• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump Establishes Voter Fraud Commission

Relatively safe ways to do it would be to vote for family, friends, or relatives who have expressed their intention to not vote in an election. You could also extend that to the elderly and sick/injured people who aren't capable of voting. If you wanted to get really aggressive you could post/hack a poll on the election, see who says they won't vote, and grab their info. With early voting you can vote anywhere in the county so you don't have to worry about the workers recognizing you.
 
Thinking back to RJ's suggestion of inexpensive webcams and fingerprint readers, that could actually work really well if there was additional logic in the software to check to see if that fingerprint has voted already. If so then it pulls up the webcam captures and metadata. I didn't like the suggestion as a retroactive tool but you could make it work as a real time fraud detection tool.
 
Relatively safe ways to do it would be to vote for family, friends, or relatives who have expressed their intention to not vote in an election. You could also extend that to the elderly and sick/injured people who aren't capable of voting. If you wanted to get really aggressive you could post/hack a poll on the election, see who says they won't vote, and grab their info. With early voting you can vote anywhere in the county so you don't have to worry about the workers recognizing you.

Right, once again, the risk isn't nearly worth it given the serious jail time you get for doing it.
 
Right, once again, the risk isn't nearly worth it given the serious jail time you get for doing it.

Why do people commit crime then as it almost always isn't worth the risk? People don't think logically like you and I do.
 
Voter fraud is a felony. How many people are willing to risk a felony charge in exchange for casting a vote that almost certainly does not change who represents them?
 
Voter fraud is a felony. How many people are willing to risk a felony charge in exchange for casting a vote that almost certainly does not change who represents them?

but we need to have ID's to make sure this doesn't happen

so dumb
 
Thinking back to RJ's suggestion of inexpensive webcams and fingerprint readers, that could actually work really well if there was additional logic in the software to check to see if that fingerprint has voted already. If so then it pulls up the webcam captures and metadata. I didn't like the suggestion as a retroactive tool but you could make it work as a real time fraud detection tool.

Just having people leave the fingerprint will keep them from doing it. There will be indisputable evidence of their crime.
 
Just having people leave the fingerprint will keep them from doing it. There will be indisputable evidence of their crime.

Sure, the hardware would deter some. But if you already have the hardware in place why not just include the additional software piece and eliminate that opportunity for fraud altogether? It's not like the technology doesn't exist already. It is basically a very stripped down version of what the government already uses. Without the software component, you have evidence but wouldn't know a crime existed. With it, you know when a crime is committed and have the evidence as well.
 
Did a little research and biometric systems are already being used in multiple countries. And those include verifying the the person only votes once, which is an obvious feature. Moving to biometric verification like other countries should appease both liberals and conservatives.
 
Why do people commit crime then as it almost always isn't worth the risk? People don't think logically like you and I do.

A lot of crimes are worth the risk. The majority of us speed on the highway or commit other minor crimes because the punishment and risk of getting caught are low. If either of those things become high we stop. That's why red light and speed cameras are so effective.

And if all these vote fraudsters out there are illogical criminals I doubt they are coming up with an elaborate plan to hit 50 different precincts under 50 different names they pulled from a careful examination of voter rolls.
 
I think that the bigger problem among voting is the blatant voting restrictions that are going on nationwide, not lack of ID checks at voting sites.
 
I think that the bigger problem among voting is the blatant voting restrictions that are going on nationwide, not lack of ID checks at voting sites.

What voting restrictions? If it is limited voting time or registration issues both of those could be solved with using biometrics. You could revamp the voter registration process to include just scanning their fingerprints/eyes, and you could allow voters to use the cameras in their phones and computer to cast their vote remotely which would decrease the lines at the voting locations. All that in addition to solving voter fraud.
 

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voting-laws-roundup-2017

In several places, this means it will soon be harder to vote: Five states have already enacted bills to cut back on voting access, and one more is on the verge of doing so. By comparison, three states enacted voting restrictions in 2015 and 2016 combined. Overall, however, more bills to expand access to voting were introduced this year than bills that would restrict voting access. Still, of the legislation making the most substantial impact on voting access, more legislation to limit participation is advancing toward passage. Moreover, governors in Nebraska and Nevada have vetoed the bills that would expand access to the franchise.

Several states will soon implement major new voting restrictions

Five states have already enacted laws making it harder to register or vote, one more is on the verge of doing so, and more states could act later this year:

Iowa’s governor signed a broad-based law that will require voter ID, restrict voter registration efforts, and impose new burdens on Election Day registration and early and absentee voting. Although not as restrictive as a North Carolina law that passed in 2013 (and was blocked by a federal court), Iowa’s law similarly restricts voting in a number of different ways.
Arkansas passed two bills to bring back voter ID to the state after a court struck down an earlier law.
North Dakota also enacted legislation to re-impose an identification requirement after a court blocked a strict ID law in 2016.
Indiana enacted a law that will implement a purge of registered voters from the rolls. The program will remove voters in a manner similar to purges in other states that have been criticized for being error-prone and inadequately protective of eligible voters.
Montana’s house and senate passed a bill that will prevent civic groups and individuals from helping others vote absentee by collecting and delivering their voted ballots. The bill now goes to voters as a November 2018 ballot measure.
Georgia’s legislature sent bill that would make voter registration more difficult to the Governor, and he signed it on May 9.

Voter ID bills are still the most common form of voting restriction moving in state legislatures

Since 2010, ten states have passed more burdensome voter ID requirements. As in previous years, voter ID is the most common type of legislation to restrict voting access this year. Overall, 39 bills imposing harsher voter ID requirements were introduced in 22 states. As noted above, three states — Arkansas, Iowa, and North Dakota have already enacted voter ID laws.

