

these are all issues that affect how each state is represented and are proper matters for a state to research (perhaps with support from the federal gov).

Why yes they are matters for the states to research.

However almost no states are doing so.

So the federal government has decided to do an audit. You know, like any non-crooked organization might have to do from time to time just to ensure things were on the level...

Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?

Re:Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?

Democrats don't want the actual numbers illegal immigrants or other people who would be ineligible to vote yet who tend to vote Democratic in states like California to be discovered.

Republicans don't want the actual number of legitimate Democrat voters illegally dropped from the voter rolls in states under Republican administration like Ohio or Florida every election because of poor or fraudulent voter verification attempts to be discovered.

Re:Perhaps with support...

[smooth wombat]

Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?

Don't know. Why don't you ask the con artist who fought tooth and nail to stop vote recounts in three states by claiming, wait for it, there was no evidence of vote fraud. The exact words used:

"There is no evidence - or even an allegation - that any tampering with Pennsylvania's voting systems actually occurred."

In Wisconsin, the recount and simultaneous audit went forward despite the lawsuits. That would have seemed a perfect time to see about illegal votes but instead, the con artist and his supporters filed suit to stop the process.

As Jill Stein stated in Michigan:

"In an election already tainted by suspicion, previously expressed by Donald Trump himself, verifying the vote is a common-sense procedure that would address concerns around voter disenfranchisement,"

And yet, the con artist didn't want vote recounts, or any checking of the votes. Now he does. Why the change? As stated above, it's simply to soothe his ego that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't stand it that he received fewer votes than a woman, and it is made worse that it was Hillary.

Re: Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh. You have it all wrong son. Google project Veritas. Mass voter fraud occured on behalf if tge DNC. Especially from illegals in sanctuary cities in California. Historical stats don't back up the tally in Cali, not even close. Cali would only make historical statistical sense if Hillary won the EC in a landslide which she of course most definitely did not.

Re: Perhaps with support...

[Kierthos]

Project Veritas? You mean that group run by James O'Keefe, who doctored the videos that led to ACORN being shut down?

The same James O'Keefe, who, with a couple colleagues) attempted to solicit voter fraud from staffers for multiple Senators? (Those staffers didn't fall for it, and advised the trio that what they were doing was illegal.)

The same James O'Keefe who was charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony at the offices of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu? (The charges were later reduced to a misdemeanor which O'Keefe and his colleagues pled guilty to.)

Hrm... I don't know, that's not exactly an "engendering a level of trust" sort of guy.

Re: Perhaps with support...

[Train0987]

None of the Project Veritas videos were doctored. Okeefe made the full unedited videos available to the public.

Re: Perhaps with support...

[skids]

Went through this with dubya in 2000. You can see creepy shadows in any data if you stare at it hard enough. Rely on hard evidence. Like the long lines you can see with your own eyes.

Re:Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal here - I am STILL all about having our voting record validated by an impartial group.

The Executive Branch (and all of the dirty pool that they're ALREADY playing with citizens that they don't like (usually those with darker skin, but there's plenty of room for people with a different religion, different hobbies, different sexual orientation, and the "weaker sex")) has zero fucking business playing with my personal data. As has been said time and time again: Let the STATES handle the investigation of what happened in the States. I have withdrawn from social media almost entirely because I don't trust this administration, and this most recent Info-Grab by the Republicans disgustingly reminds me of Windows 10.

If people are concerned that they will have action taken against them because they voted for the "wrong" candidate, fewer people will vote. While that seems typical for this current Bullying Administration, our Founders were smart enough to bake the rules in a way to prevent that from happening. THAT is why the States aren't passing over the volumes of data that Trump is asking for (because it's illegal!), but I'm sure you Republicans have some "the Ends justify the Means" way of convincing yourselves that it's ok.

To put things into perspective: How's about you treat the Voting Rolls the same way you treat the idea of a Gun Owner Registry? You don't want the Feds to know that you have a gun because you don't trust them to not fuck with you. I don't trust them to know who I voted for for the EXACT SAME REASON.

Re: Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a LIAR. Quit using sockpuppets to upmod yourself. You have been reported for abuse.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/06/james-okeefe-brings-his-dishonest-doctored-vide/201026

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/james-o-keefe-settlement-acorn

Re:Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was all for those audits going forward. Now they are, under the auspices of the federal government. You seem to only want to audit a handful of states, I want to audit all of them... because I'm not covering up for anyone, I want to discover malfeasance that I KNOW exists on behalf of BOTH parties. You are just a pitiful Democrat stooge trying to protect their interests - sickening.

I'll let you have the last response so you can regurgitate your masters talking points.

They're clinging so desperately to that popular vote narrative. They just cannot come to grips with their Hillary losing. It's bordering on a psychological pathology now.

"Trump broke me," she wept. Jesus.

Re:Perhaps with support...

[bongey]

Citing the nytimes nowadays is akin to citing drunken homeless man preaching that the end of the world is near or even worse scientology.

Re:Perhaps with support...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's clinging? We still haven't seen any of his tax returns...wonder what HE's hiding?

For the most part we have accepted that a bigoted liar has scored the Presidency. That doesn't mean we're going to roll over and let him violate our Constitutional Rights because he wants to make another list of who to single out and attack.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Xenographic]

The voter rolls are public information that states may or may not make easy to get. They're normally available to anyone who follows the rules and pays the fee.

Or there's what California does.

A single, instantly updated list of registered voters in California became reality on Monday, as two final counties plugged in to an electronic database mandated by a federal law enacted in the wake of the contentious 2000 presidential campaign.

In other words, a database that was long overdue.

So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you worried about?

Actually investigating voter fraud might prove Trump correct?

Because the fact is the only reason we don't have evidence of massive voter fraud is no one is looking for it.

What are you afraid of?

Re:So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[Dr. Evil]

Read the article summary. It's at the top of the page. That's part of what people are afraid of.

Re:So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear"

- Words said before every dark chapter in history, ever.

Trump supporters are even dumber than we thought.

Re:So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[LifesABeach]

Dumbass A/C, afraid? Try pissed, and getting more so.

Re:So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear"

- Words said before every dark chapter in history, ever.

Trump supporters are even dumber than we thought.

No, YOU are dumb. Hell, calling you dumb as a post is an insult to every acorn that dreams of sprouting, growing up, getting cut down, hauled to a sawmill, and getting hewn into a fucking post.

US elections don't even meet UN standards for free and fair elections:

(2) In addition, States should take the necessary policy and institutional steps to ensure the progressive achievement and consolidation of democratic goals, including through the establishment of a neutral, impartial or balanced mechanism for the management of elections. In so doing, they should, among other matters:

        - Ensure that those responsible for the various aspects of the election are trained and act impartially, and that coherent voting procedures are established and made known to the voting public;
        - Ensure the registration of voters, updating of electoral rolls and balloting procedures, with the assistance of national and international observers as appropriate;
        - Encourage parties, candidates and the media to accept and adopt a Code of Conduct to govern the election campaign and the polling period;
        - Ensure the integrity of the ballot through appropriate measures to prevent multiple voting or voting by those not entitled thereto;
        - Ensure the integrity of the process for counting votes.

(3) States shall respect and ensure the human rights of all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction. In time of elections, the State and its organs should therefore ensure:

        - That freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression are respected, particularly in the context of political rallies and meetings;
        - That parties and candidates are free to communicate their views to the electorate, and that they enjoy equality of access to State and public-service media;
        - That the necessary steps are taken to guarantee non-partisan coverage in State and public-service media.

The US in general doesn't require positive identification to vote. Try and utter fucking dumbasses like you cry, "YOU'RE A RAAAACIST", apparently because of their own racist beliefs that blacks are too dumb to get a photo id.

Try to even investigate if there is any voter fraud - even though there were precincts in Detroit in the last Presidential election that recorded more votes than registered voters - and you get DUMBASSES calling you names:

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts

Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books.

