States' SOSs reject Trump "voter fraud" commission

[Bluegrasscard]

Given voter turnout in 2016 was approximately 60%, it doesn't seem to me too awfully many fraudulent votes are being cast. The biggest travesty is 40% (or more, depending on the election) don't bother to vote at all, or face obstacles that keep them from the polls.

 

You have to remember that 38 of the 40% that did not vote had a reason to not vote - they are dead.

 

 

But cleaning up the roles of the dead/moved voters does leave some gaps. I think @plantmanky has a running count of the number of years for at least one deceased person has remained on the roles.

 

One problem is the system is based on a certain level of personal integrity and by nature leaves itself open to fraud by those who would 'do anything' to win.

[Habib]

1 - Conservatives have long heralded states' rights, especially when it comes to our electoral system outlined in the Constitution: The individual states manage the elections for federal office (with the caveat that Congress can pass legislation enforcing the 15th Amendment).

 

This system creates a number of inefficiencies, including great differences between states' voting processes. States and precincts differ on ballot style (electronic ballots, punched ballots, hand marked ballots, mail-in ballots, etc.), polling hours, who may register (and during what times). But the greatest inefficiency might be that a person can be registered in multiple states at once.

 

Federalizing our election system would help eliminate a number of these inefficiencies, but conservatives fiercely resist such overtures as tantamount to tyranny. After all, the Constitution created this system for a reason.

 

Why would erstwhile conservatives now support executive branch agents' attempt to create a massive federal database of voters, including their sensitive personal information? Would you support federalizing the election system to establish uniformity across all states in an effort to eliminate voter fraud? And if not, where would you draw the line between this commission's demands and the legislation it will inevitably recommend?

 

2 - Kris Kobach is obsessive about the intersection of illegal immigration and voter fraud. He's made his political career demagoguing these issues. Before becoming Kansas's Secretary of State he was the chief counsel for FAIR, an anti-immigrant group founded by a eugenicist who believes "that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."

 

But despite Kobach's wild claims about immigrants and voter fraud (he's endorsed the president's bizarre and unsubstantiated claims that he actually won the popular vote if you eliminated voter fraud), Kobach has presented scant evidence for his near-religious beliefs on the issue.

 

As Kansas's Secretary of State, he has the authority to prosecute voting fraud cases. Out of Kansas's 1.8 million registered voters, Kobach has managed to prosecute precisely one non-citizen for illegally voting since 2015 (the statute of limitations goes back to 2010 too). Kobach has since been censured by a federal judge and made to pay a $1,000 fine for “patently misleading representations” about evidence in another issue.

 

Why should progressives (or anyone else) be anything other than cynical about this commission's aims? What about this commission suggests it will be fair-minded, ethical, and accountable?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Habib

[rockmom]

You have to remember that 38 of the 40% that did not vote had a reason to not vote - they are dead.

 

 

But cleaning up the roles of the dead/moved voters does leave some gaps. I think @plantmanky has a running count of the number of years for at least one deceased person has remained on the roles.

 

One problem is the system is based on a certain level of personal integrity and by nature leaves itself open to fraud by those who would 'do anything' to win.

 

The problem I have with the anecdotal "evidence" used to support "fraud" is the same skepticism I have when I hear the stories of welfare fraud. The fact of the matter, the bare bones facts, are that yes, fraud does occur. But by and large it is minuscule in scale.

 

I believe we should be ever vigilant and looking ways to keep fraud at a minimum. But the reality is that there will ALWAYS be someone who goes against the rules.

 

In the end, this particular initiative is designed to "prove" DJT won the popular vote as well as the electoral collage. For the love of all that is holy, can we just move forward? He won. He's POTUS. It doesn't matter if he won the popular vote, he won the vote count that counted.

 

I personally believe all this is designed to keep America's attention on anything other than the fact that he didn't expect to really win, didn't prepare for the possibility that he may win, and now finds himself in a job he THOUGHT was going to be like the ultimate CEO job, but is so NOT that. Or, he just has to be the best at everything, even when he's not, but he'll die trying. :lol2:

[Bluegrasscard]

The problem I have with the anecdotal "evidence" used to support "fraud" is the same skepticism I have when I hear the stories of welfare fraud. The fact of the matter, the bare bones facts, are that yes, fraud does occur. But by and large it is minuscule in scale.

