Georgia's supposed "Voter Suppression" laws
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Which, showing your vax card and an ID is so stupid at this point. Knowing that being vaxxed does nothing to stop the spread of the disease. These Dems need to get with the times.
Is this a realistic scenario: Let's say a community has drop box voting that doesn't require ID or ID to register to vote. Could a black church simply hold a voting drive at the church, register people on site without photo ID (but if it's democrats checking IDs, there's opportunity for fraud there as well), issue a ballot, collect the completed ballot and then one person drops off 200 ballots in a drop box?
Essentially, all a person has to do to vote is show up to church and request a ballot.
1. You know the accurate names/addresses/polling places of the people you propose impersonate
This is particularly easy when ballots are mailed out to all registered voters.
2. Those people haven't already voted before you arrived at the polling place, which would expose you as a fake voter
Not if you vote first. This happened multiple times this election. I'd you watch real news.
3. Those people don't come in to vote after you, which would also expose you as a fake voter
And how are they going to catch you? What happened the last election when the REAL voter got screwed.
4. You can plausibly forge that person's signature in the poll book
FYI, first signature verification wasn't required, if it was, PA the envelopes and ballots got separated during the vote counting process. Or, the voting machines that were to verify signatures were set up to allow a wide variation in the signatures accepted.
5. You're not caught on security cameras voting in multiple places
Why would the security cameras be checked. You said it yourself, there is no voting corruption.
6. You're willing to risk going to jail in order to get a net gain of 11 votes
7. You're willing to, potentially, give up your right to vote for the rest of your life for a net gain of 11 votes
This is particularly easy when ballots are mailed out to all registered voters.
2. Those people haven't already voted before you arrived at the polling place, which would expose you as a fake voter
Not if you vote first. This happened multiple times this election. I'd you watch real news.
3. Those people don't come in to vote after you, which would also expose you as a fake voter
And how are they going to catch you? What happened the last election when the REAL voter got screwed.
4. You can plausibly forge that person's signature in the poll book
FYI, first signature verification wasn't required, if it was, PA the envelopes and ballots got separated during the vote counting process. Or, the voting machines that were to verify signatures were set up to allow a wide variation in the signatures accepted.
5. You're not caught on security cameras voting in multiple places
Why would the security cameras be checked. You said it yourself, there is no voting corruption.
6. You're willing to risk going to jail in order to get a net gain of 11 votes
7. You're willing to, potentially, give up your right to vote for the rest of your life for a net gain of 11 votes
Bob, you really don't know what is in the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, do you? You assume it is an updated version of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It isn't.
If the Dems ram through this destructive legislation, there will still be a list of registered voters. However, you don't need to be on it to vote. All you'll need to do is mail in a request for a mail-in ballot and they'll send you one. Or you can just show up at the polling station on election day and ask for a ballot. No ID needed. No registration needed. All you'll need is a letter from a friend who has known you for six months or longer stating that you are a resident.
So you're stealing ballots from people's mailboxes before you head to the polls to impersonate them? What happens when they report that they did not receive their ballot as expected? Also, this discussion was about voter ID for in-person voting. The poster to whom I responded suggested that without ID, he could go vote in-person 12 times in 12 different precincts. Mail ballots are another issue.
As you say, IF you vote first. What happens when you go to the polls to impersonate someone and they've already voted? Is that a risk you're willing to take in order to gain one vote for your candidate of choice?
Wouldn't think it'd be that hard in the day of security cameras everywhere and facial recognition tech, etc. to go back and figure out who fake voted in place of the actual voter.
If you can find a single in-person voting site that doesn't require a signature, then I guess you've got me here.
By the way, the envelopes and ballots HAVE to be separated because it's a secret ballot. If you keep them together, there is no way to protect the privacy of the voter. A discussion about how rigorous the verification needs to be at the envelope stage is a fine one to have, but, again, we're not talking about mail ballots.
The same reason security cameras are ever checked. If there's reason to go back and see something that got recorded (see item 3 above).
I notice you didn't respond here. In my mind, this is largely the crux of the in-person voter fraud issue. The reason it basically never happens is because there's so little benefit to be gained from such a risky proposition. Voter ID would make it objectively more secure, but, again, no credible evidence has been presented that demonstrates that it is not secure without it.