But utter dolts like you don't want any investigation into voter fraud?

Re:So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Trump, but more importantly fuck you.

Trump is a symptom. You are the problem.

McCarthy

[Rick Schumann]

What the hell does Trump think he's doing? Identifying all his 'enemies' within the 300,000,000 people in this country? What's next, Trump? Bringing back the McCarthy Committee? Loyalty tests? What a bunch of bullshit.

Re:McCarthy

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Well, it IS well documented that Trump makes "enemy lists" and follows up on them. So, yes, that is probably exactly what this really is.

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next, Trump? Bringing back the McCarthy Committee? Loyalty tests?

They already have loyalty tests, at least to be part of the administration. That's why they are having trouble filling the few open positions in the administration that they want to fill: the department/agency heads keep getting "suggestions" of loyal but completely unqualified candidates for positions or have their own qualified choices vetoed by the White House due to lack of loyalty.

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on some of the responses below as well as my own opinions I'd say this guy is being unfairly called a troll, when in fact it's Trump who constantly shows that he's a troll. Someone with mod points please fix ricks rating, please? I'd do it but I have none today.

Re:McCarthy

[x0ra]

did you forget about Obama's IRS scandal targeting GOP non-profits ?

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean those GOP non-profits that were dodging election finance laws and proud of it? I wonder why the IRS would possibly want to target them.

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? A citation should be easy to provide, then.

Re:McCarthy

[bongey]

Russia?Russia?Russia? , Do you even know what the McCarthy committee did? Fun Fact : The states SELL the basically the SAME information to ANYONE. Oh another the National Voters Registration Act allows the executive to request the SAME information that the SELL or MAKE publicly available. In short, STFU.

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he's just embracing his inner Hitler.

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? A citation should be easy to provide, then.

And it is of course Richard Branson has clearly spoken about it from personal knowledge. This has also been confirmed by Trump's friends like Omarosa Manigault. In fact if you just do a Google search for "Trump enemy list" you will quickly find out that he actively seems to want to publicise the idea. The only question is, given it's so easy, why didn't you search yourself?

Re:McCarthy

[Anonymous Coward]

They're asking for MORE information than is available to the public and they're (he's) asking for it for stupid reasons: to prop up his pussy-grabbing, cheeto-haired EGO about an election THAT HE WON except for the 'popular vote', citing 'potential voter fraud'. He is engaging in a witch-hunt and that is why this stinks like shit and he should be told to fuck off. How about YOU STFU and GTFO, faggot Trump voter. Go get your drinking water checked for LEAD CONTAMINATION, your brain is obviously IMPAIRED if you voted for that fat disgusting sexist racist bigoted traitorous piece of SHIT. Kill yourself.

What they're all REALLY afraid of

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

1. Put all of the data in a big Hadoop cluster.
2. Throw in social security records.
3. MapReduce/Spark
4. Nice big graphical charts that lay bare how absolutely cluster fucked our election system actually is in terms that even someone with an 80 IQ can understand.

My bet:
1. You'll find a lot of UMC voters double voting in different states where they have legal residences.
2. You'll find a lot of dead voters still voting.
3. You'll find a lot of immigrants.

If anything, I expect to find that felons are the least problematic group as most of them won't give two shits about voting if it steers them anywhere near a repeat offense that sends them back to prison.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[R3d M3rcury]

2. You'll find a lot of dead voters still voting.

Actually, some states have done audits. And they actually found a case of a dead guy voting. Turned out he mailed in his ballot but died before the election, when the votes are counted.

But other than that mildly amusing story, it all pretty much turned into a big nothingburger.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandfather was a party line Republican till the day he died. Been a Democrat ever sense. :-P

RRK

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Rockoon]

He only considers it an issue in States that voted for Trump.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than that specific link, the only source I can find quoting numbers anywhere close to that is from a single far-right news site quoting a study by a far-right think tank.

How many cases of proven voter fraud (you know, where a conviction is reached) do you need before you consider it an issue?

How about we set the bar at the point that such fraud would actually be comparable to the margin of error in ballot counts?

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[david_bonn]

No. what I'm afraid of is that if they are trying to find large-scale voter fraud they are asking for the wrong data. The data they are asking for looks (to me) like the kind of data you'd want for a voter-targeting database.

All you need to find voter fraud is first name, last name, zip code, and which of the last dozen or so elections they voted in.

If you want to look for undocumented immigrants voting illegally, look in zip codes that (according to the US Census) have a high proportion of undocumented immigrants. Look for changes in voter turnout in those zip codes. If voter turnout in those zip codes is persistently and significantly increasing, you need to collect more data and look more closely, because you might have found evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting.

For multi-voters and dead voters, use the Social Security data. If Social Security only knows about 15 living Gertude Higglesteins but 21 Gertude Higglesteins voted, you have a problem.

Note that a better statistician who had more time could come up with better tests. The point is at this point we need to place upper and lower limits on the prevalence of fraudulent voting. I'm all for an independent look into that. And we can easily do it without creating a big fat juicy database that someone could steal and use for nefarious purposes.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it never happens, except for the Virginia democrat who plead guilty to registering dead people as voters last week. :^)

0.05 Shekels have been added to your next Shareblue paycheque.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Did any of them vote? Because "dead people voting never happens" and "people illegally register dead people to vote" can both be true at the same time. One is voting fraud and the other is voter registration fraud. Believe it or not, those are actually different things. You're basically countering "he never killed anyone" with "but he went to jail for conspiracy to commit murder." They really need to start teaching logic in schools again...

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[LynnwoodRooster]

You can look up each and every conviction - they are public record. Of course, it's kind of funny I got modded down to zero as a troll, given I provided factual, documented, legal court convictions of voter fraud. Which is something the liberal side simply cannot tolerate as it completely destroys their entire claim that there is no voter fraud and there is no reason to ensure the sanctity of the vote...

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a small sample of 848 criminal voter fraud convictions - not just charges.

And how many of them are related to the possession of ID by the voter? How many of them would be prevented by that ID being presented. It's your only demand, consistently and repetitively insisted upon, so it must be your only solution. Please tell us your count. It will be less than 848. But you chose to inflate the numbers.

But here's one, that wasn't prosecuted: In North Carolina.

Let's see you demand her prosecution. Let's see you demand this district attorney be removed.

Oh wait, crickets.

How many cases of proven voter fraud (you know, where a conviction is reached) do you need before you consider it an issue?

More than zero, since you're confusing "ELECTORAL fraud" with "voter fraud" and that lack of discernment is costing you.

How many shall be disenfranchised before you care?

Good question for you to answer. How many people must lose their votes to discriminatory and abusive demands before you care? Read this and tell us what you think.

What is your tolerance to stealing votes?

What's yours? Do you reject the notion that the state can deny citizens their right to vote based on arbitrary and capricious actions, or is the state affirmatively required to ensure that voters are afforded their right to vote?

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Over what time period? Because over a hundred million people voted in the last election alone and election turnout was down to its lowest in 20 years. Even if that many people fraudulent voted every year it is only 0.00067% of the total vote, how the candidates are dressed or how they're combing their hair around election time probably has far more of an effect.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[LynnwoodRooster]

How many fraudulent votes would you accept in a general election? And if you look at my link, 20 were from CA, and 20 were from IL - neither of which was a Trump State. And this is just a sampling, it is not a comprehensive list.

I love how the mantra was "vote fraud doesn't exist!" until it's proven otherwise - then it becomes "it's so little it doesn't matter".or "it's only an issue because Trump". So how much fraud is acceptable to you? How many illegal votes, how much disenfranchisement do you want to allow into the system? Do you now admit that vote fraud does occur?

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[mishehu]

Let's see... this data appears to cover multiple years, and we have 848 convictions. Even in a single election year 848 isn't even noise or a rounding error...

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

You can look up each and every conviction - they are public record.

