Yes, he was "suppressed" because they wanted to verify that because he's from another state, that he's registered to vote in this one because he's a student. Crazy right wing bastards.

North Carolina paranoid right-wingers pulled similar shenanigans at Appalachian State University. Then they found out the college kids actually gave a majority of votes in '12 to Romney. Ha ha ha.

North Carolina paranoid right-wingers pulled similar shenanigans at Appalachian State University. Then they found out the college kids actually gave a majority of votes in '12 to Romney. Ha ha ha.

So, it's shenanigans that voters are required to be registered? You're a funny guy.

Mail every registered voter a paper ballot. Give them two weeks to investigate the candidates, fill out the ballot and send it back to the elections office. Oregon does this and gets up to 80 percent voter participation (vs. the low 30s for Georgia in the recent midterm).

 

Voting systems in most states are so antiquated, as is the idea that the major elections have to be on a Tuesday in November, rather than, say, a Saturday-Sunday.

 

Deanna Swenson handed 90 days in jail for Clackamas election fraud - Portland Business Journal

Swenson is the 13th person to be prosecuted for voter fraud since Oregon went to all vote-by-mail elections in 2000

So, it's shenanigans that voters are required to be registered? You're a funny guy.

They were using the ol' precinct reduction trick at App State. Only someone who's real naive would think this stuff is not vindictive.

Everybody seems to Hate the Two Party System...wouldn't removing the political affiliation from the ballot be a great first step to opening up elections to others outside of the Big 2?

Deanna Swenson handed 90 days in jail for Clackamas election fraud - Portland Business Journal

So the voter fraud rate in Oregon appears to be .00000054 percent.

So the voter fraud rate in Oregon appears to be .00000054 percent.

#1. No, 13 people were arrested, it didn't say how many votes they may have altered or cast illegally.

#2. Many local elections swing on a handful of votes, many senate and congressional races are won on a handful of votes...it doesn't take many to sway a close election.

 

Fraud of any kind should be frowned upon not dismissed because some think it's not a big deal. I bet you'd be losing your mind if these people that were convicted were all casting illegal ballots and voting for Republican Candidates.

 

Difference between you and me I think it's wrong either way...you just get upset if you think it hurts Dems.

Let's be honest. Removing the straight party option is not going to change the behavior of those that use this option. If you will never vote for a Democrat (or Republican), not having a straight party option is not going to change your thoughts. It won't suddenly open your mind to listening to the other side, and won't make you anymore likely to do research or even consider voting for the other side. I don't agree with straight party voting, and have never done it myself. But if that's what floats your boat, I've got no problem with you being able to do that with one checkmark. Getting rid of the option, in my opinion, won't reduce voting numbers, and won't make for better election results.

 

I'm also not a fan of removing party affiliation. All you'd be doing is giving voters less information about a candidate. When so many of us are asking voters to do more homework, and be better informed, how can withholding something as important as party affiliation be a good idea??

Let's be honest. Removing the straight party option is not going to change the behavior of those that use this option. If you will never vote for a Democrat (or Republican), not having a straight party option is not going to change your thoughts. It won't suddenly open your mind to listening to the other side, and won't make you anymore likely to do research or even consider voting for the other side. I don't agree with straight party voting, and have never done it myself. But if that's what floats your boat, I've got no problem with you being able to do that with one checkmark. Getting rid of the option, in my opinion, won't reduce voting numbers, and won't make for better election results.

 

I'm also not a fan of removing party affiliation. All you'd be doing is giving voters less information about a candidate. When so many of us are asking voters to do more homework, and be better informed, how can withholding something as important as party affiliation be a good idea??

Is it too much to ask voters to care about something other than the ® or (D) by a name?

Is it too much to ask voters to care about something other than the ® or (D) by a name?

 

Why should we care the reason someone uses to cast a vote?

#1. No, 13 people were arrested, it didn't say how many votes they may have altered or cast illegally.