You are under the impression that somehow this only occurs at some grass roots singular level vs what happened overnight with no one watching . Sheep are herded so easily
Again, my comments in this thread have focused on voter ID and the scenario presented by the poster who suggested he could vote 12 times, in person, if no ID was required. I'm simply suggesting that, even without ID required, that would not be as easy to pull off as he thinks. The scenario that was presented was, in fact, a grass roots type of thing.
But, since you bring it up, if you believe that thousands of fictitious votes were added to vote totals during the counting process (yet another claim with no credible evidence for it), how could voter ID possibly stop that from occurring? How could more vigorous signature verification of mail ballots stop that from occurring? Surely the fake ballots would have to be introduced after the signature verification happens, since they would have no signatures, yes? How could eliminating mail ballots altogether stop that from occurring? Surely the people doing this could add additional fake in-person ballots just as easily as fake mail ballots, yes? How could reducing early voting days stop that from occurring? Surely early in-person voting has the same security measures as Election Day voting, yes? How could eliminating drop boxes stop that from occurring? Surely if fake votes are placed in drop boxes, the people working the counting during "normal" hours would catch it, yes? Plus, this doesn't fit your "it happened overnight" premise.
The problem you've identified that you think happened here would not be stopped by any of these purported anti-voter fraud rules. It would, however, require everyone working the counting to be in on the scam, despite the fact that representatives from both parties -- and random people from the general public who sign up to work -- are involved in that process. So, even if you are correct that the Democrats cheated and the method they used to do it had nothing to do with individual voters, then why the hell do we need laws that affect individual voters? Surely, more restrictive ID requirements, stricter signature verification, eliminating mail ballots, and any of the other provisions can't solve that problem of Democrats slipping in fake ballots well after polls are closed, yes?
There were multiple reports of people gong to the polling station to vote only to find someone had already voted for them. So whose vote counted? The first person to vote.
To my knowledge none of those persons were found.
Most of the illegal votes were cast via mail in voting.
So obviously the signatures weren't verified, no security camera to check, no voter id to check.
The election process is far from perfect and the problem is people, groups of people are taking advantage of the imperfections for their own political gains.
Droid, you are not addressing the issue at all. You are talking about a scenario where someone without an ID shows up at the polling station and pretends to be a registered voter. Let's back up a bit. How does someone register to vote without an ID? Or for mail-in voters, how does a mail-in voter register to vote without an ID?
Citation needed, but even if true, I've never said there are not individual cases of voter fraud. You and I both know this can't make a difference in an election. You and I also both know that one could create a fake ID and still attempt this, even if Voter ID is required. That said, I've repeatedly said I'm not opposed to voter ID, as long as it's free and easy to get.
Citation needed. And how many are we talking about? Is it enough to make a difference in election results? Everyone that's studied it says no. Individual anecdotes of people trying to cheat do not prove a trend that people cheat in large numbers. Also, does only one party's voters do this? Clearly not.
There is no state that doesn't use signature verification or some other sort of ID verification for mail ballots (photocopies of ID, witness signature required, whatever).
The election process will NEVER be perfect. There will ALWAYS be a way that an individual could potentially get away with stealing a vote. However, so few people try and so few of those actually get away with it that it is a non-issue. That's what I've been getting at. We're told we need all these additional measures to make things more secure with no demonstration that more security is needed.
If, as Cray, suggested, the issue is not voters impersonating others or sending in fraudulent mail ballots but a conspiracy whereby democrats are introducing large numbers of fake ballots during the counting process, then all of these laws that control how individuals vote are going to make no difference whatsoever.
Yes, that is precisely the problem. You did not respond to my post above in which I asked you how someone registers to vote without an ID. I'm not playing dumb or laying bait here, I'm quite sincere. If an ID is not required for registration nor for voting, it would seem to be an opportunity for widespread voter fraud. Yet the Dem's so-called Voting Rights Act specifically calls for no-ID voting rights.
That's literally the scenario that you suggested, which is what I addressed:
Depends on the state, some allow it, some don't. In my state (bright blue Tennessee...) you can register to vote online or by mail and you do not have to show ID. I'm presuming your argument here is that you can't even register to vote without ID, so what's the problem with requiring one at the polls? That's only true in some states. The TN registration form requires one to write in their SSN. So, why couldn't my social security card (something that every citizen receives for free and automatically at birth or when becoming naturalized) along with a signature serve to verify my identity to vote?
