mske, your cite is an example of (alleged) voter fraud by one individual, but it doesn’t correspond to what Don’t Call Me Shirley was talking about.
Your example not about a person using a fake identity to register multiple times under multiple names in different precincts. It’s about an individual (allegedly) using her real identity to maintain active voter status both in her current state of residence and in her former state of residence.
A. One person may have voted twice in a single election, not multiple etc etc etc. years ago.
B. This was 2 different states, not different precincts. There is no evidence that the laws in question would have caught this in the first place.
C. To even attempt a Nationalized database would magnify the problems noted here exponentially, I believe.
:mad: Ogdamned copycat Buckeyes . . .
Of course. To show voter fraud, we insist on seeing the certified copies of court transcripts showing the convictions, along with proof that any appeals were denied.
But this news story proves the Republicans tried to hack the database.
Gotcha.
And – you know, this is a good analogy. I favor strong computer security measures on these IT systems… even if there’s never been a proven case of hacking.
BTW, Bricker, you are a liar.
Shirley asked for "a cite of someone registering ", so there it is.
Twice isn’t multiple enough?
Assuming that Konst is telling the truth, then someone voted under a false name in Florida in 1998. Is it unreasonable to presume that this person could have voted under their real name too?
Go fuck yourself, you two faced lying disengenuous shit weasil. The only fucking people arrested for potential registration fraud was a fucking republican shit bag. I don’t doubt that some ACORN temp workers filled out registrations falsely to make it look like they were working more than they really were. Neither I nor anyone else has demanded seeing the certified copies of court transcripts showing the convictions, along with proof that any appeals were denied. All we asked is for you to provide one gaddamned example of ACORN or anybody besides a few lazy canvasers, that is evidence of some vast potentially election changing conspiracy. You haven’t done it. You change the subject to some attempted plea for more goddamned security without proving there is a problem to begin with. You are the worst kind of partisan hack. You know goddamned well you’re full of shit yet you keep spewing.
And more . . . I really was hoping McCain, at least, could maintain some plausible deniability in all this. Guess not.
not really, no.
Not necessarily. She’s alledging that the documents about the Florida vote are forged. Are we even certain that there isn’t another person w/the same name? I know there’s at least 4 or 5 folks w/my name in the US, (none related to me) and I’ve got an unusual first and unusual last name.
No, silly: if Konst is telling the truth, then her political opponents made up bogus documents to make it look as though she herself had voted once in Florida and once in New York.
Voter-ID laws, if we had them, wouldn’t do diddly-squat to prevent after-the-fact falsification of voting records. So this incident remains completely irrelevant to the central question of whether voters using fake identities to vote multiple times in different precincts is really a significant problem.
(Mind you, I remain completely skeptical about Konst’s accusations that her opponents made up bogus documents, and I’m quite ready to believe that she did in fact double-vote in Florida and New York. But even if she did, as wring pointed out, the standard solutions being proposed by the voter-ID supporters would not address that problem. So, this incident doesn’t count as evidence that there really exists a significant voter-fraud problem that the proposed voter-ID measures would address.)
-
It’s “weasel.”
-
Now you have me wriggling in the crushing grip of reason.
Oh.
How about ACORN worker Carmen Davis, found guilty of violating federal election law? or Dale Franklin and Brian Gardner, also found guilty. After guilty pleas, no less. And then there’s the eight ACORN employees found guilty in Missouri. And the three in Washington.
Must have slipped your mind, those cases. Eh?
Handy hint for those reading along: the more vile, hate-filled insults flung my way is a good metric for the fact that there’s less to actually logically refute. “Can’t actually dispute the facts, so I’ll call some names.”
That usually works.
In elementary school.
Jinx, wring!
[links fingers]
What part of “All we asked is for you to provide one gaddamned example of ACORN or anybody besides a few lazy canvasers, that is evidence of some vast potentially election changing conspiracy” is hard for you to understand? Or were you too busy spell checking to read for comprehension?
and that’s twice in this thread, too, ya know. 
Or sometimes people get so fucking sick and tired of your bullshit that they no longer attempt to engage you in a reasonable manner since you are immune to reasoned argument. The fact that a statement is laced with vitriol does not necesarily negate the validity of the statement.
A failing for which Bricker, as a lawyer, has less excuse than most people.
IIRC correctly that was the Republican inference to the large voter turn out in Iraq.
No - I readily acknowledge that there are no criminal convictions extant for vast, election-changing conspiracies.
On either side, incidentally.
Earlier in this thread, though, I compared that argument to that of death penalty advocates when they insist that no innocent person has ever been executed. The rebuttal is: look how many people have been sentenced to death and then freed. They respond that proves the system works. They insist, in other words, on some sort of hypertechnical prrof that an innocent person has been executed before conceding that the process of administering the death penalty is flawed.
Here we see the same intransigence. If there’s been evidence of people submitting phony voter registrations, THAT ALONE is sufficient to justify voter ID requirements. I don’t claim there’s been any convictions on a massive level, and I never have; you keep returning to this point as though I’m refusing to acknowledge it. I’m saying it’s not relevant – that I don’t need to be burglarized to realize I need locks on my doors.