Latest Look at the 2012 U.S. Elections

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

08/31/2012 09:08:37 AM · #151

Originally posted by kawesttex:

Your links of proof are?

Ever heard of Google? South Carolina, Georgia, California, Maryland, and New Hampshire. Moreover, the whole premise is just plain dumb. In-person voting fraud is basically non-existent. There are more cases of bubonic plague in the U.S. than voter impersonation. The only way to have any impact would be to organize the activity on a large scale, and that makes even less sense. The organizer would have to identify multiple deceased people registered in the area, forge SS cards or other non-photo identification already required, find enough impersonators willing to risk jail and a $10,000 fine, and then hope against all odds that none of the local officials, friends or relatives who knew the dead person in question is present at the polls when the impersonator shows up or sees the name crossed off as having voted... all to influence an election that will probably be decided by thousands of votesâ�� a monumentally stupid way to influence an election, and the only way photo ID would address.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/31/2012 09:13:40 AM · #152

But scalvert, 10 cases in 12 years is still 10 cases too many. If we don't stop voter fraud the terrorist will win.

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/31/2012 09:32:31 AM · #153

Originally posted by scalvert:

Bear in mind that the mortgage plan Santelli was railing about was an extension of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, signed into law before Obama was elected.

Indeed, it was passed by the newly taken Democratic Congress. However, Santelli was also railing about the modification of the law signed on Feb 17th, 2009 by Obama.

For instance, this quote:
You know, they're pretty much of the notion that you can't buy your way into prosperity, and if the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over one, that we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get $1.5 trillion back.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Saying that the original Tea Party was against a corporate tax cut is not very accurate. It was against a type of corporate bailout, for a single "too big to fail" British corporation that was failing financially.

The Boston Tea Party was literally a protest against a corporate tax cut while the new Tea Party is demanding corporate tax cuts for companies that already make billions in profit. Note that the same Tea Party you say hated the bailouts of companies that made questionable financial moves leading directly to the global recession have another major demand: less government regulation over business. Does anybody seriously think the crisis of subprime mortgages, derivatives, and credit default swaps was caused by too MUCH regulatory oversight?!? It's pretty obvious the group is fueled by misinformation and ignorance when their own goals are contradictory.

As I said, the Boston Tea Party was protesting the unequal tax cut for the East India Company, and taxation without representation in Parliament. Parliament basically gave the East India Company a monopoly over tea, and pushed taxes onto the colonies to offset that which was lost from the corporation.

As for regulation causing the crisis... the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 can be traced to the housing bubble and subprime mortgages. This is a good summary of what Clinton was pushing. Mortgage companies had specific goals of providing mortgages to low income buyers. Mortgage companies attempted to reduce risk and exposure by putting these sub-prime mortgages on ARMs. Obviously, the low rates worked as great incentives for people to sign up for the ARMs. So when the FED decided to increase the federal funds rate back in '04, they screwed the subprime ARMs by immediately pricing people out of their homes that they purchased as a result of the federal housing low income lending goals.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I'd like to see a link to the declaration that you say Romney has made about ignoring fact-checkers.

Here ya' go. While it was Romney's campaign, rather than Romney himself, who made this declaration, they certainly appear to be standing by it. You know it's bad when FOX News calls the Republican VP's speech "an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

Yes, the comment made is a bit too inclusive of all fact-checkers. I think he was directing his comment towards one particular New York Times story, where a reporter called Romney's ad a fallacy. The truth is that there was some truth to Romney's ad. The whole story: //www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

The simple truth is that both sides are very willing to distort realities to help themselves on any topics. You will find PLENTY of issues for each candidate on factcheck.org. I'm amazed that campaigns aren't held to the same truth in advertising laws as businesses are.

Message edited by author 2012-08-31 09:42:31.

08/31/2012 09:49:36 AM · #154

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
And showing that you are who you say you are is a problem why? The young don't have identification? Minorities don't have identification? The old don't have identification? Who are these people who don't have identification? No social security card? No drivers license? No credit/debit card? No passport? Maybe one of two of these but NONE? Absolutely no identification to show you are who you say your are? No bank book? How do you cash a check? How do you bank? How do you buy something? How do you get something notorized like retirement papers.

Identification is already a voting requirement. The new twist is PHOTO identification, and if anyone doesn't have a driver's license or passport, it's usually going to be the poor, inner city minorities and the elderly. So a 90 year old WWII vet who no longer owns a car and had previously used his Social Security card to vote has just had his voting rights revoked unless he makes the extra effort to get a photo ID.

