Here’s an article that (lightly) discusses how the states that have mail-in voting already do it:
“Ballots are also sent out with unique bar codes linked to the voter and the ballot, to prevent a voter from casting more than one ballot. States also have secure drop boxes at voting enters and tracking systems so voters can keep tabs on their ballots.”
Interesting article. It sounds like some states have some mechanisms, like bar coding or signature comparison, but other’s don’t. Wouldn’t you think that the states that don’t hold potential for fraud?
For the ones that have these mechanisms, how do you ensure that the person who the ballot is linked to is the one filling it out and mailing it in? Is more scrutiny given to ballot signatures than to that “signed” progress report I gave the teacher back in the fourth grade?
I just posted two stories from just this past week detailing election fraud. One involving a mailman. Here is another. They’re not hard to find if you look. The IRS, arguably the most powerful federal agency, can’t prevent an average of $450+ Billion/yr in tax fraud. And this is with knowing the SSN and DOB of every single reported worker in the country.
All I need to register to vote is a DL or state ID card. Numerous states give these out to illegals. Many of these states won’t report these illegals to ICE but I’m sure they’ll do everything in their power to keep them off the voter registration rolls. Tell me again how you’re going to prevent illegals from voting? Again, you’ve failed to convince me there’s a serious concerted effort to record and root out all the instances of election fraud.
You don’t think potentially 100 million mail-in ballots would constitute large volume? God, let’s hope they don’t use the same anti-fraud procedures they have in place for Medicare. Boy, I better not ship any beer to any of my friends back home because that’s illegal and I’m sure the anti-fraud procedures at the post office would be sure to detect that.
This is so laughable I can hardly respond. I’m sure they take their sacred duty as seriously as every member of Congress does and would never do anything to tarnish their position. I’m sure that election official from the story I posted before took his job sacredly. Come to think of it, he did. His job was to get certain party affiliations elected so he did what he needed to do. I can’t believe he didn’t immediately turn himself in so he could be part of the “non-existent” “data”.
Shouldn’t the Feds be the ones investigating voter fraud? Or do you basically want the police policing the police?
Data says whatever the entity paying for it wants it to say. Some data says HIT is the best way to build muscle. Thousands of bodybuilders would disagree. I guess they’re all wrong. Outside of the hard sciences, common sense/knowledge often TRUMPS statistics.
Well, sure, which is why they would need to set up antifraud mechanisms like the states that already do consistent with the risk, which is low based in the data. It’s not complicated - add a new process, add a new antifraud mechanism to help prevent the risk of fraud.
Please don’t.
Just keep creating a problem where there is none; get Trump and the Feds involved; and truly screw everything up.
You’re confused on instances of fraud being the same as widespread fraud. No one doubts in can happen and no one has the power to guarantee zero incidents. What you can do is weigh the benefits against the low risk and the fact that antifraud mechanisms exist to combat the risk.
Strike two. Like your wildly inaccurate Medicare fraud analogy, this is a different species entirely. The complexity makes it difficult audit taxes - voting isn’t complex.
If memory serves, the feds recovered something $6 billion in fraud monies last year. But more to the point - Medicare fraud is enabled by the complexity of Medicare. Voting is not. They’re not comparable.
Your main point seems to be this: “the incompetent government bureaucrats can’t stop fraud anywhere, how can we expect them to stop it in voting?” Problem is, that’s inaccurate - they do prevent fraud generally, but specifically, voting fraud is easier to prevent due to less complexity and lower risk generally.
You are aware Congress doesnt prosecute voter fraud, right?
I take it you haven’t read a single election fraud story I’ve posted which took me seconds to find. I literally used to investigate financial crime of which fraud was included. These types of crimes are greatly under-reported. We used to put out PSA’s and suddenly numerous victims would only then report the crime. How do you record a criminal act, such as election fraud, if it was successful?
We know it happens, therefore we know it happens with more regularity than we know. You literally have to be a fool to not understand that.
Really? Incorporating mail-in voting is less complex and lower risk than requiring physical voting with ID requirements? I can assure you, as a former member, most law enforcement officials would disagree with you.
