I have offered numerous proof of voting irregularities on these boards in the past.
A search would demonstrate that I have contributed on this subject, with cites.
You seem to feel that these matters can only be treated by threads that you begin yourself. It has been your MO lately.
I’m pretty sure that by 1812, he’d already been lured to the Republican party. Aren’t they also the ones who nominated him for Vice President?
As an aside, that was meant to show ralph124c that this was something both parties were guilty of, and not some corrupt tool of the Democrats. Whichever party is in power at redistricting time is guilty of this, and the ones who protest the loudest are often the ones who took advantage of it previously. Take the Texas situation for example. While I applauded the Democrats when they ran off to Oklahoma to postpone the gerrymandering of the Republicans in power, they had done the exact same thing when they were in power, and I would have applauded the Republicans had they done the same thing.
It needs to stop, and if you wait until the Democrats control the majority of the country, I’ll still be saying the same thing.
Of course, all of that is a different debate (and one that is currently active). 
Well, let’s be clear here. You stated that it was rumored that Civil War veterans were voting. BrainGlutton called “cite” on your claim:
You didn’t preface that claim by stating that it was rumored, so you got called on it.
On a side note, ralph124c, I not only call cite, I call bullshit. Why do you even attempt to throw out such unsubstantiated BS in GD?
The Republican Party didn’t exist until the 1850’s, so you’re mistaken on the details here.
That would, again, have been the Democratic-Republicans. The Republican party wasn’t founded until 1854, and ran their first presidential candidate in 1856 (General Fremont).
More generally, regarding voter fraud, I’m opposed to it. And I’m opposed to some of the bolded portions of the Act, because I think they would make voter fraud easier, and also because the voting requirements in this country aren’t all that hard anyway. If a person can’t figure out how to register to vote or how to get to the right polling place, do you really want him picking a president?
Yes, I do, because he has to live with the results same as I do.
:dubious: You offered no proof in my earlier thread on the Count Every Vote Act (except for that flap about a few hundred provisional ballots in King County, WA, being counted without first being properly verified – and I’d still require more proof that there was “fraud” involved in that rather than bureaucratic sloppiness). Now, I suppose I could do a search on your username and the keywords “voting fraud” to see if you ever have offered substantive proof in any thread – but I should go to the trouble? That’s not how we expect things to work in GD. If you want to participate in this debate and you think you’ve got something relevant tot his thread, some real proof of widespread patterns of voting fraud, then posting it here is your responsibility.
Look, I know there are only a certain number of things to talk about, and that duplication of threads is inevitable. That doesn’t mean you have to start so many, and it does not obligate me to participate even if I’ve chimed in in the past.
Keep that in mind next time you decide to call me out.
BrainGlutton:
Proof? How am I supposed to prove the consequences of a bill that hasn’t yet passd, let alone been implemented (and tested through an Election Day)? Simple logic tells me, though, that lowering the standards for proof at the ballot box is likely to lead to an increase in people who are not legally allowed to vote casting votes. I don’t see how it could possibly fail to do that.
Well, the Rev. Goodrich was writing in 1826, so it makes sense that he calls them “the republican party” because that’s what the Dem-Reps were usually called at that time, and also because the Federalists, while they weren’t monarchists, were less hostile to monarchy than the Dem-Reps.
However, they don’t have any direct connection to the modern Republican party, which was founded in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin.
Err…1829, sorry.
You’re not supposed to, of course. But the issue for debate here is whether voting fraud is a significant problem now. Simple logic tells me that if significant numbers of legally ineligible voters are not, at present, taking the trouble to trick their way into the voting booth, then nothing in the Count Every Vote Act will encourage more of them to do so.
Of course you’re not obliged to participate, but if you do choose to, can’t you bring something that contributes to the debate?
And what do you mean, “there are only a certain number of things to talk about”? Just look at the incredible range of topics on the front page of GD alone on a given day!
BrainGlutton:
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. My thoughts are that logically, anytime you (in any matter, voting-related or not) decrease the level of security, you invite an increase in intrusion. It hardly matters how low the level is before the decrease.
The number of people who will attempt to steal something from a house when the door is locked is significantly smaller than the number who will make the attempt if the door is wide open.
To be fair, most of them tend to be, “Is there a god or not?”, “Does evolution happen or not?”, “Look at this plan by Bush. Is it good?”, and “Should we be in Iraq or not?”
The difference is in level of motivation. People who care passionately about the outcome of any election are usually in the minority – especiallly in the U.S., where voter turnout is shockingly low by the standards of other democracies. Most people who vote do so, I think, out of a basic sense of civic duty – which is incompatible with committing fraud. And remember, you get no immediate reward from voting; whereas you just might be punished if you try to vote fraudulently and get caught at it. The benefits don’t match the risks.
It depends. There are people who care really passionately about the results of elections, and those are the political parties. And historically, they have committed voter fraud, from Chicago’s tendency to let the dead vote, to shipping Mexicans across the border to vote in Texas. They’ve done a lot to get supporters to the polls and keep opponents from going. I’ve got no reason to assume that stuff like that isn’t done now (and in fact, in both 2000 and 2004, there were rumors about underhanded attempts to suppress turnout in black areas in Baltimore).
And, ultimately, this is a partisan issue, so you’re going to get partisan responses. Remember, non-voters aren’t spread out evenly among the population. Poor people and minorities are more likely not to vote, (and also more likely to be ineligible to vote) and they’re also more likely to vote for Democrats So, anything that gets more poor people and minorities out voting is going to be supported by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans.
Cite? As to both?
True, but voter suppression, while it is something the Count Every Vote Act addresses, is not “voter fraud” of the kind with which this thread is concerned.
But, even more than a partisan issue, it is a civic issue. High voter turnout is generally considered to be a valuable goal for a democracy in and of itself, regardless of the political results. I note that even Republicans cannot openly argue on principle against high voter turnout, or against getting more poor people and minorities out voting; they have to couch their arguments in terms of “voting fraud.” That’s because, in discussing an issue like this, the basic assumptions of shared civic values still predominate. For now.
Regarding Texas, read either Dallek or Caro’s biographies of LBJ for an account of the 1948 Texas Senate primary between him and Coke Stephenson. They both have accounts of the rather creative tactics both sides used to get the nomination, as well as the legal maneuverings afterwards. Or just look up George Parr. As for Cook County, do you really need cites about the actions of the Daley machine from the 1950s-70s? Check out either Royko’s “Boss” or, more recently, Cohen’s “American Pharoah”.