Feds Charge Hispanic Immigrant with Illegally Voting in Several Florida Elections, Lying on Immigration Forms

[JustOneWay]

That was an assertion (of intent), not a confirmation.

As I said in an earlier post, we cannot know, either way, which side she was playing for without knowing her actual vote.

Obviously you have failed to grasp the concept that who she voted for is inconsequential, but the fact remains the woman is a republican. Have a good day.

 

[Sabertooth]

Her “actual vote” don’t enter into it.

Repeating that does not let you off the hook that her party declaration may not have been in good faith.
I would acknowledge the same if she had registered as a Democrat.

I do not believe that anyone here is really so stupid to actually believe that.
Wishful thinking? Yes.
Tunnel vision?? Sure.
But if you can turn your computer on, you must be trolling.

 

[Pommer]

Repeating that does not let you off the hook that her party declaration may not have been in good faith.
I would acknowledge the same if she had registered as a Democrat.

I do not believe that anyone here is really so stupid to actually believe that.
Wishful thinking? Yes.
Tunnel vision?? Sure.
But if you can turn your computer on, you must be trolling.

I do not care what party she reportedly registered with due to the fact that she was not authorized to have registered at all.
I’m not trying to cast aspersions over “whom she voted”.

 

[Whyayeman]

It shouldn't be surprising that a partially-deranged narcissist is unwilling to accept the reality that more Americans disliked him than liked him.

As I've stated before I didn't (and wouldn't if he gets the nomination) vote for Trump, too many character flaws...

But that being said, my main issue is with the inconsistency of people claiming that "voter fraud isn't an issue", "there's only been <insert comically low number here> confirmed cases of voter fraud", etc... But yet they always have bountiful examples in the hopper, ready to post, whenever there's a case where a republican gets caught doing it.


A person would have to be pretty damn naive to think that the only cases of improper voting that exist are the ones they actually catch doing it. (thus the reason why I support in-person voting with an ID requirement...though I disagree with the way republicans are trying to implement it due to the fact that they're doing it in ways that are deliberately targeting demographics that they don't think will vote their way)

It's sort of like drunk driving...one would be have to be incredibly stupid to think that the only ones out there guilty of driving drunk are the people who actually got pulled over and arrested for it. The reality is, there have been more people who have done it and gotten away with it undetected. There are probably more people who have driven home completely wasted (and got away with it) than people who actually got caught doing it.

I see voter fraud in the same way. Do I think irregularities changed the outcome of the election? No...Biden won fair and square (and would have even if they didn't change the rules for covid...over half of the country was sick of Trump)...but do I think that voter fraud was limited to the 475 cases they could actually prove (in an election with 155 ballots cast)? No, you'd have to be extremely gullible to believe that they could lock things down that tight in an environment of universal mail-in ballots and unmonitored drop boxes.

The latest elections in England local council elections) were conducted last May with mandatory ID for the first time. The official estimate is that about 14,000 people were prevented from voting by this.

Personation - fraudulent voting by casting another person's vote - has never been an issue in England. My view is that Voter ID was a measure designed to put off people from voting at all. The people most likely to be put off are non-drivers and those without passports, mainly the poorest.

I used my expired bus-pass as a sort of quiet rebellion. It was accepted without inspection. I think the officials were as enthusiastic about the idea as me.

 

[KCfromNC]

But that being said, my main issue is with the inconsistency of people claiming that "voter fraud isn't an issue", "there's only been <insert comically low number here> confirmed cases of voter fraud", etc... But yet they always have bountiful examples in the hopper, ready to post, whenever there's a case where a republican gets caught doing it.

It's been explained before (even in this thread) that it is entirely possible to hold a consistent view that the widespread election fraud alleged by GOP candidates is obvious nonsense while still understanding that there will be occasional example of individuals breaking the law.

And blaming the people holding this view for GOP voters breaking the law seems like an attempt to shoot the messenger.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And blaming the people holding this view for GOP voters breaking the law seems like an attempt to shoot the messenger.

It depends on whether or not said people were staunchly opposed to any and all measures aimed at election integrity that may have prevented this.

I realize it's not an all or nothing. There are some laws the GOP were pushing that were blatantly aimed at disenfranchising "certain" voters.

However, there are more reasonable baseline provisions (that actually have a plurality of support) that some people still rail against as being "racist".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Personation - fraudulent voting by casting another person's vote - has never been an issue in England. My view is that Voter ID was a measure designed to put off people from voting at all. The people most likely to be put off are non-drivers and those without passports, mainly the poorest.

It's one of those things that one can't really accurately peg.

I've mentioned this before, it's sort of like drunk driving.

We know people do it, but we don't know how many people do it, we only know the number of people who got caught doing it, but one would have to be pretty naive to believe that they were the only ones.

Here in the US, the majority of voters (from all groups) actually support Voter ID laws.

An overwhelming majority (81%) of respondents also said they support voters being required to show ID in order to vote, including 62% of Democrats and 60% of African American voters.

Additionally, 77% percent of voters think there should be a proof of citizenship requirement in order to register to vote.


Now, with regards to that ID, I realize that not everyone drives, and I'm in favor of a state-issued ID being made available at no-cost if a person has no need for a drivers license, as making someone pay for an ID (that yields no additional benefits for them apart from voting) is tantamount to a poll tax.

Everyone should have a state-issued ID anyway (voting matters aside). You need it if you want to get into a bar, buy certain types of cough medicine, cashing a check, accessing funds from a bank, getting married, etc...



Now, for the actual forms of "Voter ID laws" that some republicans were pushing (specifically in places like Texas)...those did appear to be targeted and I have a problem with those types of laws that aren't applied equally

For instance (I believe it was Texas, but I'll fact check myself after this), they made a change to their voter ID laws that made it so that college IDs were no longer accepted as valid forms of voter ID, but added Concealed Carry permits to the methods of ID that were allowed.

To me, that translated to "We know most college kids are liberal and unlikely to vote for us, but the ones who get a concealed carry permit are gun people are likely to be on our team, so they'll still be able to vote with ease"

 

[Whyayeman]

It's one of those things that one can't really accurately peg.

I've mentioned this before, it's sort of like drunk driving.

We know people do it, but we don't know how many people do it, we only know the number of people who got caught doing it, but one would have to be pretty naive to believe that they were the only ones.

Here in the US, the majority of voters (from all groups) actually support Voter ID laws.

An overwhelming majority (81%) of respondents also said they support voters being required to show ID in order to vote, including 62% of Democrats and 60% of African American voters.

Additionally, 77% percent of voters think there should be a proof of citizenship requirement in order to register to vote.


Now, with regards to that ID, I realize that not everyone drives, and I'm in favor of a state-issued ID being made available at no-cost if a person has no need for a drivers license, as making someone pay for an ID (that yields no additional benefits for them apart from voting) is tantamount to a poll tax.

Everyone should have a state-issued ID anyway (voting matters aside). You need it if you want to get into a bar, buy certain types of cough medicine, cashing a check, accessing funds from a bank, getting married, etc...



Now, for the actual forms of "Voter ID laws" that some republicans were pushing (specifically in places like Texas)...those did appear to be targeted and I have a problem with those types of laws that aren't applied equally

For instance (I believe it was Texas, but I'll fact check myself after this), they made a change to their voter ID laws that made it so that college IDs were no longer accepted as valid forms of voter ID, but added Concealed Carry permits to the methods of ID that were allowed.

To me, that translated to "We know most college kids are liberal and unlikely to vote for us, but the ones who get a concealed carry permit are gun people are likely to be on our team, so they'll still be able to vote with ease"

There was no call for any kind of voter ID here and as far as I remember, no mandate. As for not knowing the extent of voter fraud, you are right, but in the UK it has never really been an issue. You just turned up at the polling station with or without your poll card, the official checked your name and address on the electoral register and that was that. Until May 2023. The necessity to show an approved ID document with a photograph is widely regarded as solution to a problem that did not exist and is widely resented.

There was a move several years ago to issue ID cards to everybody. It received such vigorous resistance that the idea was dropped. People regard the carrying of state issued ID cards as the beginnings of a police state - and I agree.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There was no call for any kind of voter ID here and as far as I remember, no mandate. As for not knowing the extent of voter fraud, you are right, but in the UK it has never really been an issue. You just turned up at the polling station with or without your poll card, the official checked your name and address on the electoral register and that was that. Until May 2023. The necessity to show an approved ID document with a photograph is widely regarded as solution to a problem that did not exist and is widely resented.

There was a move several years ago to issue ID cards to everybody. It received such vigorous resistance that the idea was dropped. People regard the carrying of state issued ID cards as the beginnings of a police state - and I agree.

I don't think of it as a "police state" thing as much as I think it's practical.

Not sure how it works in the UK, but here, the ID is what lets authorities know some important information.

For instance, if I'm walking down the sidewalk and some driver jumps the curb and injures me to the point where I can't communicate, my ID that I always carry:
1) Let's the police know who they need to contact
2) Let's the medical workers know that I'm an organ donor if I don't survive (which is a time sensitive matter with regards to preserving organs)

There are other benefits as well. With so many high profile incidents of people getting harassed by police due to reasons of mistaken identity, having that ID let's authorities know you are who you say you are and minimizes the hassles.


Not to mention the obvious ones, like carrying ID is useful for age verification. I certainly don't restaurants and bartenders "eyeballing it" to determine if they think a person is 21.

 

[KCfromNC]

It depends on whether or not said people were staunchly opposed to any and all measures aimed at election integrity that may have prevented this.

Can you name anyone who is staunchly opposed to all measures aimed at election integrity? For example, is anyone in this thread calling for the repeal of the laws being used to prosecute the GOP voter mentioned in the OP?

If not, seems totally irrelevant to this thread. Or any other which attempts to discuss the reality of the situation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Can you name anyone who is staunchly opposed to all measures aimed at election integrity? For example, is anyone in this thread calling for the repeal of the laws being used to prosecute the GOP voter mentioned in the OP?

If not, seems totally irrelevant to this thread. Or any other which attempts to discuss the reality of the situation.