 

I believe we should be ever vigilant and looking ways to keep fraud at a minimum. But the reality is that there will ALWAYS be someone who goes against the rules.

 

In the end, this particular initiative is designed to "prove" DJT won the popular vote as well as the electoral collage. For the love of all that is holy, can we just move forward? He won. He's POTUS. It doesn't matter if he won the popular vote, he won the vote count that counted.

 

I personally believe all this is designed to keep America's attention on anything other than the fact that he didn't expect to really win, didn't prepare for the possibility that he may win, and now finds himself in a job he THOUGHT was going to be like the ultimate CEO job, but is so NOT that. Or, he just has to be the best at everything, even when he's not, but he'll die trying. :lol2:

 

I had not heard that that is what is driving this but do agree if this is the 'driver' its not worth the effort. I called the election around 10:30 the night of the election by simply reviewing the numbers in Pennsylvania and comparing them to 2012. The winner was completely obvious early the in the evening. There was just this hope against hope for a miracle or the need to drag this on by the talking heads on cable. What was clear was that even with the best and maximum (potential) fraud available in Pitt and Philly Trump was going to win Pennsylvania. And it took the new networks until 3 a.m. to finally give up on 'finding' more votes in the urban areas.

 

Digital voting is worrisome. Combined with early voting its fraud waiting to happen. The industrialization of voter fraud is coming. The tools to change things after the vote is cast has already been shown in Memphis where white Repubs continue to win elections in a city dominated by black Dems. The integrity I speak of is not just individuals but those who run the process and oversee the process. Unfortunately efforts to truly address the industrial level fraud are not there. Private, politically connected companies control the digital vote mechanics and states - for what ever reason - do not want to take on that challenge.

[rockmom]

I had not heard that that is what is driving this but do agree if this is the 'driver' its not worth the effort. I called the election around 10:30 the night of the election by simply reviewing the numbers in Pennsylvania and comparing them to 2012. The winner was completely obvious early the in the evening. There was just this hope against hope for a miracle or the need to drag this on by the talking heads on cable. What was clear was that even with the best and maximum (potential) fraud available in Pitt and Philly Trump was going to win Pennsylvania. And it took the new networks until 3 a.m. to finally give up on 'finding' more votes in the urban areas.

 

Digital voting is worrisome. Combined with early voting its fraud waiting to happen. The industrialization of voter fraud is coming. The tools to change things after the vote is cast has already been shown in Memphis where white Repubs continue to win elections in a city dominated by black Dems. The integrity I speak of is not just individuals but those who run the process and oversee the process. Unfortunately efforts to truly address the industrial level fraud are not there. Private, politically connected companies control the digital vote mechanics and states - for what ever reason - do not want to take on that challenge.

 

Again, I'm not against ensuring the integrity of the process. But this is what is being sought:

 

The information the commission is seeking includes registrants' full names, addresses, dates of birth, political parties, the last four digits of their social security numbers, a list of the elections they voted in since 2006, information on any felony convictions, information on whether they were registered to vote in other states, their military status, and whether they lived overseas

This info is supposed to be uploaded to an online portal. I understand it not to be secure. It is extraordinarily disconcerting that in the wake of the revelation that Russia was able to access, even if they did not actually affect the end result, that massive amounts of citizen data would be transmitted and housed via a questionably secure process. It doesn't even have to be Russians or someone who accesses it. That data, Al together, is an identity thief's dream, and 60M people would all be sitting there without any knowledge of it happening.

 

Maintaining the voter rolls is a state function. If there is a specific, suspected fraud, investigate that instance. Don't mine for indiscriminately. In addition, if plantman, for instance has noticed a dead person on the rolls, he should report it every time he sees it.

[mcpapa]

The folks at Lifelock are probably licking their chops.