The public records indicate your solution of voter ID won't work for their actions in large part.

Of course, it's kind of funny I got modded down to zero as a troll, given I provided factual, documented, legal court convictions of voter fraud.

You got modded down because people looked at your link, and realized your representation of it was bogus.

That's the price of lying.

Which is something the liberal side simply cannot tolerate as it completely destroys their entire claim that there is no voter fraud and there is no reason to ensure the sanctity of the vote...

Too bad for you, that's not the claim being made, which is what destroys you, is your persistence on creating a falsehood to advance your cause.

If you simply committed to affirmatively ensuring that everybody had ID, then that'd be one thing. Instead, you insist that elections are tainted, which means the current people in office can't be trusted to pass laws, but offer no substantive proof, and only pick a solution which has had documented misuse.

In fact, you lie about your evidence. Check out those numbers, you're claiming things about those convictions which are not voter fraud, instead they're a horse of a different color.

Now here's something for you to read, and tell us how you intend to correct North Carolina's misconduct.

Go ahead. Tell us.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Straif]

One problem lies in the fact that in many government agencies there are strict regulations about data sharing. If data was collected for purpose A it cannot be shared with another government entity for purpose B without new legislation (and the hundreds of Federal lawsuits that follow). So if any new program, such as this federal audit of voters, requires data it essentially has to collect it all from scratch.

They could have offices in the same building as the Social Security Administration or the IRS but cannot legally ask them for any direct data. Instead they have to go to the States to ask them for anything they can give them.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets assume 848 cases ALL OCCURRED during this past election, although that is not the case

Lets see:

120,000,000 votes cast.
848 fraudulent votes

Percentage of votes counted 0.00070666666666667%

Does it really matter where the line in the sand is? That is infinitesimal. when you can prove 0.0001 or better we can start talking about it more.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Bite The Pillow]

Gertude Higglestein got divorced and remarried. She has had 3 different last names. This could cause problems for your strategy.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

How many fraudulent votes would you accept in a general election? And if you look at my link, 20 were from CA, and 20 were from IL - neither of which was a Trump State. And this is just a sampling, it is not a comprehensive list.

20? From two states? You're pissing over 40 errant votes? That would barely make statistical noise let alone flip an election. Fell asleep while they taught statistics didn't you? Use that thing on your neck for thinking not just a hat rack or space for rent.

I love how the mantra was "vote fraud doesn't exist!" until it's proven otherwise - then it becomes "it's so little it doesn't matter".or "it's only an issue because Trump". So how much fraud is acceptable to you? How many illegal votes, how much disenfranchisement do you want to allow into the system? Do you now admit that vote fraud does occur?

I've seen this posted this in about 3 threads so far. Are the trump trolls running out of things to say from all the winning they're doing? Go find something better to do with your time, like masturbating or stepping on flowers or something else matching your skillset, troll.

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

848 convictions over 70 years, and including everything from presidential elections down to city council elections, in a country the size of the USA practically is "non-existant".

Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont live in usa or have ever went there (im in small country in EU that is not part of european union) and i couldnt care less about trump or that old chick that lost election , so i am perfectly unbiased (but i should mention my country did have a lot of voter/election fraud in past and is suspected there is still some)

my opinion: even 1 vote stolen in any way or one person voting that should not /voting more than once/against the law is too much, and should be fully investigated even if it costs trillion dollars
if even one criminal voted (i understand that is illegal in your country, in my country its actually legal/their right/they vote from prison) there should be very hard punishments, like life in prison, even if that criminal did crime when he was 11 year old and now he has 99 years old) election crime is bigest possible crime, i would say even treason
if any illegal (non citizen/partial citzen) voted again there should be very hard punishments for both him and persons that allowed him to vote (like kicking him from country or puting him in jail until end of his life)
about double voting i cant understand that, dont you use that invisible ink thingie that stops people from voting twice like all normal countries?

EPIC fail

[ooloorie]

Sending sensitive, private financial information to CFPB? EPIC is A-OK with that!

Sending sensitive, private medical information to the Federal Data Services Hub under ACA? EPIC is A-OK with that too!

Collecting minimal voter information that's already mostly public to see whether there might be a problem with illegal voting? EPIC can't allow that!

It seems to me like EPIC is more driven by political partisanship than by a consistent concern for protecting the privacy of Americans from federal overreach.

Re:EPIC fail

[R3d M3rcury]

Collecting minimal voter information that's already mostly [emph mine] public to see whether there might be a problem with illegal voting? EPIC can't allow that!

Yeah...it's that mostly part.

Start with an obvious one--why do they need the last four digits of my SSN?

Re:EPIC fail

[ooloorie]

Start with an obvious one--why do they need the last four digits of my SSN?

They already have your entire SSN; they don't need to get that from the state.

What they want to check is whether the state's records are accurate, i.e., whether someone just made up a SSN. To do that, they compare the SSN they already have for you against the data provided by the states.

Re:EPIC fail

[Kierthos]

Except that some states cannot legally provide even that. Kansas (where Kobach is the Secretary of State) can't.

Re:EPIC fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Because providing an SSN is usually required when obtaining legal ID, opening a bank account, getting utility service, etc. It's also used in creating fraudulent ID's from deceased people, or people who've had their identities stolen. It can also be used to cross check voters who may appear in multiple state voter registration databases. Steve Bannon, and Ivanka Trump were both found actively registered in different states the last presidential election. Not because they were trying vote more than once (they didn't), but because some states do a lousy job of updating their voter rolls.

captcha: trumped (swear to god!)

Re:EPIC fail

[ooloorie]

And that has to do with EPIC's lawsuit or the hypocrisy of their position on privacy... exactly nothing.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst anyone's fragile little bubble, but there is NO 'popular vote' in a U.S. presidential election. It's like a closely contested football game where one team wins, but the other team had more yards. Doesn't count.

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[argStyopa]

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

"The letter, sent Wednesday to all 50 states, requests that all publicly available voter roll data be sent to the White House..."

They're asking for otherwise-PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information. They're not asking for secret stuff (why would the states have that anyway?).

Isn't it getting a little tiresome to misinterpret everything Trump does as malignantly as possible?

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

It almost like the people believe Trump has proven himself untrustworthy... Wonder why that might be?

Re: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. You should ask the red States that also refused to submit the information.

No president can win with just 6 states, so a good number of those have governers that start with a R-

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Tablizer]

A lot of info is "publicly available", but it's not collected together in a "convenient" form. One typically has to request specific records from a gov't clerk; they won't give you the entire list of everybody in say CSV format.

And sometimes they charge per person's records such that if you ask for everybody (if allowed), you'd have pay millions of dollars.

There are various reasons to do this, but generally it's to prevent mass spamming and mass shaming of citizens.

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a dangerously under-qualified yet over-confident man in the president's seat, no doubt we're going to keep our eyes on him as any true American should be on the lookout for despots and tyrants. Trump opened his big mouth and made this more of an issue than it should be thanks to "what do they have to hide?" remarks. He has no one to blame but himself for jumping on the voter fraud band wagon. Getting tired of winning yet? I sure am!

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[AmiMoJo]

From TFA:

"Partial, publicly-accessible voter data is already available, though the specifics vary by state. Many lawmakers who have received the Commission's request have responded in the negative. "The President's Commission has quickly politicized its work by asking states for an incredible amount of voter data that I have, time and time again, refused to release," said Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler in a statement that was reported by Ars Technica. "My response to the Commission is, you're not going to play politics with Louisiana's voter data, and if you are, then you can purchase the limited public information available by law to any candidate running for office. That's it."

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of what they're asking for has restrictions on distribution and requirements for secure protection. Anything truly 100% publicly available at no cost with no restrictions shouldn't even need a request. But any time you have large quantities of data on people, there are concerns about how that data will be used. And so distribution is managed to prevent abuses. Blanket "give us everything you have" requests will be denied, regardless of who is making those requests. And states have lots of "secret stuff." They know a lot about you that their own laws prohibit them from distributing. That would seem to qualify as secret.

