I do think though that if there are places where that will create chaos it will be in mostly Republican areas… The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
I’m just waiting for all of the news stories about Republicans being arrested for trying to vote twice.
Of course we know what the right-wing rhetoric would be if that happens: “They’re only arresting the Republicans and ignoring the Democrats”, or “False flag! The illegal voters are really working for the Democrats trying to make Republicans look bad”.
It’s even better as she did it because she thought her first vote was going to be changed to Hillary. If she thought that, why wouldn’t she think the second would be changed to Hillary? ETA: And if she really thought the second would be honestly recorded, then she should have voted a third time to keep her vote tally at Trump +1 
Agreed.
It’s a very small logical step from “ballots are secret” and “voters don’t need to show ID to vote” to “voters are anonymous” to “voters can vote as often as they’re willing to show up.”
What this seems to demonstrate most to me is that most of the folks thinking along these lines are people who’ve not voted before. Just as many Obama voters in 2008 were first timers regardless of their age, Trump this time is attracting lots of first time voters of various ages. With all the predictable follies any time a couple million people try to do something complicated for the first time under time pressure.
Just out of wonder, how does voting work in person? I’ve only ever done it early by mail because screw lines.
Course its easy! Shit, millions of illegals who can’t even speak English are doing it!
What I don’t get is how people who think like this think IDs would work. If polling places have no checks in place, then what would they check IDs against?
I guess that expecting people to think things through like that is expecting too much.
538 has Arizona, Ohio and Iowa all pink today in all three of their models.
Monday is trick or treat day … I don’t think any pro-Clinton voters are going to change their minds. We are all tired of hearing about Hillary’s email server … didn’t Bernie say that.
I’m not tired of it … dirty laundry needs to be washed and someone forgot to wash all of her emails.
Stand by for a roller coaster ride for the Stock Market … they decide when to invest and when to hold off. It’s called buy low and sell high.
The DNC is going to win November 8th no matter what happens in the next ten days, six of which are business days till the election. It’s after the election that the fun for the news networks will begin :eek:,
Each neighborhood has a designated polling place. The workers there have a list of registered voters in the district. When you enter, you give your name, they check that it’s on the list, you sign next to it, and get your ballet. Tada!
Every registered voter is only on the list at one polling location. The fraudulent voter can try to give the name of another voter in the district, but it’d be a crap shoot whether that voter has voted already.
Besides, the poll workers are literally the neighbors of many voters in the district. Attempting to impersonate the little old lady that lives next door won’t go very well
In other words it might work occasionally, since the verification isn’t foolproof, but there is no opportunity for large scale fraud when voting in person.
In my state, Pennsylvania, if you’re registered to vote in a precinct then your name is in a book at your polling place on election day.
What happens is, when I get to the front of the line, they ask my name, then find it in the alphabetically arranged book. Each name is next to a copy of the person’s signature. I then sign in the blank spot next to that, and I’m directed to a machine to vote.
If I went to the wrong precinct, my name wouldn’t be in the book.
Since precincts are by neighborhood, when I vote there are usually people I know either in line, campaigning outside the polling place (at a legal distance), or working as poll volunteers.
If I wanted to vote fraudulently in a different precinct I would first have to find the name of someone who is registered there and who I’m certain is not going to vote (maybe they’ve moved, or they’re dead, or whatever). Then I’d have to risk (a prison term!) impersonating them in front of people who may know them.
To sway a Presidential election, this would have to be done millions of times by millions of people without getting caught.
Looks like the FBI’s attempt to throw the election to Trump has failed. If you’re stupid enough to be bothered by the emails or by Benghazi!™ then you’re already voting for the Cheeto Bandito anyway. The whole email fauxtrage is already baked into the polling, Hillary isn’t going to lose anyone that she hasn’t already lost. Time to get back to the campaign, push down ballot, and go into January 20th with Clinton, Schumer, and Pelosi leading the way. If Dems get the Senate, nuke the fucking filibuster and get a left wing Supreme Court firmly in place.
:rolleyes:
First, we have no idea yet what the effect of this story is yet. Second, I seriously doubt Comey wants Trump as his boss.
The DOJ is saying that they told Comey not to release this information at this time, just before the election, but he did it on his own despite their direction.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I like the idea of nuking the filibuster in order to correct the problems with the Supreme Court, at least at first glance, but after thinking about it I’m leery of the idea of nuking the filibuster.
Maybe it could be done just for the court appointments (as opposed to legislation), then, assuming some of the older justices retire and that their replacements are younger, we wouldn’t have to be worried for a while; but I fear that eventually it would come back and bite us. Okay, maybe that wouldn’t happen until after we’ve saved the planet, instituted single payer, etc. but I’m still leery.
Cite?
The DOJ isn’t the one who testified before Congress that the FBI had wrapped up that phase of the investigation. Comey did, and he is the one who would be hung up to dry by Congress if he sat on it.
It doesn’t strike me as odd that he would consider he had an ongoing duty to disclose to Congress, considering their oversight function and his previous testimony.
The only time the filibuster can still be used is for the Supreme Court. The Dems nuked it for legislation & lower court appointments the last time they had the Senate.
Aaah, but the “point” of voter ID isn’t to prevent good people from voting twice. It’s only to prevent bad people who would not be able to get the foolproof ID from voting once.
No ID = Nothing to show poll worker = no vote. Get it? Simple!!!
That’s as deep as the thought process goes.
A slightly more complex (but equally defective) thought is that as long as voters are IDless = anonymous there’s no way to know who voted or how often. Once there is an ID system the poll workers could write down the ID#s of folks who’ve voted. Which really would prevent multiple voting if the lists were centralized, like in a computer.
Both thoughts lead to the conclusion that any voting system without ID is ripe for (and hence rife with) vote fraud and any system with ID is secure.
It’s shallow junk thinking, but it’s not insane thinking.