|
On October 31 2012 10:24 Mr. Nefarious wrote:
You guys are believing garbage with no citations. I have a degree in Political Science from a major University and pretty much all worthwhile studies with credible, non-partisan funding have found there is basically no truth to this. The cases of this happening have been extremely minimal as well as extremely rare. With all the money and interest in politics these days it's pretty much impossible to get away with. Both sides have their fingers on the trigger waiting to bring down a shit storm on the other party at the first wiff of foul play. This voting fraud non-sense has as much credibility as the people that believe the earth is flat.
Can we get a list of your sources? Or should we just trust you because you have a political science degree?
|
The graphs in that report don't make any sense.
lol.
|
On October 31 2012 10:21 SgtCoDFish wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Because this is more than likely conspiracy theorist horseshit with no basis in reality. If it actually IS true, (smart) people will notice and a shitstorm will promptly ensue. I'd argue that most non-US countries in the developed world would probably prefer to see an Obama victory (not basing that on any research, but it certainly seems that way), so if there's shenanigans their media will absolutely hop on it and rip the shit out of the US. Plus the left-leaning/Democrat media in the US itself. 4 random websites does not constitute proof of electoral fraud. Let's wait and see what reputable newspapers/websites have to say. EDIT: More than likely they will have nothing to say because this is utter tripe.
Wow! A sensible post! But this doesn't sound as nice as blaming all my parties losses on conspiracies and imagining boogeymen under my bed etc etc.
|
On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims?
I very much hope that they don't want to link registered votes to that ID. That would be insane. There is a reason why all democratic countries have secret voting.
Requiring an ID to vote is not really a problem, but apparently americans don't like it. It's not like it is that big of a deal either way, and it especially does not have anything to do with this as far as i can tell.
|
On October 31 2012 10:27 Complete wrote:
The graphs in that report don't make any sense.
lol.
I read though most of it and tin foil hats are a plenty. Anyways there is far more of an issue given, winner take all precincts and states and the electoral college.
|
On October 31 2012 10:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? I very much hope that they don't want to link registered votes to that ID. That would be insane. There is a reason why all democratic countries have secret voting. Requiring an ID to vote is not really a problem, but apparently americans don't like it. It's not like it is that big of a deal either way, and it especially does not have anything to do with this as far as i can tell.
usually the requiring an ID thing would be fine, but often it's bundled with "copy of birth certificate, and 2 forms of Government issued picture ID".
because passports, drivers licenses, and Govt IDs all require money and require you to go out of your way in some manner to acquire them, as well as requiring the birth certificate it disenfranchises many voters with a bias toward disenfranchising, the poor, the young, and those who live in large cities (no need to drive there oftentimes), and those groups all tend to vote rather democratically.
|
On October 31 2012 10:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? I very much hope that they don't want to link registered votes to that ID. That would be insane. There is a reason why all democratic countries have secret voting. Requiring an ID to vote is not really a problem, but apparently americans don't like it. It's not like it is that big of a deal either way, and it especially does not have anything to do with this as far as i can tell.
I live in a state with a ID voting law. Nobody records who you vote for. You just show your ID to the poll volunteers and they check your name off a list so no one else can vote under your name.
usually the requiring an ID thing would be fine, but often it's bundled with "copy of birth certificate, and 2 forms of Government issued picture ID".
because passports, drivers licenses, and Govt IDs all require money and require you to go out of your way in some manner to acquire them, as well as requiring the birth certificate it disenfranchises many voters with a bias toward disenfranchising, the poor, the young, and those who live in large cities (no need to drive there oftentimes), and those groups all tend to vote rather democratically.
wait. what state do you live in that requires that?
|
Er I'll just defer to what prince said a few posts up.
|
On October 31 2012 10:36 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:29 Simberto wrote:On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? I very much hope that they don't want to link registered votes to that ID. That would be insane. There is a reason why all democratic countries have secret voting. Requiring an ID to vote is not really a problem, but apparently americans don't like it. It's not like it is that big of a deal either way, and it especially does not have anything to do with this as far as i can tell. I live in a state with a ID voting law. Nobody records who you vote for. You just show your ID to the poll volunteers and they check your name off a list so no one else can vote under your name. Show nested quote +usually the requiring an ID thing would be fine, but often it's bundled with "copy of birth certificate, and 2 forms of Government issued picture ID".
because passports, drivers licenses, and Govt IDs all require money and require you to go out of your way in some manner to acquire them, as well as requiring the birth certificate it disenfranchises many voters with a bias toward disenfranchising, the poor, the young, and those who live in large cities (no need to drive there oftentimes), and those groups all tend to vote rather democratically.
wait. what state do you live in that requires that?