#2. Many local elections swing on a handful of votes, many senate and congressional races are won on a handful of votes...it doesn't take many to sway a close election.

 

Fraud of any kind should be frowned upon not dismissed because some think it's not a big deal. I bet you'd be losing your mind if these people that were convicted were all casting illegal ballots and voting for Republican Candidates.

 

Difference between you and me I think it's wrong either way...you just get upset if you think it hurts Dems.

Based on the numbers provided (see below), Oregon's vote-by-mail fraud rate is almost non-existent ... 13 cases prosecuted out of 23.8 million votes cast since 2000. That's less than one voter fraud allegation per year. And in the Swenson case, she was convicted of altering others' ballots as an election official, not as a voter. Any way you look at it, Oregon is doing it right ... high participation, almost non-existent fraud ... six zeros before we come to any numbers.

 

*******************************

 

From the story:

 

"Swenson is the 13th person to be prosecuted for voter fraud since Oregon went to all vote-by-mail elections in 2000. During that time frame, 23.8 million ballots were cast in statewide elections in Oregon."

Is it too much to ask voters to care about something other than the ® or (D) by a name?

 

I would say no. But just because we ask, (or in the case of removing the straight party option, tell them they shouldn't and make it more difficult) do you think that it will automatically happen?? People have a myriad of reasons for how they vote. For some, it's a single issue. For others, it's more complicated. Who's to say what is and isn't a good reason for casting one's vote?? There are certainly people using more questionable methods than just party affiliation as to how they cast their vote. Bottom line is we don't know why most people choose to vote the way they do. I'm more worried about the guy that casts his vote because his candidate wears nicer suits, or owns the same type of dog as him, than the guy casting a straight party ticket.

Based on the numbers provided (see below), Oregon's vote-by-mail fraud rate is almost non-existent ... 13 cases prosecuted out of 23.8 million votes cast since 2000. That's less than one voter fraud allegation per year. And in the Swenson case, she was convicted of altering others' ballots as an election official, not as a voter. Any way you look at it, Oregon is doing it right ... high participation, almost non-existent fraud ... six zeros before we come to any numbers.

 

*******************************

 

From the story:

 

"Swenson is the 13th person to be prosecuted for voter fraud since Oregon went to all vote-by-mail elections in 2000. During that time frame, 23.8 million ballots were cast in statewide elections in Oregon."

 

So a little vote fraud as long as they are Democrats is OK? I get it...I was hoping you would at least admit that vote fraud is wrong in all situations...I guess that was too much to hope for.

So a little vote fraud as long as they are Democrats is OK? I get it...I was hoping you would at least admit that vote fraud is wrong in all situations...I guess that was too much to hope for.

Where are you going with all this? There will always be vote fraud ... like the Cincinnati nun who was convicted of casting an absentee ballot for her deceased friend. When it occurs, prosecute it regardless of political affiliation.

 

What I object to are right-wing ragers who believe the answer to an incidence of .0000054 vote fraud is to make it tougher for people to vote.

Where are you going with all this? There will always be vote fraud ... like the Cincinnati nun who was convicted of casting an absentee ballot for her deceased friend. When it occurs, prosecute it regardless of political affiliation.

 

What I object to are right-wing ragers who believe the answer to an incidence of .0000054 vote fraud is to make it tougher for people to vote.

 

I wasn't raging....I pointed out that there has been voter fraud in one of the least corrupt states in the country. If there have been 13 convictions in Oregon and who knows how many unknown cases...how many would there be in cities, counties and states in which vote fraud is a way of life.

 

Look at Eastern Kentucky where people were interviewed and were open about selling their votes...if paper ballots were mailed to everyone, you'd have people stealing them out of the mail filling them out and mailing them in. Or people going door to door to "Help" others fill out their ballots.

 

Any voting that doesn't take place in person is open to vote fraud of the highest magnitude.