I think the audit will uncover no evidence of tampering in Wisconsin. And I see that as unfortunate, even though at this point a change in the outcome would likely stir up major civil unrest, at a minimum. That’s how much I despise Trump.
Even for a group with state resources, I just can’t imagine jumping air gaps in multiple counties, multiple states, and having enough of an effect to change the result, without leaving any trace. It would be a much bigger task than Stuxnet, which was quite sophisticated. It probably couldn’t realistically be pulled off without an on the ground covert component, exploiting physical access, which makes the whole thing so much riskier.
I used to strongly believe that US national elections should be federalized (particularly after the tragedy of Bush v. Gore). Now, that looks to be too risky just on infosec grounds!
In recount news, two out of three are funded, but donations have slowed way down. The Green have until Wednesday to raise $1.4 million more. https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
ID laws can only disenfranchise people if it is difficult for them to get IDs. If we remove the impediment, and make sure that every eligible voter has access to an ID, then not only can they vote, but they can participate in other parts of US society.
I think what usually goes unstated is the fact that non-citizens are a big part of the process, and they should not be. Since the primary legitimate argument against ID laws is that they discriminate against some classes of people, lets remove that factor.
That also means that we can link that ID to absentee and mail-in ballots, which closes another possibility for fraud.
The system should be above suspicion. People should be confident that there are no easy ways to game the system, including the machines.
But there’s no point Max. On top of that, you have to trust in a system to determine who is eligible. That can go wrong in a lot of ways.
There is no evidence of anything statistically significant in the way of in person voter fraud. Show me numbers that prove otherwise, or drop it. It’s a straw man.
I have to renew my license this year. I have to bring along 4 different kinds of papers now, since my state changed it’s laws. While I have all the relevant paper work handy, others, especially people who are working class, may not actually have them, for a number of reasons.
Many states are actively making it harder to get an ID.
And if they are doing so, especially to disenfranchise particular groups, it is wrong and should be stopped. I understand that the Brennan Center has made the statement that voter fraud is a myth, and that voter ID laws are racist. Their position is perfectly clear, and not to be questioned. If we make it easy and free for people to get valid IDs, including proactive help for the needy, then the racist element is removed.
Voter fraud may be statistically irrelevant. Probably the number of people who do not have an ID is also minimal, and statistically irrelevant also. But it seems worth the effort to make sure that all eligible persons have a chance to vote. It should also be worth the effort to make the system more or less foolproof. The system depends on the citizen’s faith in the integrity of the election process.
The state changed what we have to bring. It used to be the old license. Now I have to have all sorts of stuff just to prove I am myself.[quote=“Max_Blancke, post:189, topic:90007”]
especially to disenfranchise particular groups,
[/quote]
They’d never say it’s the reason, but it’s the reason. Now it’s veiled partisanship, but the effects are the same.[quote=“Max_Blancke, post:189, topic:90007”]
and not to be questioned
[/quote]
Feel free to disagree, but they are on to something. It’s not mistake that these laws are popping up in states with a long history of black voter suppression.
But that is not what is happening. Objectively. They are actively making it harder for working class people to vote. In many of these places where these laws are being passed, the working class is often black.
I agree. Some people don’t agree with us on this issue. They are so worried about the many once or twice that someone (either erroneously or maliciously, most often the former, I’d guess) might vote twice, that they are willing to make it actively harder to vote. These people do not want to make it easier to vote, because deep down, they are anti-democratic. [quote=“Max_Blancke, post:189, topic:90007”]
The system depends on the citizen’s faith in the integrity of the election process.
[/quote]
Many, many of us do not have this. Many in the African American community do not have this, because there is a long history of voter suppression in the black community. That is not some fantasy, that is historical fact that can be and has been verified by hundreds of historians over the years. To not see the connections to what is happening with these voter ID laws is an act of blindness, willful or otherwise.
All eligible people can have the chance to vote without IDs. The way to make the system foolproof is further up the chain, where the votes get counted. (It’s almost like you don’t understand how power gets concentrated.)
And if they are doing so, especially to disenfranchise particular groups, it is wrong and should be stopped.
What if they are disenfranchising certain groups totally by accident, but then argue about fixing THAT being something only someone with a partisan agenda would do?
Intent is what the privileged are privileged to focus on. It’s a darned convenient dodge to avoid focusing on the harm done.
It’s pretty hypocritical to call one side hypocritical for asking questions based on verifiable evidence and testable questions, while giving another side a pass for throwing out questions with absolutely no basis in reality, no way to test, and no justification other than fearmongering.
General estimates from multiple independent sources are that 9 - 13% of eligible voters in the U.S. lack ID. Which is far, far more than any evidence so far found of the types of voter fraud that voter ID laws would prevent.
I understand that, but most of it goes back to the Brennan center’s 2006 survey of 987 people of voting age. It was a very small survey that did not attempt to determine whether the respondents were eligible to vote. They then “adjusted for race”, then extrapolated the 987 people to the 2000 US Census population of 281 million.
There have been other studies since, using lots of different methodology. The surveys that only included eligible voters that I have read tend to put the number of those without ID as below 1%. Like this one- http://arp.sagepub.com/content/40/4/461.abstract
I agree that we should put no significant obstacles between eligible voters and the ballot box. But left leaning people generally oppose any action that would allow for verification of eligibility to vote. I think that it has to be possible to make the system more secure without keeping eligible voters from doing so.
I also get that there is a mantra that “voter fraud is a myth”. And any instances of voter fraud are irrelevant anecdotes. It does not matter that election officials themselves know it to be a common practice. I agree that O’Keef is a sketchy character, but it does not appear that the candid remarks he recorded of the NYC elections commissioners were taken out of context.
And every report that I have read shows that when officials or journalists pose as ineligible voters, they are still allowed to vote.
But the article and the current recounts are about computer fraud, as I understand it. I think we are probably going to want a uniform, foolproof system, or people will not be able to trust the process. If someone opposes such measures, I have to suspect that they believe that there is an advantage being worked by their side.
“Pro-Second Amendment? … it’s done. First pro-life legislation?.. done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” Turzai said.
NO. Read your link again. It only includes registered voters, and says absolutely nothing about eligible voters. If you’re going to try to quote facts, then don’t try to claim they cover more than they actually do.
Studies that actually look at eligible voters tend to agree with the 9 - 13% rate. Which is all we should be looking at… if you’re going to write off people being able to vote just because they’re not currently registered, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, because every attempt to date to show the existence of individual people voting multiple times or voting for other people (the only things voter ID would catch) have so far come up almost entirely empty.
There’s a “mantra” that there’s no Loch Ness Monster too, despite the true believers who hang onto vague shreds of evidence. Maybe it does exist, but you can’t expect to be taken seriously talking about it unless you’ve got something new and solid to discuss.