But that's not even the real issue here. The White House is doing data collection without a clear purpose, a process to achieve that purpose, or even a data management plan. Even if their intentions are purely benevolent, they don't know what they need, how to get it, how to store it, or what to do with it when they get it. They skipped right to the biggest problem with bulk data collection - drowning in data with no way to use it. And as a bonus, they become a prime target for hackers.

Fun fact: publicly available information can actually turn into classified information when you put enough of it together.

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[PoopJuggler]

Isn't it getting a little tiresome to misinterpret everything Trump does as malignantly as possible?

Maybe it would start to be if Trump ever did a single thing that wasn't malignant in nature.

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so if it's all publicly available, then why can't they just go through the regular channels to get it?

And if it's so innocuous, why was Kobach legally not allowed to provide himself with the data he asked for because it violates Kansas' privacy laws?

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[bongey]

Most of the states SELL the same voter registration information requested to ANYONE. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

No, some of what they asked for is not public in some states. And if it is publicly available why don't they just get it the same way everyone else does? (I'll give you a hint: because the whole purpose of the commission is to make a a bunch of noise about something that is not actually a problem.) The states are allowed to exclude non-public information (how gracious), but to many states even asking for some of this info is rather offensive. Also "publicly available" doesn't always mean the same thing. Some of this information is available for a fee, but there are restrictions on its use and distribution. That is "publicly available" but not really compatible with handing it wholesale over to this commission, which certainly appears more political than governmental.

Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not contradict him. If you read the actual letter, you'd see that it asks for public data and nothing more. Refusing to give something they didn't ask for, as evidenced by the damned letter that only asked for public data, does nothing to change this fact. That's not a refutation, just evidence that they're being disingenuous.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're lucky it's just Trump's ego that touched this off. Because this isn't some harebrained scheme to prove Trump is the bestest president ever.

No, this is an attempt to pull voter records for the entire US. It's data collection for targeted voter suppression under the guise of preventing fraud. This is some dark failed state dictatorship level shit.

Every state, across the board, across party lines has told them (In only slightly more polite words) to go fuck themselves.

Funny you should raise that particular term

[SuperKendall]

Is not the Democratic's futile attempt to find any improper connection to Russia the very definition of what McCarthy was about....

The funny thing is that from later history, we know that McCarthy was actually onto something at the time, as Russia was indeed meddling in a lot of things he was investigating.

Sure seems like Democrats are the ones overly jumpy about Russians now. Talk about the Red Scare...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Read the actual letter before judging this

[magzteel]

Looks very reasonable to me. https://apps.npr.org/documents...

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[number6x]

...which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on...

I'm not disagreeing with your overall comment, but some federal governments may legitimately ask for this, but the executive office of the United States of America cannot. The executive branch has no role whatsoever in elections.

Article I, Section 4 of the constitution states:

Section. 4.

Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

It is up to the states to control elections, Congress can pass laws that can make and alter elections nation wide. The Executive office plays no role. Article 2:

Section. 1. ... Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The states are also in charge of their electors in the electoral college for the President of the United States. The President is not involved. The President should not get involved in the sausage making of the office of the President, as it would be a conflict of interest and cross the boundaries of the balance of power.

The twelfth amendment altered the way the electoral college worked, but it left un-changed the fact that the States, and not the federal government, is in charge of elections.

So it is true that some federal governments may have an interest in this, the federal government of the United States has an extremely limited role. The executive branch has no role in this whatsoever.

Re: Because OF COURSE they did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they don't do actual research before flying off the handle,
1) this isn't actually new news. A 2 second Google indicates this problem was brought up in October last year. Only the hyper right and Facebook posts exaggerate the claims.
2) RI actually enforces photo Voter ID laws, what the right have been screaming for. So is he complaining voter id laws don't work?

All your Freedom is exported to Russia

[WillAffleckUW]

Look, the problem is that we know at least 39 states were hacked, and voting machines in specific counties and precincts were disabled, and attempts were made to disenroll American voters, by Russia.

But the commission is correct that the Russian White House is trying to make it worse.

Expect new actions after Putin's lapdog gets his new marching orders from his master at the G-20.

Re:All your Freedom is exported to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. maybe your party should've dropped the socjus bandwagon when running hillary. She might've won.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still whining about the popular vote?

Some of that is justified and constitutional..

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

ou need to provide an in-state birth certificate, social security card, blood sample, passport, pass a citizenship test and submit to a DNA swab

Born a citizen: provide a birth certificate and some sort of ID or witness that is also a US citizen.
Naturalized: provide a copy of your naturalization paperwork and a passport with your ID on it if you haven't already gotten a photo ID from a state government.

Re:Some of that is justified and constitutional..

[enjar]

Yes, it is. But some of it isn't and has been declared unconstitutional (e.g. citizenship test)

The Left

[Anonymous Coward]

The election can't be rigged. The election was hacked. No one voted who wasn't supposed to. Verifying the integrity of the election is illegal.

Website is SECURE .. Get DOD/MIL PKI

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... "insecure website" ?!? The Department of Defense (DOD) does not rely on any public CA's and thus has their own Public Key Infrastructure. Maybe these Root Certificates should be installed on US Government Systems? AMRDEC Safe does a great job of protecting secure data transfers. (one time downloads, etc..) ... It's actually one of the best (actually working) Government websites.

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/

Re:Website is SECURE .. Get DOD/MIL PKI

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Firefox all threw up a error message about invalid cert. Opera happily connected. It looks to me like the cert chain is valid as it traces back to the US gov's Federal Common Policy CA. Firefox doesn't have it its cert store so its understandable that it fails, but Chrome, IE and Opera uses the Windows cert store and all be Opera fails.

WARNING!!! YOU ARE ACCESSING A U.S. GOVERNMENT (USG) INFORMATION SYSTEM (IS) THAT IS PROVIDED FOR USG-AUTHORIZED USE ONLY. By using this IS (which includes any device attached to this IS), you consent to the following conditions: The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations. At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS. Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed or used for any USG-authorized purpose. This IS includes security measures (e.g., authentication and access controls) to protect USG interests--not for your personal benefit or privacy. Notwithstanding the above, using this IS does not constitute consent to PM, LE or CI investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications, or work product, related to personal representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Such communications and work product are private and confidential.

Yikes!

Headline news fail?

[J Story]

It sounds like the organization is basing its complaint on headlines, instead of what was actually requested. The committee did not ask for private information, or for information that it would be illegal to provide. Rather, the committee asked for information that was available to the public. Essentially, it seems to me, the committee was looking to save a few bucks by getting the data gift-wrapped, instead of going out and getting the data itself.

Re:Headline news fail?

[oh_my_080980980]

*smacks forehead* Asking the Secretary of State of that state for election information, IS going out and getting the data. Who did you think maintains that information?

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're asking for significantly more information than what is publicly available. The types of info they are asking for make it seem like the are attempting massive purges of people who are likely to vote against them.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, this is for voter suppression.

Zombie Lives Matter

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Kierthos]

I particularly like Mississippi's response to the commission

Quoted in part: "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from."

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every state, across the board, across party lines has told them (In only slightly more polite words) to go fuck themselves.

Not quite. Most states have said "we'll give you what's a matter of public record anyway". A few are on the fence. Texas said "would you like fries with that?"

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter suppression? LOL!!!

Re: So use the data and PROVE lack of illegal vote

[Anonymous Coward]

EPIC are clearly in on the mass voter fraud in states like Michigan (esp. Denver) Virginia and obviously California. Never in American history has Cali been so partisan yet not in any way reflective of the overall national EC. It just doesn't happen. One sided results in Cali were always followed by EC landlslides of 400 + nationally. Blatant cheating occured there and elsewhere to a lesser extent through massive numbers of Sanctuary illegals voting and "EPIC" are in on the big cover up. Google/Bing 'Project Veritas'

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[LifesABeach]

My concern is having to read some dumb-asses popping off and equating government to athletics. Until losers of athletic events are euthanized, there will be no valid comparison.