Thanks for the clarification. My answer would be to simply make a free photo optional on one's voter registration to address anyone without a drivers license or other ID.

This way no one is disenfranchised and voters voting are idetified as the person they claim. However - perhaps a signature would work as well like it does on credit cards whereby the salesclerck is supposed to confirm the signature on the back of the card is the same as the one on the credit slip.

08/31/2012 10:46:33 AM · #155

Originally posted by scalvert:

There are more cases of bubonic plague in the U.S. than voter impersonation. The only way to have any impact would be to organize the activity on a large scale, and that makes even less sense. The organizer would have to identify multiple deceased people registered in the area, forge SS cards or other non-photo identification already required, find enough impersonators willing to risk jail and a $10,000 fine, and then hope against all odds that none of the local officials, friends or relatives who knew the dead person in question is present at the polls when the impersonator shows up or sees the name crossed off as having voted... all to influence an election that will probably be decided by thousands of votesâ�� a monumentally stupid way to influence an election, and the only way photo ID would address.

Perhaps the disconnect for some concerned about the potential of voter fraud is their mis-perception/mis-understanding of local elections. Perhaps it is the reputation of Chicago politics or the Teamsters. Perhaps, it is a distrust based on nefarious reports of elections mysteriously having an outcome that seemed implausible. Perhaps it is the reports of foriegn countries election results that are suspect. These kinds of reports could drive some people to think that their election could be "influenced".

Perhaps it is all erroneous thinking and without merit here in America as Chicago politics are quite clean and above board as is the entire history of the Teamsters. No fraud. No corruption. No questionable election results. Any published (as in newspaper) reports of any activities of that kind were certainly planted by a vast right wing conspiricy and thus automatically untrue.

Hopefully my attempt at humor is recognized. However, to suggest or imply that there is zero cause for the potential of voter fraud is simply not born out by the evidence in other countries or even our own.

Message edited by author 2012-08-31 11:04:51.

08/31/2012 12:01:41 PM · #156

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

it was passed by the newly taken Democratic Congress. However, Santelli was also railing about the modification of the law signed on Feb 17th, 2009 by Obama.

That senate passed that law by a vote of 84 to 12 (49 democrats), and Santelli is the same idiot who said the economy was doing great two weeks before the big collapse. You'll notice that he never railed against the much larger bailout of Wall Street.

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

the Boston Tea Party was protesting the unequal tax cut for the East India Company, and taxation without representation in Parliament. Parliament basically gave the East India Company a monopoly over tea, and pushed taxes onto the colonies to offset that which was lost from the corporation.

Your first statement is correct, while the second is cutting taxes for corporations and the rich that the middle class would then have to to pick up (what the current Tea Party is calling FOR).

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

As for regulation causing the crisis... the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 can be traced to the housing bubble and subprime mortgages.

On its own, that could not have caused the collapse of Lehman and others. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is what allowed investment banks and hedge funds to get involved with mortgage backed securities in the first place, and both the SEC and Alan Greenspan pinned the cause on self-regulation of investment banks.

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Where in your link does it suggest any truth to the ad? It wasn't just the NY Times, either. Newhouse was responding to CBS reporter regarding a Washington Post fact check that rated the ad "Four Pinocchios." He was indeed referring to all fact checkers, as Factcheck, CNN, AP, NPR, Politifact, ABC News, the LA Times, and even the Republican governors who requested the waivers all say the ad is bogus. For an extra dash of hypocrisy, in 2005 Romney was one of 29 Republican governors who asked congress for an even broader version of the exact same waiver!

08/31/2012 12:23:57 PM · #157

Originally posted by Flash:

My answer would be to simply make a free photo optional on one's voter registration to address anyone without a drivers license or other ID.

Here, I'll make it REEEEALLY easy for you. The whole point of this argument is to prevent hundreds of fraudulent votes from influencing an election, right? Now, we know that voter fraud exists, but in the form of absentee ballots, tampering, registration fraud, missing ballots and other acts that a photo ID simply does not address. The ONLY thing a photo ID touches is impersonation at the voting booth, and that's essentially non-existent. Pennsylvania could not find a single case of voter impersonation to help justify photo IDs. Not one. However, they DID note that 758,000 registered voters do not currently have the required photo ID (the PA Secretary of State later claimed 100,000). In order to get one, you'll need to supply a birth certificate, which may not be so easy to obtain quickly if you were born outside that state. So the premise of voter impersonation is false, and if even half of one percent of the Secretary's lower 100,000 number of eligible voters are unwilling or unable to jump through that extra hoop in two months, then 500 legitimate votes are eliminated. Congratulations, you've just fraudulently influenced the election by hundreds of votes... creating the very problem you claimed to be addressing while completely ignoring the proven forms of voting abuse.