That said, I'll say for the third time in this thread, I'm not opposed to voter ID as long as it's free and easy to obtain (ie, people don't have to take a half day off work or to travel 40 miles to get one). Many poor people can't afford to miss work, or maybe don't have reliable transportation -- and, of course, our public transportation system sucks.
And, anyone who might use it, can spare me the "if voting is important to you, you'll do what's necessary" argument. For most people, that's true. For some, it's not worth the hassle, though they WOULD vote if it were easier. If you want proof, look at turnout rates for states that do mail ballots for everyone. The "election integrity" laws are only designed to make a certain percentage of voters make the choice not to vote because of the hassle. They don't make it so people CAN'T vote, but they suppress turnout by making voting more annoying, thus a certain percentage of people WON'T vote. If Republicans actually had a platform that was popular with a majority of Americans, they wouldn't need to suppress turnout. But, since they know many of their policies are unpopular, this is their solution.
Election integrity has not been demonstrated to be an actual problem that needs solving, and, as I stated earlier, elections will NEVER be 100% secure. Nothing is ever 100% secure. The Heritage Foundation has verified 1340 cases of voter fraud since 1981. Let's estimate, conservatively, that there have been 100 million votes cast, on average, every two years. That's 1340 cases out of 2 billion votes. We'll never get to 100% secure, but I'm ok with 99.999933%. I think, with that little amount of fraud, we can be secure in saying that the vote totals accurately reflect the will of the voting population, which is what actually matters.
Undoubtedly, some will say, "well that's just 1340 they've confirmed, what about people who were never caught?" Demonstrate to me that there is more fraud than we're aware of, and I'll be convinced. Problem is, you can't do that. You can't simply assume that there are dramatically more instances of this occurring such that it would make any significant impact. There'd have to be nearly 15,000x more fraud than we know about to even get to 1% of votes, or 20 million of our estimated 2 billion, being fraudulent. If you want to believe that for every fraudulent vote that gets caught, there are nearly 15,000 more that get away with it, that's your prerogative, but there is simply no evidence to support the truth of that statement.
So, in summary, and then I'm done here:
1. if you believe there are great numbers of individual voters or groups of voters impersonating other voters, there's no evidence to support it. To the extent that it does happen, it's of such small numbers as to be irrelevant. People voting fraudulently for Republicans and Democrats likely largely cancel each other out, anyway. I know Democrats are evil demon-spawn who eat babies and want to turn us all into Marxists, but I'm betting if you find the news reports of verified voter fraud, they'll come out roughly equal on both sides. Elections, especially state-wide or national ones, are built on large numbers. When large numbers are involved, statistics matter, not anecdotes. Statistically speaking, voter fraud doesn't exist.
2. if you believe it's not "voter fraud" that's the problem, but the "late-night ballot dumps" where Democrats introduced a bunch of fake ballots into the counting process, or algorithms in the voting machines that change votes, or Italian satellites, or ballots flown in from China made out of bamboo, or convincing Republican voters to invalidate their ballots by writing in sharpie, or Jewish space lasers, or whatever the conspiracy theory of the day is, then none of these voting laws can possibly make any difference anyway. You're just screwed and Democrats are going to win every election from now on. Better start practicing your best Communist salute, comrades.
Last edited:
Droid, that then is the non sequitur is this discussion. You said that you do support the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Yet a key provision of these proposed bills is that all that is needed for "ID" to vote is a letter from someone stating that he/she has known you for six months and that you are a resident. Obviously, this would open the floodgates to voter fraud. So, yes or no, do you support this proposed legislation?
Here, read it for yourself:
"The bill requires that states with identification requirements accept a significantly wider range of documents, including debit cards, utility bills or bank statements issued within six months of the election or “any other document” with an individual's name issued by federal, state, tribal or local governments. The bill would also let would-be voters present, in lieu of ID, a “sworn written statement” signed by another adult who has known the voter for at least six months “under penalty of perjury.”
Letter from Mommy , you vote!
Last edited:
