Not even Spicer will defend this claim....

[Brad Austin]

I wish you guys were as focused on protecting people from Americans who aren't mentally stable enough to own firearms as you are from little old ladies who don't have a valid ID anymore from voting.

The next voter ID movement that tries to manage absentee voting in a better way will be he first one I've seen. The right never cares about the method that is likely the easiest to use to beat the system because a majority of absentee voters are right wing voters. Hypocrits.

I have no problem with some gun restriction proposals. There are a few that would help the problem. A responsible approach to preventing mentally unstable people from owning guns makes sense.

Though there are many more proposals that wouldn't do a thing but leave Americans less protected against criminals who don't follow gun laws.

Often states with the toughest gun laws are those with the highest rates of gun violence. Those 'soft targets' are living examples how many restrictions don't help at all.

As for absentee voting and Dem opinion of it...you might want to research that further.

My search found several returns showing state level dems pushing to ease their state's standards and move to requiring no-reason for requesting absentee ballots.

Colorado, Oregon, and Washington (all blue states) conduct all voting by mail, which is likely the easiest way to fraud the system.

Of the 27 states that require no-excuse to receive an absentee ballot, 11 are solid blue states, 11 are solid red states, and 5 are purple (swing both ways).

How can absentee ballots unfairly favor Reps when the ease of getting them in blue states is roughly the same. Don't trust my opinion, see for yourself.

That's a myth because your side develops big leads in early voting, only to watch election day voters and absentee ballots wipe it out. The real reason is Dems are more likely to vote in person and more likely to do so early.

I also researched if absentee voting is tied with voter fraud AND in turn favors Reps.

Only the bogus Dem site Slate dared to go there. First they claimed in-person voter fraud is non-existent. Should've stopped reading that trash right there.

But they went on to claim absentee voter fraud is very small, though it still favors Reps. Funny thing was all they did was make a claim with no directly tied facts.

For the record, I'm all for eliminating all voter fraud. Strict requirements for absentee ballots (like proof of living abroad, active military service, etc).

At the same time having national voter ID laws where you can prove your identity in person like countless other life activities.

Let's put those two strict reforms into practice nationwide and see which side loses a bigger chunk of their voting base.

 

[I35]

I wish you guys were as focused on protecting people from Americans who aren't mentally stable enough to own firearms as you are from little old ladies who don't have a valid ID anymore from voting.

Invalid argument! That's been debunked so many times and the typical left throws it out there knowing that it's false.

 

[OUBubba]

I have no problem with some gun restriction proposals. There are a few that would help the problem. A responsible approach to preventing mentally unstable people from owning guns makes sense.

Though there are many more proposals that wouldn't do a thing but leave Americans less protected against criminals who don't follow gun laws.

Often states with the toughest gun laws are those with the highest rates of gun violence. Those 'soft targets' are living examples how many restrictions don't help at all.

As for absentee voting and Dem opinion of it...you might want to research that further.

My search found several returns showing state level dems pushing to ease their state's standards and move to requiring no-reason for requesting absentee ballots.

Colorado, Oregon, and Washington (all blue states) conduct all voting by mail, which is likely the easiest way to fraud the system.

Of the 27 states that require no-excuse to receive an absentee ballot, 11 are solid blue states, 11 are solid red states, and 5 are purple (swing both ways).

How can absentee ballots unfairly favor Reps when the ease of getting them in blue states is roughly the same. Don't trust my opinion, see for yourself.

That's a myth because your side develops big leads in early voting, only to watch election day voters and absentee ballots wipe it out. The real reason is Dems are more likely to vote in person and more likely to do so early.

I also researched if absentee voting is tied with voter fraud AND in turn favors Reps.

Only the bogus Dem site Slate dared to go there. First they claimed in-person voter fraud is non-existent. Should've stopped reading that trash right there.

But they went on to claim absentee voter fraud is very small, though it still favors Reps. Funny thing was all they did was make a claim with no directly tied facts.

For the record, I'm all for eliminating all voter fraud. Strict requirements for absentee ballots (like proof of living abroad, active military service, etc).

At the same time having national voter ID laws where you can prove your identity in person like countless other life activities.

Let's put those two strict reforms into practice nationwide and see which side loses a bigger chunk of their voting base.

I was out of commission with a softball tournament and poison ivy in the eyes. I'm back.

Your generalization about the reasons for absentee voting is pretty weak. It's a generally accepted fact that early voting is stronger with Democrats and absentee voting is stronger with Republicans. So, what are the Red states doing? Trying to limit early voting and making it more difficult to vote but no movements to validate absentee voting. That's what my research turned up.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump has questioned certain states not giving requested info to his voting commission
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.e61ba277221b

Including some states that are members of the commission (Indiana). The best response was Mississippi which told Trump to go "jump in the Gulf of Mexico".

2 things would have given this fishing expedition more credibility from the start:
1. Don't start with the conclusion that fraud contributed to 3-5 million illegal votes. At that point, it really looks like you are simply looking for data to validate the preposterous claim.
2. Don't make Kris Kobach, the Vice-Chair. He's been the king of voter suppression and mass voter fraud theories all the while only being able to point to individual cases.

The most ironic part of the commission's request? Sec of State Kris Kobach can't respond to Commission Vice-Chair Kris Kobach's request due to Kansas law. Given there is no legal backing behind this commission it doesn't make sense why any Sec of State would respond other than for political points with the conspiracy theorist base.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I was out of commission with a softball tournament and poison ivy in the eyes. I'm back.

Your generalization about the reasons for absentee voting is pretty weak. It's a generally accepted fact that early voting is stronger with Democrats and absentee voting is stronger with Republicans. So, what are the Red states doing? Trying to limit early voting and making it more difficult to vote but no movements to validate absentee voting. That's what my research turned up.

As a citizen of a State with 100% absentee voting, I love it. It's so much easier to vote now that I don't have to find a polling booth and stand in long lines. Is there an increased chance of fraud? Likely. Is it broad enough to matter? No.

One interesting fact is that absentee ballot states don't have a higher voter participation rate, which surprised me. I haven't found any data on whether absentee voting favors one party over the other. In the end, a voter still needs to fill out the ballot and have the 1-2 stamps postage.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump has questioned certain states not giving requested info to his voting commission
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4576dc0f39d_story.html?utm_term=.e61ba277221b

The State of Louisiana has joined the "no thank you" crowd in States that won't supply the data requested by the commission.

“The President’s Commission has quickly politicized its work by asking states for an incredible amount of voter data that I have, time and time again, refused to release,” Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R) said in a statement.

“My response to the Commission is, you're not going to play politics with Louisiana’s voter data, and if you are, then you can purchase the limited public information available by law, to any candidate running for office. That’s it.”

 

[OUBubba]

I vote absentee most of the time or do the early voting in both state/federal/tribal elections. My polling station is a 10 minute drive and only 2 miles from a place that I proclaimed a few years ago as a "wonderful place to hide a dead body".

The conventional wisdom is that older voters (faux news viewers) and the military vote absentee and those demographics skew right. I remember the GOP complaining during the hanging chad period because the absentees were being disenfranchised in some manner.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I vote absentee most of the time or do the early voting in both state/federal/tribal elections. My polling station is a 10 minute drive and only 2 miles from a place that I proclaimed a few years ago as a "wonderful place to hide a dead body".

The conventional wisdom is that older voters (faux news viewers) and the military vote absentee and those demographics skew right. I remember the GOP complaining during the hanging chad period because the absentees were being disenfranchised in some manner.

Disenfranchisement happens on both sides. Neither side cares about actually counting votes but rather only their own. The 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election was one of the closest elections in history. In an election that ultimately was decided by 124 votes (after the 2nd re-count), my wife's ballot was contested because the signature supposedly didn't match what was on record. How does this happen? Party operatives go to the election office to review signatures. Per a Republican buddy of mine who was involved with the process, they only review the opposite sides ballots and contest any signatures that aren't nearly an exact match. That year ballot wasn't counted even though it was accurate due to the arduous process needed to resolve the dispute.

 

[OUBubba]

Surely. I know it happens like that in local things. However, one party seems more focused on voter suppression as a strategy. Heck, that was one of the Trump/Russian strategies - disenfranchise the Bernie bros to keep them from coming out.

I went to sign a check for my wife to put in her bank this weekend. She stopped me. "let me sign it. They won't recognize your signature at this bank"... We use different banks.

 

[4th_floor]

....However, one party seems more focused on voter suppression as a strategy.....

When I think of voter suppression, I think of the black panthers in Philly in front of the polling place with baseball bats. I don't think they were practicing for the annual charity softball game.

 

[iatrogenic]

The State of Louisiana has joined the "no thank you" crowd in States that won't supply the data requested by the commission.

You do seem pleased with this development, which is understandable.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You do seem pleased with this development, which is understandable.