Simple solution

[LeftCoastThinker]

Block all blue states from participating in federal elections until they can prove, either by providing data to the federal government or through an internal audit run by an independent entity, that they don't have dead people, illegal aliens or other fraud on their voter rolls. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/...

Also, we need a federal voter ID law for all federal elections. The ID can be free, but you have to spend the time up front to get it at least 2 weeks before the election. If you can't be bothered, you clearly don't value your voting rights. We have made voting rights universal, to the detriment of the country, but there used to be all kinds of restrictions on voting rights, having the very minimal requirement of a photo voter ID is common sense if you want to prevent voter fraud, and a big problem if you are perpetrating it.

The Democrats hate voter ID laws for the simple fact that they abuse the ignorant (busing people from homeless shelters), the elderly (busing people from nursing homes who are mentally incapable of voting), the incarcerated, the dead, and some other just blatant fraud. Investigation into the veracity of the voter rolls would reveal some of this fraud and spur motivation for a national a voter ID law (probably in concert with a national registry that prevents voting in multiple states and culls dead people from the rolls periodically) and that would dramatically increase the difficulty of this fraud and abuse of our election system.

Re:Simple solution

[J053]

There are no federal elections in the United States.
US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 4:
 

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So, unless Congress so authorizes (and even then it's questionable), the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has no damned business at all in getting involved with elections.

Re:Simple solution

[LeftCoastThinker]

Federal elections are the vernacular term for elections choosing the President, senators or congressmen, as opposed to state elections which involve electing state officials, or local elections which involve city/county officials. This is the vernacular and common usage of these terms, though they do not appear explicitly in the constitution. As you clearly cite, congress CAN pass laws regarding federal elections that supersede state laws as stated in Article 1, Section 4...

Here is another free civics lesson for you: the Executive branch is charged with enforcing the constitution and laws that congress passes. There are already a number of these, so it IS the responsibility of the Executive branch to be involved in investigating election fraud. (For example, the FBI is a part of the executive branch, so is the DOJ and the Attorney General). You might want to become a bit more knowledgeable on the topic before you post.

Re:Simple solution

[J053]

But, the Executive Branch cannot act without governing legislation from Congress (which is what the Right kept screaming about for the entire Obama Administration, every time he promulgated an Executive Order). So, unless Congress directs DoJ to investigate voting fraud, the Executive has no authority to do anything. And the States are correctly refusing to hand over their data to some nebulous "Commission".

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I have nothing to hide, it's none of your or anyone else's god damn business!

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[LifesABeach]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up. I also wish that dumb-ass and chief would get to work. Is executive pay and benefits eligible to be considered and "Entitlement" when applied to billionaires?

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Train0987]

That's nonsense. Every piece of info on your voter registration card is public info available to anyone who requests it.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[oh_my_080980980]

Reading is fundamental:

" including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,..."

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[magzteel]

Read the letter, it is very clear: In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE voter roll data for Alabama, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information

Sued? Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, the Government may have to cough up tax money which will go to the EPIC. US Citizens lose even if they win.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually no there isn't. There are individual state popular votes that elect electors to the electoral college for the candidate that wins the majority of votes. But there isn't a national popular vote, contrary to what some morons seem to be asserting.

Check Local [Re:Do you want fair elections or not?

[Tablizer]

Well then lets check, lets check everywhere the full extent of votes really being hacked

This can be done without sending the data to the Federal gov't. Allow auditors the ability to run queries physically at the states, but not remove any data from the state without getting permission. Disable the USB ports and search them at the door. Or only allow them to request queries in writing; they'd never have to touch the database itself.

the federal government which owns all of the results of a national election anyway and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.

Are you sure about this? We do have a federalist system.

Yeah, it's called "none of your business".

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a right to privacy and the voting system requires that your vote be a private matter between you and the pencil you used to put the cross in.

Dictatorships want to know who voted against them.

Re: Yeah, it's called "none of your business".

[KGIII]

...

The information doesn't include who one voted for. Additionally, it is publicly available information. As in, you can go get this same information yourself. See the actual request letters, and don't rely on the journalists and/or commentators.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's job is to destroy the credibility of the USA. His dilligence is extreme. His paymasters, the oligarchs possibly in Russia but more likely in Koch industries or wherever will not be complaining.

Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I know lots of people say Trump is doing this because he's so egotistical that he can't believe he actually lost the popular vote. I actually think that's unlikely and 2 other reasons are a lot more likely.

1) It's simply red meat for his supporters and nothing more. If you have friends on Facebook who are pro-Trump and pro-Republican, you have probably been appalled at some of the crazy things they think are true. I'd love to see someone take a poll to verify this, but I suspect that Trump's supporters believe as much as 50% of the USA population is on welfare (actual number is about 8%) and that 20% or greater of the people in the USA are here illegally (it's actually about 4%).
2) Trump loves to distract his detractors with things they shouldn't even pay attention to, like tweets. Trump may actually know full well he lost the popular vote but this committee is meant to serve as a distraction from something else (health care failure maybe).

Keep in mind that some of the wing nuts on the left have already played into Trump's hand by publicly asserting that zero fraudulent voters occurred in the 2016 elections. All Trump has to do is find one anywhere and they're proven wrong. This could be simply about showing up his detractors who said there weren't any fraudulent votes and discrediting them for the future.

Re:Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that some of the wing nuts on the left have already played into Trump's hand by publicly asserting that zero fraudulent voters occurred in the 2016 elections. All Trump has to do is find one anywhere and they're proven wrong. This could be simply about showing up his detractors who said there weren't any fraudulent votes and discrediting them for the future.

Citation definitely needed. I've seen claims like 'insignificant', but I don't think anybody who knows anything will claim zero. Besides, wasn't there somebody in Trump's inner circle that voted in two states?

Re:Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[AnalogDiehard]

Keep in mind that some of the wing nuts on the left have already played into Trump's hand by publicly asserting that zero fraudulent voters occurred in the 2016 elections. All Trump has to do is find one anywhere and they're proven wrong.

He also called their bluff. The left keep trying to pin a Russian/Trump collusion on their candidate's loss of the election. But when they are asked to open the books, they refuse to.

When Wisconsin opened the books after the election so Jill Stein could get a recount, she found more votes for Trump which infuriated the left. They don't need any more embarrassments with the Commission knocking on their door.

This whole Russian thing fails under a crucial point: would the Russians hack the election to favor Trump the capitalist? Hello, Russia is a communist country . Clinton? Putin has been public that he hates Hillary Clinton. Who better to favor the election than one of their own... that's right, BERNIE the socialist who finished 3rd place in the election. Under this logic, any allegation of Russian intervention cannot hold water. There's a REASON why no one has unearthed any evidence.

Re:Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[bongey]

It's the left that has basically called the entire election has been hacked by the Russians, and now they don't want to actually investigated anything related to voter registration. The left has just lost their minds.

Re:Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia isn't a communist country, dumbass.

Re:Possible reasons besides ego for this action

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the left that has basically called the entire election has been hacked by the Russians, and now they don't want to actually investigated anything related to voter registration. The left has just lost their minds.

The actual person claiming the election was invalid, is the one claiming that millions of illegal voters exist, and his name, is Donald Trump. He's produced zero evidence to support this contention, and his little bit of theater is as poorly handled as anything else he does.

No wonder you emulate him.

Yes, you're totally making up what the Left is saying and doing, and that like Donald Trump, you can babble whatever you want, without ever producing evidence, and nobody's supposed to notice how you aren't actually saying anything accurate.

The problem with Russia, BTW, is that Donald Trump is at best, naive in his approach, more likely corrupt, and at worst, their stooge. You haven't been paying attention, but making things up is not the best approach. The hacking that concerns Democrats was not of election machines, but other systems.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[ClickOnThis]

There is a popular vote. It just doesn't count for anything.

No, it counts for something. Just not the Presidency.

If Trump didn't think it counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if, as he claims with no proof, that millions voted illegally for Clinton.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Social security number, military service records and party affiliation are not on my card

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[LifesABeach]

I discount anyone who would use A/C as a shield.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[ClickOnThis]

Sorry, hit Post too soon. Correction/clarification:

If Trump didn't think the popular vote counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if "millions" of illegal voters hadn't voted for Clinton. There is not, and there never has been, proof that "millions" of people vote illegally. Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem. Trump is trying to claim that it is, and the Pence commission is political cover for that narrative.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[AmiMoJo]

TFA says they are asking for non-public information.

Nope, you made that up.

[Anonymous Coward]

" Please... they screamed it very loudly. They are still screaming it."

That is made up again.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not disagreeing with your overall comment, but some federal governments may legitimately ask for this, but the executive office of the United States of America cannot.

The President of the United States is the Chief Executive, which is responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States. You are arguing that the office charged by the Constitution with enforcing the laws of the United States is prohibited by the same document from investigating compliance with those laws.

So it is true that some federal governments may have an interest in this, the federal government of the United States has an extremely limited role. The executive branch has no role in this whatsoever.

Are you arguing that the mission of the Department of Justice's Voting Section, including enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is an unconstitutional overreach by the Executive Branch?

I look forward to the liberal hand-wringing which will surely follow as you attempt to defend Federal involvement in elections for the purposes of enforcing laws you like while being opposed to Federal enforcement of laws you don't like. It's either that or a failure to address the inconsistency at all.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Plus1Entropy]

What about states rights Mr. not-a-leftist? Or is that one of those principles you abandon once it becomes inconvenient?

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google your own name and you'll find your address and close relatives listed right there. Publicly available databases already exist on this topic. Wonder why robocalls during elections seem to miss thise not registered?

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voter records are public records that are already available. Political party affiliation is public record in many states where people have to register as a party member to vote in that party's primary. Historical voter records exist to prune voter rolls of the deceased or people that moved out of state without deregistering when that person hasnt voted in some time. The order asked for only publicly available info. States not complying can realistically claim the federal govt should access or pay for the collection of info same as political parties and PACs do as voting is not federal, but anything else is posturing. This order isnt illegal in the least. You should be more worried about what Facebook has on you.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[gnick]

Until losers of athletic events are euthanized, there will be no valid comparison.

Hillary was euthanized? I thought she was just sent off into the woods to sulk for a while. The "fewer yards but more points" analogy seems appropriate to me.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

LOL. Data available to ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

The data requested is available to anyone who asks. It doesn't include HOW someone voted, only the names, addresses etc of 'registered voters' that is available as 'public domain' information.

Lying again.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't care. You won't accept reality and none of the people who believe your shit would believe anything else.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[bobbied]

No one is protecting anything except Trump's fragile ego. This whole Advisory Commission action was set into motion because Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. Total waste of time and money... .

I suppose you could look at it that way if you intended to keep up the partisan party line. Actually this whole thing makes good sense to me for a number of reasons.

First, Not comparing the various state's lists for duplicates allows for those who wish to commit voter fraud and vote multiple times in multiple states an easy way to do this.

Second, Some states do not have very good procedures to purge their voter rolls of various illegible voters including illegals, those who have moved out of state, people who have died and others who should not be voting. Having them on the rolls only makes vote fraud easier.

Now I'm not so sure that having some federal commission going though the voter rolls is a splendid idea, but it's not totally without reason or benefits.... Benefits? Yep....

1. Making some kinds of voter fraud harder to do and easier to detect.

2. Restoring public confidence in the voter registration process and the thus the election results.

So if we can put the partisan rhetoric aside a bit and discuss this, maybe we can come up with some kind of reasonable way to do this.

Re: scientists and statisticians on the job, you t

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you've come to the wrong place pal.

suppressing an informative post

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this -1?

From the Election Integrity Commission letter sent to Maine's Secretary of State:

As the Commission begins it work, I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular:

1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections?
2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities?
3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer?
4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or
registration fraud in your state?
5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the
November 2000 federal election?
6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or
disenfranchisement?
7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider?

In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly-available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,

[following is list of requested information]

the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available addresses dates of birth political party (if recorded in your state) last four digits of social security number if available voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward active/inactive status, cancelled status information regarding any felony convictions information regarding voter registration in another state information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.

Not even the whole SSN, just the last four digits...if available...if permitted by state law.. My dog, just think of the privacy implications!

Well, I can see why EPIC would be so opposed to such a request! (actually, I can't.)

Here's the info the Trump commission wants

[Anonymous Coward]

So troll porn posts get modded 0:offtopic, but pertinent information valuable to the discussion is rated -1? Tch, Tch, mods.

From the Election Integrity Commission letter sent to Maine's Secretary of State:

As the Commission begins it work, I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular:

1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections?
2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities?
3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer?
4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or
registration fraud in your state?
5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the
November 2000 federal election?
6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or
disenfranchisement?
7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider?

In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly-available voter roll data for Maine, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,

[following is list of requested information]

the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available
addresses
dates of birth
political party (if recorded in your state)
last four digits of social security number if available
voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward
active/inactive status, cancelled status
information regarding any felony convictions
information regarding voter registration in another state
information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
Not even the whole SSN, just the last four digits...if available...if permitted by state law.. My dog, just think of the privacy implications!

Well, I can see why EPIC would be so opposed to such a request! (actually, I can't.)

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[sexconker]

Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem.

Successful voter fraud isn't detected. You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted. Such an investigation would require information the commission is seeking from states. People who like to downplay the possibility of voter fraud sure like to enable it by opposing such checks, opposing voter ID requirements (even if the ID is free and easy to obtain), opposing auditable and securable voting machines (i.e., paper ballots), etc.

Whether you suspect voter fraud or you expect no voter fraud, the best way to start figuring it out is to do what the commission is trying to do.

Registering fake voters, voting multiple times, voting for other people, voting for dead people, etc. is standard fucking procedure in this country at every level. It's such a cliche that it was the basis for a Simpsons episode, and when Lisa decided to prove it, the level of "who gives a shit" was so high that she was simply handed the entire vote record. "Vote early, vote often." isn't just something people say, it's something they do.

When every single step of the game leading up to the election is rigged, do you really think they'd grow a conscience and stop at the sacred polls? Do you really think elections at the national level are any more secure than at the local level? If so, why? The scale of the election doesn't help you here, it hurts you. And you only need to "influence" a handful of states to have an impact. Hell, you can often target a handful of polling places each in a dozen counties to swing the legislative branch.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Flentil]

It's because TFA is FAKE NEWS. Pretty common these days.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I just love Slashdot constitutional scholars! Oh, uh, btw, which branch is it that is (or rather was until SCOTUS gutted it a few years ago) responsible for enforcing federal laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Or perhaps the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, or the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 , or the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, or the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, or the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009?

Every one of those federal laws requires states to provide any required/requested information to the authoritative department of the executive branch and to Congress to ensure compliance with the laws.

I don't suppose in your fevered opposition to Trump that maybe one reason GOP states are reluctant to turn over some data is because it might show evidence of disenfranchisement of certain demographic groups in elections? Wouldn't that be ironic if that's the case? Yet, Democrats so desperate to cling to the utterly useless moral victory of winning a popular vote (in just a couple of populous California counties mind you) they'll pass up an opportunity to 1)gloat over a finding that widespread election fraud didn't happen, and 2)uncover illegal Republican disenfranchisement of Democrats in Republican majority states.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[skids]

Translation: "We have an open tab at the GSA to run this farce of a commission but we're too lazy to cross-collate the publicly available information with other non-election data sources, so you do it. Then upload it to the webserver we payed the cousin of some campaign contributor some insane amount of money to set up, which, by the way, has no security whatsoever."