08/31/2012 12:25:51 PM · #158

Originally posted by Flash:

Perhaps it is the reputation of Chicago politics or the Teamsters. Perhaps, it is a distrust based on nefarious reports of elections mysteriously having an outcome that seemed implausible. Perhaps it is the reports of foriegn countries election results that are suspect. These kinds of reports could drive some people to think that their election could be "influenced".

None of which involved voter impersonation in this country.

08/31/2012 12:31:21 PM · #159

Originally posted by Venser:

10 cases in 12 years is still 10 cases too many.

Yeah, an influence of less than 1 total vote per election is a crisis that must be addressed immediately by discouraging thousands of legitimate votes that happen to lean toward the opposition. Stupid.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/31/2012 01:17:25 PM · #160

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
My answer would be to simply make a free photo optional on one's voter registration to address anyone without a drivers license or other ID.

Here, I'll make it REEEEALLY easy for you. The whole point of this argument is to prevent hundreds of fraudulent votes from influencing an election, right? Now, we know that voter fraud exists, but in the form of absentee ballots, tampering, registration fraud, missing ballots and other acts that a photo ID simply does not address. The ONLY thing a photo ID touches is impersonation at the voting booth, and that's essentially non-existent. Pennsylvania could not find a single case of voter impersonation to help justify photo IDs. Not one. However, they DID note that 758,000 registered voters do not currently have the required photo ID (the PA Secretary of State later claimed 100,000). In order to get one, you'll need to supply a birth certificate, which may not be so easy to obtain quickly if you were born outside that state. So the premise of voter impersonation is false, and if even half of one percent of the Secretary's lower 100,000 number of eligible voters are unwilling or unable to jump through that extra hoop in two months, then 500 legitimate votes are eliminated. Congratulations, you've just fraudulently influenced the election by hundreds of votes... creating the very problem you claimed to be addressing while completely ignoring the proven forms of voting abuse.

I read you clearly. I suggested the alternative of using signatures instead of photos. This in my view eliminates the BS on either side. It stops the disenfranchisement of particular voting blocks yet helps confirm that who one says they are - they are. If it is good for Credit Cards worth thousands of dollars then it ought to be good for the price of a vote - sometimes valued at the cost of chicken dinner.

I simply do not buy the argument of compressed time as an excuse for not adopting a voter ID system (photo or signature). Our elections are not surprises. They happen every 2-4 years on the national level and one certainly can plan for the next one. Where the time constraint is an issue is when persons who have no interest in voting are "encouraged" to participate, registered, and told who to vote for. That, although legal, is an abuse in my view. Although, the signature ID system would not necessarily prevent this abuse. The only advantage to the photo is the additional effort required on the part of those seeking to "influence" an election's outcome by using those who have chosen to not participate. It simply makes the processing time longer. Still could be circumvented though.

It still however, is more of a local influence than a national one.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/31/2012 01:29:17 PM · #161

Originally posted by Flash:

I read you clearly. I suggested the alternative of using signatures instead of photos.

This is how it's done now ... I have worked as a precinct offical at several elections. The typical procedure for the voter is that you walk in, state your name and address, at which point two workers look you up on two cross-referenced lists (by name and by address); you then print and sign your name and write in your address in a "logbook"-type list, at which point you are finally given a ballot.

Have you never voted in person before? How do they do it where you live?

Message edited by author 2012-08-31 13:30:26.

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/31/2012 01:57:28 PM · #162

Originally posted by Flash:

Where the time constraint is an issue is when persons who have no interest in voting are "encouraged" to participate, registered, and told who to vote for... The only advantage to the photo is the additional effort required on the part of those seeking to "influence" an election's outcome by using those who have chosen to not participate.

Can you provide proof that the first scenario actually occurs, because there is no credible evidence of the second. ID is already required for voting (just not necessarily photo ID), so a signature isn't adding anything new to combat a problem that doesn't exist.

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

08/31/2012 02:15:29 PM · #163

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
it was passed by the newly taken Democratic Congress. However, Santelli was also railing about the modification of the law signed on Feb 17th, 2009 by Obama.

That senate passed that law by a vote of 84 to 12 (49 democrats), and Santelli is the same idiot who said the economy was doing great two weeks before the big collapse. You'll notice that he never railed against the much larger bailout of Wall Street.