It’s strange that you oppose an effort as noble as attempting to eliminate all voter fraud. Do you support some voter fraud as long as the “data” says it’s below whatever number they want it to be below? Why is that? Are you afraid the side you support won’t be able to cheat?
It doesn’t. More mail-in voting raises the risk of mail-in voting fraud. No one is disputing that point. The question is: is the risk so high and unpreventable that we think it outweighs the benefits? The answer is no - based on existing data (!) it doesn’t happen often and we have the ability to prevent it on any event.
I understand it just fine and actually have direct experience in this world. And you’re actually incorrect - the government does a decent job at preventing Medicare fraud (they ramped up penalties recently to help with that).
When did I say that? You’re making stuff up.
I said it was less complex than Medicare fraud and tax fraud, meaning it’s easier to prevent than those two kinds of fraud.
Contrary to my anti-Trump rants and pointing out Conservative hypocrisy IN RELATION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA; I do not support a “side”.
The Democratic “Progressive” Agenda is as far from where I stand as Trump’s bullshit.
And his (attempted) slight against you shows how limited he’s thinking. Like you, I believe you can support certain things because they support the “greater good” regardless of whose side benefits.
I don’t want mail-in voting because it helps “my guy” - I support it because it makes voting easier for higher risk voters in the age of COVID. We shouldn’t want voting to be impeded by this, no matter who they come out and vote for. I’d support mail-in voting even if I thought that demographic would vote 90% Trump. It’s the right thing to do.
Trump has signed the Executive Order.
Better clear the Mall for all of the Tea Party/Don’t Tread on Me Protest.
(Right…)
Who is going to make a law? You do know how that works? There are two parties involved.
Give away donuts and they’ll show up.
The most we’re going to get is a tepid “hmmm, not sure if I agree with the President on this, but it’s complicated for sure”.
If Obama had done it, we’d have neckbeards with AR-15s protesting the White House from here to 2021.
I was almost ready to post before you chimed in with your prediction. I’m but a simple part-time backup dive bar bouncer and unrepentant Trump voter, but I shall give it a simpleton’s best shot.
I’ll go to bat for Trump on this. I just read through the executive order. I’m not a lawyer and it’s possible I’m missing something big, but right now I don’t see the problem. I think it is past-due.
The internet in 1996 was a completely different technical, social, cultural and economic landscape occupying a completely different role in society. We’ve essentially gone from horse and buggy to present day without changing any of the traffic laws. What worked for all of those horses doesn’t apply so well when even a shit box can propel 3,000 lbs to 100 mph.
The E.O. seems to be directing the already-existing agencies that see to the enforcement of already-existing laws. It also seems to be directing the appropriate people to put his proposed changes in front of Congress who, like it has been under past presidents, can pass the law, or not. Considering the law in question was first drafted in 1996, it seems to me that enough has changed since then to warrant a second look.
Here’s the EO if anyone cares to get into the details.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
The U.S. Code being discussed in the E.O.
A Wiki primer on the history of that code (already updated with a section on Trump’s E.O.).
@Mufasa and others. Can you point me to the part of this executive order that you are expecting conservatives to use up our vacation to go protest on the mall about?
If I’m to go back in time and put my circa 1990-2010 liberal hat on, well… Fuck those giant corporations. They won the game of Monopoly under the extant legal framework. Good for them! Wait, that’s present-day me. Fuck those giant corporations. Now, if they want to pick and choose who gets heard and what they call “factual”, well, that makes you a publisher. Be a publisher, and kiss your non-publisher legal protections goodbye.
If not, be neutral, and leave it up to whoever is using your platform to decide for themselves. My comrades and I know a Cheney operative shilling for Haliburton when we see it. Make your ill-gotten billions, and stay out of the publishing game.
Back to present day me…
I am having a hard time seeing the liberal argument for opposing this E.O., except for the obvious politicking against Donald Trump. He’s for it, so they are not. Easy enough to understand, especially if you don’t bother with any of the details.
What’s the angle I’m missing? Where’s the right-wing Trumpian conspiracy to undermine the First Amendment?
They do have terms of service. They also did not censor Trump.