To which the proper reply is "get stuffed".

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[marquisdepolis]

Registering fake voters, voting multiple times, voting for other people, voting for dead people, etc. is standard fucking procedure in this country at every level.

Citation Needed

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Bartles]

Of course it does. But if you read the ACTUAL REQUESTS you will see they are only requesting publicly available data allowed by laws of each state. TFA is lying to you and you can't even admit it.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Bartles]

If you can point me to a previous national level investigation, I would be happy to cite it.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Bartles]

How exactly does examining publicly available voter data suppress the vote?

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosemann said. "In the event I were to receive correspondence from the commission requesting (what the other state received) ... My reply would be: They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from."

"Hosemann said the copy of the letter he received asked the state for full first and last names and middle initials of registered voters, addresses, dates of birth, political party, last four digits of Social Security numbers, voter history from 2006 on, information regarding any felony convictions, military status and other info."
Except that information just happens to be same info that every Secretary of State was asked for.

Nice strawman, Hosemann. Made you sound tuff, huh?

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Bartles]

The Executive Branch enforces the law. It is dishonest or ignorant to say they have no role.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Translation: "We ha.. yadda yadda yadda,

Analysis: You're a disingenuous fucking twat.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like demanding that the Federal Government get personally identifiable information on Voters, but I'll be god damned if we want a list of gun owners?

Talk about the left being hypocrites...

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[bongey]

The STATES SELL basically the same information to ANYONE, for $$$. Also your entire dribble about it violating the constitution is just flat WRONG, the National Voter Registration Act, passed by Congress, delegates the authority to the executive branch. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fool, AC.

SPOTTED: Jared and Ivanka chatting with Joel Klein and Alan Patricof, Kellyanne Conway on the dance floor, Boyden Gray, Chris Ruddy, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and wife Iris, Katharine Weymouth, Mary Jordan, Richard Cohen, Margaret Carlson, Gillian Tett, Steven Spielberg chatting with Steve Clemons and Robert Hormats, Carl Icahn, Tom Lee (famous for doing a leveraged buyout of Snapple and now lives in Princess Radziwill’s house), David Koch, John Paulson, Dina Powell, Richard Edelman, George Soros and his wife Tamiko Bolton, former Florida Gov. and Sen. Bob Graham (Lally’s uncle), her cousin Gwen Graham (who is running for Florida governor), Maria Bartiromo, Ray Kelly, Bill Bratton, Jeff Rosen, William Drozdiak, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.).

Try reading the letter itself?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is wrong.

"The letter, sent Wednesday to all 50 states, requests that all publicly available voter roll data be sent to the White House..."

But you'd know that if you had read the actual letter, which you can see in full on the article I linked to, instead of relying on lazy journalists who provide opinions but not sources.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that CNN should reveal his identity since it was all public information?

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[temcat]

They are afraid it will suppress "voters" that are not entitled to vote. Because it's "racist" or somesuch.

Same idiots that sue for Trump's tax returns

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same left-leaning Democrat funded group that claims to be independent yet attacks only Republicans.

Never forget that:
                      Independent voters are twice as likely to commit a violent crime than a Republican.
                    Democrats are SEVEN times more likely to o commit a violent crime than a Republican.

Totally fake fight, as you have highlighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one of these states makes these exact data sets available to the political parties and to elected officials and candidates for the benefit of the political elites (for targeted mailings, campaigning,polling, etc).

The Trump administration could, in fact, get this stuff indirectly from friendly political people who can legitimately get it or may already even have it.

So... What's this fight REALLY about???

Here's what the fight is REALLY about:

If the Trump team uses data obtained indirectly, then critics will claim the data used was possibly suspicious or edited or manipultaed etc and the results are thus tainted. The Trump team wants to take the real and legitimately obtained data and compare it to other government databases of things like felons, known foreign citizens living in the USA, dead people, etc and for the first time ever finally establish some FACTS about this stuff that for many years have been abstract arguments based on guesses and suppositions.

The question every honest citizen should be asking is: Why are so many insiders so entirely opposed to these publicly available data sets being passed through proper channels to a federal government body for analysis, particularly when they are not opposed to this data being released to all other politicians for all other uses? This data is far less invasive than census data, and it will not land in the hands of anybody who cannot already have it. This fight is only truly about the path these data sets take to their destination, and removing the ability of some parties to cast artificial doubt on the results of a study by claiming the data was obtained too indirectly.

Re:Totally fake fight, as you have highlighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with about $120,000 can get access to whatever data is releasable. That limits distribution to anyone with a legitimate need but keeps it out of reach of the entire population (additional restrictions may apply in some states, it is typically not distributed directly to the general public). They could have skipped all this nonsense by just paying the fees like everyone else. But that would only get them the packaged data set instead of anything and everything that isn't restricted from distribution by law (that they didn't even try to identify what data is releasable by what states shows how much effort they put into this, namely none). And then there's the matter of any responses to this request being subject to FOIA requests, potentially undermining the existing distribution system entirely. So, no, "it will not land in the hands of anybody who cannot already have it" is not necessarily accurate. This isn't data you can just download from the states' web sites free and clear.

TL;DR: This isn't as simple as you imagine it to be and there are valid concerns that aren't obvious because you do not understand the processes involved. It's not some grand conspiracy.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[ClickOnThis]

Successful voter fraud isn't detected.

That's a brilliant self-perpetuating delusion, worthy of the best conspiracy theorists. If a voter-fraud study turns up no evidence, it's not because there's no voter fraud, it's because the fraudsters are too good at it! And there are millions of them! Millions, I say!

You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted.

Well, you have a point there. Oh wait, you don't:

https://www.brennancenter.org/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.politifact.com/flor...
http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/...
http://www.projectvote.org/blo...

[Ignoring the remainder of your speculative, strawman-filled, fact-challenged rant.]

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Trump has succeeded in conflating two issues in the minds of his cultists. The Russian hacking scandals in various countries involve exfiltrating sensitive information from campaigns, and manipulating public opinion in the run up to elections through social media and use of said information where it is embarrassing, or coupled with plausible lies when not. Looking at the voting records will show absolutely nada when it comes to this. When the investigation into this was underway, Trump successfully managed to introduce a "voter fraud" angle by way of distraction. Some of us remember Trump broadcast live on TV asking the Russians to hack his opponents.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still underestimating Trump.

I have no more information than you do, but my guess is that he deliberately created this commission with a half-assed and borderline-unconstitutional mandate, specifically so that when it tried to get this kind of information, it'd generate opposition.

Now he can tweet to his supporters about how the Democrats/Deep State/whatever are thwarting his efforts because they don't want voter fraud exposed.

There's no need to ever find any significant voter fraud, if you can make your supporters earnestly believe that their enemies are covering it up. That's what this is.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[rtb61]

Do you not even read what you write "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations", so yeah laws can be quite easily written which the states have to obey. This prima facie gives the Federal government right of access to all information relating to elections from the states ie the basis upon which laws would be written to over rule the states and federally define regulation governing the running of elections in those states, which the President and the executive branch would administer.

Do you not understand, the congress and senate write the rules and the executive branch, the President, carries our the rules.

No part of that is correct

[Xenographic]

Unless someone has silently edited either the Slashdot article or the Engaget article since you posted that, your statement is completely false. Nowhere on the version of the article that I read does it mention non-public data. At most, it talks about Louisiana refusing by saying they'll have to buy the publicly-available data.

But perhaps you've read the many other articles that did say that and you got confused, which is perfectly understandable. In that case, please try reading the actual letter instead of relying on lazy journalists who don't bother to cite their sources:

"I am requesting that you provide to the Comission the publicly available voter roll data" (emphasis added).