Sure, and 100% of voting Senate Democrats voted for it. When it passed the House it had a little more resistance, 56% to 40%. 4% of Democrats opposed it, 85% of Republicans opposed it. When it reached the Senate they were getting desperate. Desperate decisions are rarely made with proper forethought.

The law signed on Feb 17th, 2009 (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that set aside $787B) passed the House with zero Republican for, and 10 Democrats against. It passed the Senate along similar partisan lines, only 2 Republicans stepping across the isle.

They both were pushed and passed by Democrats, despite the one in 2008 being signed by Bush.

Santelli isn't central to any argument. Sure he's a bit nutty. My only comment about him was that he is credited towards the initial Tea Party movement. I know nothing else about him, and I don't believe he plays any current role in the Tea Party movement.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
the Boston Tea Party was protesting the unequal tax cut for the East India Company, and taxation without representation in Parliament. Parliament basically gave the East India Company a monopoly over tea, and pushed taxes onto the colonies to offset that which was lost from the corporation.

Your first statement is correct, while the second is cutting taxes for corporations and the rich that the middle class would then have to to pick up (what the current Tea Party is calling FOR).

I'm not sure how removing an import tax for a single company is considered a tax cut for the rich. The Tea Party is not calling for tax cuts on the rich... they are calling for smaller government. They stand for adherence to the Constitution, reducing spending and taxes, and reduction of national debt. You're doing exactly what we were talking about earlier, making claims that warp and spin the truth.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
As for regulation causing the crisis... the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 can be traced to the housing bubble and subprime mortgages.

On its own, that could not have caused the collapse of Lehman and others. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is what allowed investment banks and hedge funds to get involved with mortgage backed securities in the first place, and both the SEC and Alan Greenspan pinned the cause on self-regulation of investment banks.

Interesting that you mention the repealing of the Glass-Steagall (aka, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). That was indeed done under Clinton by a republican controlled Congress, but was finally passed by a bipartisan vote (The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 â�� 8.). Clinton had this to say about repealing Glass-Steagall:

Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadnâ��t signed that bill. â�¦You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he canâ��t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, Iâ��d be glad to look at the evidence. But I canâ��t blame [the Republicans]. This wasnâ��t something they forced me into.

In fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bililey Act had very little to do with the financial crisis. Read the analysis by a non-partisan group here.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Yes, the comment made is a bit too inclusive of all fact-checkers. I think he was directing his comment towards one particular New York Times story, where a reporter called Romney's ad a fallacy. The truth is that there was some truth to Romney's ad.

Where in your link does it suggest any truth to the ad? It wasn't just the NY Times, either. Newhouse was responding to CBS reporter regarding a Washington Post fact check that rated the ad "Four Pinocchios." He was indeed referring to all fact checkers, as Factcheck, CNN, AP, NPR, Politifact, ABC News, the LA Times, and even the Republican governors who requested the waivers all say the ad is bogus. For an extra dash of hypocrisy, in 2005 Romney was one of 29 Republican governors who asked congress for an even broader version of the exact same waiver!

The "some truth" comes from the bit where Obama's administration passed the decision of the work requirement to the states (which I'm all for decentralization). But it did give the states the option to have no work requirement. That supports my comment that there was "some truth" to it. I agree that the ad twists reality, which is why I also brought up the truth in advertising laws. Both sides of the campaign are terrible at twisting the truth, which the uneducated quickly adopt verbatim as "truth."

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/31/2012 02:39:03 PM · #164

We know that these laws are written to combat a crime that almost never occurs, yet will impact millions of eligible voters in what is pretty clearly an attempt to legislate an advantage for the Republican party.

Many Americans can not imagine people who go about their daily lives without using ID every day, yet they make up about 10% of the US population. That is because these IDless people lie on the margins of our society, they young and the poor. As a tactic making it harder for groups who are prone to vote against you makes sense in the short run. To some politics is a game, and the only reason to play the game is to win.

That attitude has real risks. If instead of formulating a platform that will appeal to voters who are inclined to vote for the other party, we make the game about trying to eliminate their right to vote, who knows where it will lead us. If Democratic held state legislatures began figuring out some method to kick likely conservative voters off the voter rolls on some thin pretext, it would be viewed by political players as a smart ploy; but it would be equally evil. When you have to bend the rules to win the game, you ought to be thinking of changing your strategy.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

08/31/2012 03:15:21 PM · #165

This is so disingenuous.

The simple fact is that if the Voter ID law resulted in one more vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, the Republicans would be adamantly against it on constitutional grounds. After all, there is no constitutional requirement to show proof of citizenship.