Everything about this commission screams politics rather than investigating a real issue. 44 states have now stated that they will either only give partial data (publicly available data in most cases) or give nothing at all. I think Trump got out in front of his skis on this issue and thought it would appeal to more of his base than it apparently has based on the strong repudiation by multiple R Sec of States.

 

[OUBubba]

When I think of voter suppression, I think of the black panthers in Philly in front of the polling place with baseball bats. I don't think they were practicing for the annual charity softball game.

I'm sure you do. One is an isolated incident that happened one time. The other is a systemic movement that is similar to gerrymandering that is focused on trying to limit the number of voters from the other team that is being pushed by ALEC in red states and seeing states pass unconstitutional laws and their leaders make comments that "this is going to win the _______ election for us". So yeah, same thing.

 

[I35]

One is an isolated incident that happened one time. The other is a systemic movement that is similar to gerrymandering that is focused on trying to limit the number of voters

Funny what you call a systematic to suppress votes, I call making sure who's voting has the right to. So I guess let's call a spade and spade. I guess it's systematic for the dead people that vote almost always votes Democratic. Coincidence?

 

[OUBubba]

Funny what you call a systematic to suppress votes, I call making sure who's voting has the right to. So I guess let's call a spade and spade. I guess it's systematic for the dead people that vote almost always votes Democratic. Coincidence?

Linky?

 

[iatrogenic]

Everything about this commission screams politics rather than investigating a real issue. 44 states have now stated that they will either only give partial data (publicly available data in most cases) or give nothing at all. I think Trump got out in front of his skis on this issue and thought it would appeal to more of his base than it apparently has based on the strong repudiation by multiple R Sec of States.

A claim of "politics" doesn't justify states (Republicans or Democrats) not providing voter information, however. Of course it's political. We can all read the compiled data and make our own decisions instead of letting someone else think for us.

 

[OUBubba]

A claim of "politics" doesn't justify states (Republicans or Democrats) not providing voter information, however. Of course it's political. We can all read the compiled data and make our own decisions instead of letting someone else think for us.

Everyone who's actually researched these claims comes back with there's nothing but false allegations. Part of the problem is that the voting system is so decentralized and fragmented. It actually protected us in 2016 from more widespread foreign interference.

I get a kick out of how many of Trump's staff were registered to vote in more than one state. Was that part of some plan?

 

[iatrogenic]

Everyone who's actually researched these claims comes back with there's nothing but false allegations.

Linky?

Don't bother looking because, obviously, the states won't release the data.

 

[OUBubba]

3 states complied. Out of all those red states............. what gives?

Sasquatch eludes capture again!!!

There is some voting fraud. It's like 0.00027%. UFO sightings are more likely. As a voter, you're more likely to be struck by lightening than to vote fraudulently.

 

[iatrogenic]

I read somewhere that 63% of all votes are fraudulent.

I can throw dumb numbers out just like you, but it makes me feel so dirty. How do Dems live with themselves?

 

[4th_floor]

I read somewhere that 88% of all statistics are made up.

 

[OUBubba]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

31/1,000,000,000
4/135,000,000

When the facts don't fit the narrative what do you do?

 

[Seattle Husker]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

31/1,000,000,000
4/135,000,000

When the facts don't fit the narrative what do you do?

Create a commission, ask for data to validate your conclusion then claim it was lack of participation by the states that prevented the commission from uncovering the skulduggery?

 

[OUBubba]

Even in this Heritage Foundation thing a few things stick out.

The list goes back as far as 1994. Absentee ballots seem to be a big problem. All of these voter ID laws pretty much ignore this problem.

 

[iatrogenic]

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

31/1,000,000,000
4/135,000,000

When the facts don't fit the narrative what do you do?

You read the so called "facts". You will note that the Brennan Center did no research whatsoever in looking for voter fraud. They read other reports, and, rightly or wrongly, criticized them, but they provided zero details about their "debunking". In addition, their so called "research" was limited to a few areas. It is possible that they only included the reports for which they could eliminate many of the voter fraud claims.

Empirical evidence is a *****. If your goal is to avoid legitimate data, you just hand pick the data that makes your argument.

 

[OUBubba]

You read the so called "facts". You will note that the Brennan Center did no research whatsoever in looking for voter fraud. They read other reports, and, rightly or wrongly, criticized them, but they provided zero details about their "debunking". In addition, their so called "research" was limited to a few areas. It is possible that they only included the reports for which they could eliminate many of the voter fraud claims.

Empirical evidence is a *****. If your goal is to avoid legitimate data, you just hand pick the data that makes your argument.

Those were mostly scholarly research projects and state research efforts. Not some heritage foundation mock up.