Legislation pending in other states poses risks to voting access. For example, Oklahoma’s Senate passed a bill that would add a voter ID requirement to the state constitution. The bill passed with a wide margin in the Senate, setting up a likely house vote. Meanwhile, Texas’s senate has passed a voter ID bill, discussed in further detail below, that would put in place a voter ID provision less voter-friendly than the current, court-ordered provision.

Restrictions on voter registration are a close second

After voter ID, making the voter registration process more burdensome is the most popular subject of bills to cut back on voting access. Overall, 33 bills to make the voter registration process more burdensome have been introduced in 22 states. Bills have at least been considered and approved by a legislative committee in Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia. Of these, New Hampshire’s has the most momentum: a bill to make registration more difficult for students, supported by the Secretary of State, has passed the Senate.

The majority of states acting to restrict voting are legislating on topics where courts previously acted to protect voters

Most of the states that have already enacted or on the verge of enacting new voting restrictions are passing legislation of the same subject on which courts have recently acted to protect voters from past voting restrictions.

Arkansas has passed two harmful voter ID bills. One, which restores a statutory requirement that voters show one of a limited set of ID, has been enacted. The other, which would amend the state constitution to require voter ID, must be approved by the voters in the form of a ballot initiative before taking effect. A state court blocked a previous ID law in 2014.
Georgia enacted a law imposing a requirement that information on voter registration forms match exactly with other state records — a burdensome process known as “no match, no vote.” Only months earlier, the secretary of state agreed in a court settlement to stop a similar procedure that had prevented tens of thousands from registering.
Iowa enacted an omnibus voting bill, described in further detail above, on May 5. The bill includes a requirement that suspected non-citizens be deleted from the voter rolls. Such removals programs, if conducted without safeguards to adequately ensure those being removed are actually ineligible, can sweep in thousands of eligible voters, as has happened in Colorado and Florida. In 2014, a state court blocked former Secretary of State Matt Schultz from purging suspected noncitizens because he lacked authority to carry out the program in the manner he intended.
North Dakota’s Governor signed a bill on April 25 that would restore a strict voter ID requirement in the state. In 2016, a federal court partially blocked a previous ID law that accepted a narrow range of identification documents and did not provide any meaningful voting opportunities for voters without the accepted ID. The new bill slightly expands options to use for ID, but eliminates the process the court imposed, which allows voters without IDs to cast a ballot that counts on Election Day, and instead included a more burdensome process. One legislator argued that that the bill does not pass constitutional muster.
Texas’s legislature is considering a voter ID bill that that is on the verge of being passed a house committee has already approved the legislation and it has already passed the senate. The state attorney general has described the bill as a response to a court’s blocking of the state’s previous strict voter ID law. Critics observe that the bill, if enacted, would put in place a voter id requirement that is more stringent than the existing court-ordered process.
 
Blows my mind how Republicans don't understand the whole point of the voter fraud boogeyman is to restrict votes from groups that traditionally vote Democrat.
 
Blows my mind how Republicans don't understand the whole point of the voter fraud boogeyman is to restrict votes from groups that traditionally vote Democrat.

You always speak in absolutes Ph. I'll admit there's a lot of truth to that statement but it's not the "whole" point. Everyone could benefit from increased security measures. It's only an matter of time before liberals claim conservative voter fraud as well - what if it came out that Russia ran a voter fraud system to support Trump?

Would you be open to compromising on the issue and implement security measures that don't restrict votes from groups that traditionally vote Democrat? We are moving to that technology eventually anyway. I already use similar technology to use my phone and to enter office buildings. Might as well get a jump start and shut up Republicans on the issue since they would have no ground to stand on. Or would you rather just be closed minded and stay firm on the issue, potentially risking Republicans taking advantage of the "issue" and implementing policies that hurt your party?
 
Last edited:
You always speak in absolutes Ph. I'll admit there's a lot of truth to that statement but it's not the "whole" point. Everyone could benefit from increased security measures. It's only an matter of time before liberals claim conservative voter fraud as well - what if it came out that Russia ran a voter fraud system to support Trump?

Would you be open to compromising on the issue and implement security measures that don't restrict votes from groups that traditionally vote Democrat? We are moving to that technology eventually anyway. I already use similar technology to use my phone and to enter office buildings. Might as well get a jump start and shut up Republicans on the issue since they would have no ground to stand on. Or would you rather just be closed minded and stay firm on the issue, potentially risking Republicans taking advantage of the "issue" and implementing policies that hurt your party?

The REALITY is when PA passed it's voter ID law the Speaker of the House said it would lead to GOP wins. The REALITY is the former Chair of the FL GOP stated that the purpose of their law was to deny black and Hispanic voters that vote Dem. The Federal District Court in NC said the NC law excluded blacks with "laser precision". In AL DMVs (where you get the IDS) in multiple counties that have high densities of black voters were closed.

Laws in other states are the same in suppressing minority and poor voters that vote Dem. Further, ever voter ID law was passed in a GOP controlled state.

The REALITY is EVERY voter ID law was passed to suppress the Dem vote. It has NOTHING to do with voter fraud. The laws are ONLY about suppressing the vote in favor of the GOP.

There is no problem with voter impersonal fraud. If there were, cases of people who showed up to vote and others who have voted for them would exist and they don't.

The irrational and immoral USSC decision about the Voters Rights Act has led to new, insidious and un-American Jim Crow, Jr. laws.
 
Back
Top