Anyone that says it's about anything other than than depressing the vote of the opposition is not being honest.

08/31/2012 03:26:59 PM · #166

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:
I read you clearly. I suggested the alternative of using signatures instead of photos.

This is how it's done now ... I have worked as a precinct offical at several elections. The typical procedure for the voter is that you walk in, state your name and address, at which point two workers look you up on two cross-referenced lists (by name and by address); you then print and sign your name and write in your address in a "logbook"-type list, at which point you are finally given a ballot.

Have you never voted in person before? How do they do it where you live?

Sure - but I don't recall them ever checking the signature on the sheet I give the polling person against anything else - like a signature on my voter registration card as there is no signature on my voter registration card. It is customary for me to give them my drivers license even if they don't ask so I suppose they could verify my signature against that on my drivers license. My address is listed and they locate me on their address list and mark it off.

The signature process I submitted was to compare signatures. The one you place on the sheet at the polling placde and the one on your voter registration card. The same as the salesclerk comparing the signature on the back of your credit card versus the one you made on the credit receipt.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/31/2012 03:32:28 PM · #167

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Where the time constraint is an issue is when persons who have no interest in voting are "encouraged" to participate, registered, and told who to vote for... The only advantage to the photo is the additional effort required on the part of those seeking to "influence" an election's outcome by using those who have chosen to not participate.

Can you provide proof that the first scenario actually occurs, because there is no credible evidence of the second. ID is already required for voting (just not necessarily photo ID), so a signature isn't adding anything new to combat a problem that doesn't exist.

Proof as in photos? Not personally - however for many years there has been incidental reports of person's not signed to vote being persuaded to register via a "stippend" and then transported to the polling precinct on the day of voting to ensure a particular candidate gets more votes. More problematic in low turn out elections and at a local level but you're claiming to have never heard or read of this?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/31/2012 03:57:44 PM · #168

Originally posted by Flash:

For many years their have been incidental reports of space aliens breaking into people homes abducting them to their ships and probing them, then returning them to their homes. It seems like a more problematic problem in rural areas, but you're claiming to have never heard or read of this? I provided a link for my proof, where is your evidence?

08/31/2012 04:06:15 PM · #169

Originally posted by Flash:

for many years there has been incidental reports of person's not signed to vote being persuaded to register via a "stippend" and then transported to the polling precinct on the day of voting to ensure a particular candidate gets more votes. More problematic in low turn out elections and at a local level but you're claiming to have never heard or read of this?

For many years there have been incidental reports of a plesiosaur roaming a Scottish Loch, so it must be true. Have you never heard or read of this?

Aww... Brennan beat me to it.

Message edited by author 2012-08-31 16:06:57.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Negative campaigning is where the money is!

08/31/2012 06:22:46 PM · #170

08/31/2012 08:24:40 PM · #171

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Flash:
Proof as in photos? Not personally - however for many years there has been incidental reports of person's not signed to vote being persuaded to register via a "stippend" and then transported to the polling precinct on the day of voting to ensure a particular candidate gets more votes. More problematic in low turn out elections and at a local level but you're claiming to have never heard or read of this?

For many years their have been incidental reports of space aliens breaking into people homes abducting them to their ships and probing them, then returning them to their homes. It seems like a more problematic problem in rural areas, but you're claiming to have never heard or read of this? I provided a link for my proof, where is your evidence?

Well I guess its settled then. Since there is no proof of space aliens nor the Loch Ness creature, then obviously there can't be any incidents in America of non-registered voters being registered by ACORN liberals who are willing to buy them dinner for their time and then transport them to the polls on election day and tell them who to vote for. Thus "manipulating" the results. Glad you were able to help me here. No proof = no proof. Its concluded.

I'm still baffled at the resistence to either a free photo ID or the compared signature solutions I offered. It reads to me as the root concern is not Voter ID at all. Free is Free. We could even start with voltuneer photographers here at DPC around the country to help take ID photos for the next election in 2 years. FREE. But I somehow suspect that won't be embraced - thus my suspicion on what the real reason for resistance is.

I engaged in this latest back and forth as I couldn't imagine anyone without identification. That got redefined as not meaning no identification, but rather a particular kind of identification (drivers license, state ID card, etc). I then suggested free photos on the voter registration card as an attempt to quell the concern or even using the same signature comparison process as is used for credit cards. The result has been an assault on those suggestions. OK. I get it. No space alien evidence. No photo ID. We're good.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D