They don't require that now. but for the past 6 years republican voting acts have included that requirement to vote, which is the reason they've been blocked many times by democrats. it's something the right is trying to implement nationwide.
|
On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims?
It wouldn't.
At all.
The lack of a "shitstorm" probably is because none of the links are reputable sources.
|
On October 31 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:
Er I'll just defer to what prince said a few posts up.
Yeah but your first post implied republicans get away with supposed voter fraud because of no ID. I still don't understand how a voter ID would prevent a computer program from "flipping" 10% of the votes as this op suggests. There is no way in hell an ID would ever be linked to how you vote.
|
On October 31 2012 10:41 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? It wouldn't. At all. The lack of a "shitstorm" probably is because none of the links are reputable sources.
yeah, the links are pretty questionable lol. and i'm just trying to understand some peoples thought process on it because it does not compute for me.
|
The American approach to voting machines is so naive. How do you want to ensure the secrecy of the vote?
|
In Holland we voted the good old way, by pencil, the last time because of the concerns that voter anonymity is not 100% secure, and hacking the voting machines has been proven to be a cinch.
Personally, i prefer the pencil, since it somehow conveys more meaning to my vote. But thats just some psychological stuff.
|
On October 31 2012 10:50 Perscienter wrote:
The American approach to voting machines is so naive. How do you want to ensure the secrecy of the vote?
?
I love it when foreigners come into threads about American politics and spout random shit that is completely wrong.
Our vote is secret even with ID voting. The ID and the vote are two completely separate actions at two different points. You show and ID to get into the line, then you vote at a machine once you're inside. At no point does your vote and your ID ever get connected. With or without machine voting.
And if anyone actually believes the OP, read my response debunking it. With links.
|
On October 31 2012 10:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? It would be a lot harder to rig votes if they required every person to have an ID to vote. People would be able to check off who voted and when in the election records.
They do this without IDs...you register, get your district, and the volunteers at the polls are supposed to check you off electronically or on paper in some areas. You don't just trust people not to vote twice.
At least 4 years ago that's what they had me do as a poll worker.
|
On October 31 2012 10:56 Adron wrote:
In Holland we voted the good old way, by pencil, the last time because of the concerns that voter anonymity is not 100% secure, and hacking the voting machines has been proven to be a cinch.
Personally, i prefer the pencil, since it somehow conveys more meaning to my vote. But thats just some psychological stuff.
We do the exact same thing in Wisconsin--except with a marker so it cannot be erased.
Despite the OP's claim, our paper ballots match up directly when counted by hand or when counted by machine. There is PROOF of this.
So this is a voting trend that is interesting and not completely understood (although I think it's simply the fact that Romney appeals to urban republicans--which are more moderate--more than anyone else in that campaign), not one that is fraud-based.
|
On October 31 2012 11:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:26 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:22 heliusx wrote:On October 31 2012 10:20 Sermokala wrote:On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? Democrats don't want to give the republicans ammo to pass though voter ID. With the republicans doing this they literaly show why there should be voter id for a vote. Its literaly a win win situation for them. By hook or crook reps get an advantage of votes. Classic electioneering. How would a ID change what the op claims? It would be a lot harder to rig votes if they required every person to have an ID to vote. People would be able to check off who voted and when in the election records. They do this without IDs...
The difference between ID voting and No-ID voting is that you're basically registered before-hand automatically. It eliminates the need for provisional ballots and ensures you cannot go to multiple polling stations.
|
This has been brought up every (election) year since the inception of electronic voting machines. Widespread fraud is yet to be conclusively proven despite many investigations.
BluePanther sufficiently destroyed the credibility of the few conspiracy websites linked. BluePanther 1 Crappy links 0.
|
Don't use crazy machines that aren't standardized plez 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