So no, neither the Slashdot summary nor the article linked here says that and it wouldn't be true even if they did say that. And any source saying that should give you a copy of the letter to verify it for yourself because if they do not, they are completely unreliable rumor mongers. If they bothered to cite reliable sources, they wouldn't have this sort of problem.

Re:No part of that is correct

[AmiMoJo]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

http://www.sos.la.gov/Pages/Ne...

"The Presidentâ(TM)s Commission has quickly politicized its work by asking states for an incredible amount of voter data that I have, time and time again, refused to release," Schedler (R-La.)Âsaid in a statement. "My response to the Commission is, you're not going to play politics with Louisiana's voter data, and if you are, then you can purchase the limited public information available by law to any candidate running for office. Thatâ(TM)s it."

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Xenographic]

Did someone update the article silently? The article does not, in fact, claim that (though other articles have). Nor does the Slashdot summary.

You are, of course, correct that the actual letter requests "publicly available voter roll data" but nobody bothers to cite (or read) that.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Xenographic]

How did you get modded troll? The letter is here and it asks for "publicly-available voter roll data."

There are a few extra fields of data in some states that you missed, but they only asked for the public data, so the person you responded to is wrong to say otherwise.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

My address doesn't show up on Google

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed, yet you are against the research that would provide the citation.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[sound vision]

It uses the phrase "publicly available" then proceeds to list things that are generally not publicly available - varying by state of course. Its hard to believe that those who drafted the letter are unaware of that, or of the proper procedures to follow when making such a request - even with the incompetence of this administration. No, it seems more like the letter was sent specifically to capture this news cycle. The states, nearly all of them, predictably refused to comply. Now trump gets to paint the narrative exactly like he wants - "the states are helping to cover up millions of fraudulent votes". The rejection of this letter serves as a stand-in for actual evidence, which won't ever come. You can expect plenty more posturing like this throughout the commission. The entire point of the commission, after all, is to provide a propaganda counter-point to the Russia investigation. A smooth way to change the subject while appearing not to change the subject.

Secret ballots?

[jandersen]

Am I right in reading this as saying that the government of the US wants to know who voted for what? I'm asking because I can't quite believe that I am reading this. Wasn't voting in secret supposed to be one of the cornerstones of democracy? If somebody, in government or elsewhere can subsequentially find out how individuals voted, how can we guarantee that there aren't voters who are being intimidated into voting the "right" way? Because President Trustworthy promises?

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Anonymous Coward]

I discount anyone who would discount arguments just on the basis of their source. Evidence yes, but I didn't provide evidence. For the evidence you just need to do a little searching on google. What you are indulging in is straightforward ad-hominem and it shows only your own ignorance. If you can't come up with a better argument, then you should probably just assume I'm right.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know right like why can't trump face the fact that a majority of people don't want him in office?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[GLMDesigns]

Your voting records are public information and are currently stored (and sometimes sold) by the state.

What does that letter have to do with the states providing the following information?

Name,
Address,
DOB
DOD if applicable
Dates Voted.

Oh the fact that the letter asked specific questions to State Attorney Generals? And that if they lied they would be subpoenad.

Ahh. That's the f**king problem. Not voter information but having to truthfully answer questions.

Now I get you.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a federal election, dipshit....

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[LifesABeach]

I don't know who modded you down, f**k'em. Folks will be getting Entitlements for a very simple reason; I question if 1%'ers are entitled to them. Entitlements are cheaper than another French Revolution.

Correcting the misinformation!

[SmaryJerry]

First, this is a bipartisan committee not just the administration. Second, only a few states are refusing to provide publicly available information, not 44. Third, the federal government has much more data on people than this basic voter information from your tax returns. All they want to do is confirm the voters informations on matches the information they already have to find any issues. What they are doing is not difficult, all it will tell them is if a more in depth investigation is needed.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[coinreturn]

You were voted up by fraudulent moderators.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[Archangel Michael]

Those that mod me down are kneejerking emotional babies. My analysis is correct, they like entitlements, just not all of them. I happen to like less entitlements than they like.

My question I left was also correct. Who decides which entitlements people are entitled to? We have elected officials who are happy to dole out the public's monies to stay in office. Rich, Poor doesn't matter as long as they can stick it to the middle class.

Re: scientists and statisticians on the job, you t

[KGIII]

It may be time for me to revisit my position of not moderating. I've noticed some pretty poor moderation, as of late. I didn't moderate, because I don't believe I am qualified to judge. At the same time, it looks like I am more qualified than many others.

Voter Fraud Is the Fraud!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has claimed, with no evidence at all, that "millions" of fraudulent votes were cast.

This was done as a cynical ploy to bulk up his platform. His supporters lapped it up and Trump, in typical style, doubles down and continues with the bullshit claims.

There is no voter fraud, at least not at high enough rates to do anything about. If it happens at all it will be at something like 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of the votes cast. Yes, that too is an Alternative Fact.

This isn't the days of Tammany Hall. That era was so long ago that no one is left alive who remembers it, who lived through it. Boss Tweed isn't even a ghost of a memory.

The Fraud is claiming fraud with no proof. There isn't even anything suspicious to investigate. Why does this not count as theft, an attempt to steal from the Nation's Treasury, to investigate one party's BS electoral tactics? Spending money on this is like spending money on a search for unicorns, or bridge trolls, or the yeti.

"Well, we spent $40 million on our search for the unicorns and found none. Thus our commission can safely conclude there are no unicorns! However it was important to actively verify there were no unicorns and the important work of this commission can be reactivated if any unicorn droppings, horns or hides are unearthed."

Can't fix stupid.

Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th

[skam240]

Maybe you got modded down because your post wasnt very well thought through

"How do you distinguish between entitlements"? Observation maybe? Your comment is like saying "they're all cars so how can you possibly tell the difference!?"

Governments who give entitlements will inevitably "go to hell"? Yeah, every world government sure is going to hell right now.

um

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not disagree with me at all...

1. $120K is chump change to political parties and politicians who routinely get these data sets (and Trump could easily get them indirectly by getting them from one of these entities who obtained them this way)

2. FOIA requests are no detererrence at all if your name is Clinton. Hillary avoided all FOIA requests by doing all her state dept work on secret private servers, and when the public and the courts went after her docs, her State Department replied that no such documents existed. Half the country knew this about her and chose her to be president anyway... so why should ANYBODY now worry about interfering with FOIA requests ever again?

3. Nobody said anything about average people dowloading this data from websites.

My arguments were not what you imagined them to be

BS

[Xenographic]

They're "responding" to a request that wasn't made. We know this, because we can read the actual letter and see that they never asked for that.

What kind of idiot would fall for a childish trick like that?

The whole list is qualified...

[Xenographic]

> It uses the phrase "publicly available" then proceeds to list things that are generally not publicly available - varying by state of course.

It qualifies the entire list with "if publicly available in your state." That conditional would evaluate differently in each state, depending on local law.

Yes, some states do and some do not have those specific items. They wrote one letter for all 50 states and asked the state to supply whichever of that list of items is publicly available, figuring that the states would be smart enough to figure that out. It's written in such a way that it only requests an item if it is publicly available in that particular state.

So apparently a lot of Democratic states can't read simple English. Who knew?

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Xenographic]

You may have misunderstood, I was complaining that you got modded troll for providing factual information.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[marquisdepolis]

You don't do a national investigation to prove supposed guilt with no evidence. Otherwise we'd spend all our time investigating fake voting, leprechauns and unicorn serial killers.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Bartles]

You mean like the Russian collusion investigation? Clearly we do.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[marquisdepolis]

That's fair enough as a standard. When the FBI, DoD, NSA, House and Senate committees, agree on the need for an investigation into voter fraud, we should absolutely do that as well. I'd insist on it.

Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Bartles]

Your statement would make sense if those agencies were actually calling for an investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump admin. Sorry, you just failed.

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[GLMDesigns]

I did misunderstand.

my bad :)

Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!?

[Xenographic]

No worries, mate :)