 

[iatrogenic]

Oh...pardon me! I didn't realize they were so scholarly.

 

[iatrogenic]

Including some states that are members of the commission (Indiana). The best response was Mississippi which told Trump to go "jump in the Gulf of Mexico".

2 things would have given this fishing expedition more credibility from the start:
1. Don't start with the conclusion that fraud contributed to 3-5 million illegal votes. At that point, it really looks like you are simply looking for data to validate the preposterous claim.
2. Don't make Kris Kobach, the Vice-Chair. He's been the king of voter suppression and mass voter fraud theories all the while only being able to point to individual cases.

The most ironic part of the commission's request? Sec of State Kris Kobach can't respond to Commission Vice-Chair Kris Kobach's request due to Kansas law. Given there is no legal backing behind this commission it doesn't make sense why any Sec of State would respond other than for political points with the conspiracy theorist base.

I will respond to this with your words:

As usual it is a blatant attempt to discredit Mueller and the investigation before they start their work so that whatever results from it can be discounted.

Just replace Mueller with Kobach.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I will respond to this with your words:

Just replace Mueller with Kobach.

To be discredited you have a to start with a surplus of credit. Based on Kobach's history in Kansas he's a fraud. For someone who champions an anti-voter fraud mandate while he was Sec of State of Kansas he successfully prosecuted 6 of 9 "dual voting" cases after initially claiming he'd identified hundreds in the state. Yes, he is the only Sec of State in the country that has the authority to prosecute voter fraud cases thanks to his own influence with Brownback. All 6 of the convictions? Elderly individuals that were unaware they had done anything wrong.

His cross-state voter role check system?

Kobach has championed the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which compares state records to find people registered to vote in more than one place. The New York Times credits him with rapidly expanding the reach of the program, which now includes more than 30 states. According to the New York Times, "The program searches for double registrations using only voters’ first and last names and date of birth, and it generates thousands of false matches — John Smith in Kansas can easily be confused with John Smith in Iowa."[110] Due to the tendency to produce false matches, the program could be used to suppress the vote and wrongly remove legitimate voters from voter rolls.[110][120]

The program has led to sensational and misleading headlines: for example, 35,750 voters in the 2012 North Carolina general election matched with voters with supposedly identical voters in other states, but upon close investigation only "eight cases of potential double voting were referred to prosecutors and two people were convicted."[110] Doubts over the accuracy of Crosscheck has lead some states to withdraw from the program. A 2016 paper by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania found that if the program were fully implemented “200 legitimate voters may be impeded from voting for every double vote stopped.”[110]

Kobach's "Proof of Citizenship" law...

Proof of citizenship requirement law[edit]
From 2013-15, more than 36,000 Kansas residents (14% of those trying to register to vote) were placed on a suspense list because they failed to meet the proof of citizenship requirements that had been introduced in a 2013 law. Kobach justified the law, saying that it stopped what he described as the rampant problem of non-citizens voting; Reuters noted that "there is little evidence" of non-citizen voting being a problem.[112] A federal judge ordered Kobach to register more than 18,000 voters kept off the rolls by the proof of citizenship law; in her ruling, she wrote, "The court cannot find that the state's interest in preventing non-citizens from voting in Kansas outweighs the risk of disenfranchising thousands of qualified voters".[112] The judge noted that there was only evidence of three non-citizens in Kansas voting between 2003 and 2013.[112]

A Reuters analysis of the individuals on a suspense list found that "more than 60 percent were age 25 or under. They were clustered in the high-population areas of Wichita, Topeka and the Kansas City suburbs, and the college towns of Lawrence and Manhattan."[112] 41 percent were unaffiliated, 35 percent registered as Democrats and 23 percent as Republicans.[112] Reuters notes that the proof of citizenship requirement "has created a chaotic two-tier system where some Kansans can vote in state elections and some cannot, some need to provide proof of citizenship and others do not, and many county election officials are uncertain how to proceed."[112]

You can see that every objective analysis of Kobach's efforts do much more harm than any voter fraud prevented or prosecuted. Based on this one might surmise that Kobach's true intentions is to suppress the votes of the opposing party and that voter fraud is simply a ruse. In most cases, the judicial system has agreed with my viewpoint.

So, comparing the credibility of Mueller to Kobach is not only a disservice to the service that Mueller has provided to this country but is also an absurdly biased comparison.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There is speculation that Kris Kobach's letter may have violated the law. This would be the first time and I suspect it won't be the last. He's been held in contempt of court previously for his voter suppression tactics.