Federal Court Blocks “Proof of Citizenship” Voting Requirement | League of Women Voters

A federal court ruled that a former US Election Assistance Commission official violated federal law in 2016 when he allowed three states – Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas – to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

www.lwv.org

Clearly someone didn't like the proposed rules of having to prove that one is a citizen during the initial registration and challenged it in order to get it struck down.


If we get in a time machine and go back to 2019 and look at a thread called "Texas found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls", that several people in this thread participated in, there was commentary like this:
"questioning people's citizenship is certainly a good way to depress voter turnout."
and
"My point of view is this sort of stuff is a transparent attempt by the GOP to harness xenophobia among some of their supporters into a chance to suppress minority voter turnout."


So, at the very least, there were some people who seemed to think that requiring proof of citizenship during the initial registration (which would've stopped scenarios like this Cuban national voting) was a bad idea and were glad to see it struck down.


But, I'll be fair, peoples' views shift over time...I certainly don't have the exact same position on absolutely everything in 2023 that I had back in 2019 so it's possible that people have moderated their position on this a bit over the past 4 years.

 

[Goonie]

Federal Court Blocks “Proof of Citizenship” Voting Requirement | League of Women Voters

A federal court ruled that a former US Election Assistance Commission official violated federal law in 2016 when he allowed three states – Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas – to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

www.lwv.org

Clearly someone didn't like the proposed rules of having to prove that one is a citizen during the initial registration and challenged it in order to get it struck down.


If we get in a time machine and go back to 2019 and look at a thread called "Texas found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls", that several people in this thread participated in, there was commentary like this:
"questioning people's citizenship is certainly a good way to depress voter turnout."
and
"My point of view is this sort of stuff is a transparent attempt by the GOP to harness xenophobia among some of their supporters into a chance to suppress minority voter turnout."


So, at the very least, there were some people who seemed to think that requiring proof of citizenship during the initial registration (which would've stopped scenarios like this Cuban national voting) was a bad idea and were glad to see it struck down.


But, I'll be fair, peoples' views shift over time...I certainly don't have the exact same position on absolutely everything in 2023 that I had back in 2019 so it's possible that people have moderated their position on this a bit over the past 4 years.

In the uk, the government introduced a requirement for id to vote with the express aim of increasing their vote, and suppressing the rest. Ie. The OAP travel pass was acceptable id, but not the young persons (both using the same id checks) as pensioners are more likely to vote Tory.


This might have backfired, as one former Tory Minister noted introducing voter id confused the elderly and actually suppressed the tory vote.

 

[Whyayeman]

In the uk, the government introduced a requirement for id to vote with the express aim of increasing their vote, and suppressing the rest. Ie. The OAP travel pass was acceptable id, but not the young persons (both using the same id checks) as pensioners are more likely to vote Tory.


This might have backfired, as one former Tory Minister noted introducing voter id confused the elderly and actually suppressed the tory vote.

Yes, that has been said. There isn't any evidence that the vote was skewed in any way, though the Tories took a terrible pasting. The Tories were looking for an excuse.

We don't need to carry ID. It does not serve any useful purpose that cannot be served in other ways. The real danger is that carrying ID becomes compulsory and failure to produce it on demand by a police officer becomes actionable. That is the beginning of the police state.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Federal Court Blocks “Proof of Citizenship” Voting Requirement | League of Women Voters

A federal court ruled that a former US Election Assistance Commission official violated federal law in 2016 when he allowed three states – Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas – to require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form.

www.lwv.org

Clearly someone didn't like the proposed rules of having to prove that one is a citizen during the initial registration and challenged it in order to get it struck down.


If we get in a time machine and go back to 2019 and look at a thread called "Texas found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls", that several people in this thread participated in, there was commentary like this:
"questioning people's citizenship is certainly a good way to depress voter turnout."
and
"My point of view is this sort of stuff is a transparent attempt by the GOP to harness xenophobia among some of their supporters into a chance to suppress minority voter turnout."


So, at the very least, there were some people who seemed to think that requiring proof of citizenship during the initial registration (which would've stopped scenarios like this Cuban national voting) was a bad idea and were glad to see it struck down.


But, I'll be fair, peoples' views shift over time...I certainly don't have the exact same position on absolutely everything in 2023 that I had back in 2019 so it's possible that people have moderated their position on this a bit over the past 4 years.

Opposing additional measures or specific measures aimed at election integrity is not the same thing as opposing all measures aimed at election integrity, which is what you claimed.

The argument from that side of the fence is that current election integrity measures are sufficient. Occasionally some cases will slip through the cracks, but they're insignificant as they relate to the outcome of the election, they're frequently caught, and the costs of preventing those few cases outright are too high both monetarily and in the number of legitimate voters prevented or discouraged from voting (relative to the number of illegitimate votes stopped).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Opposing additional measures or specific measures aimed at election integrity is not the same thing as opposing all measures aimed at election integrity, which is what you claimed.

Wouldn't
"Proof of citizenship at registration time"
"Voter ID laws"
"Limiting the use of absentee ballots"
"Restricting the concept of the universal mail-in ballots"
"Reigning in Early voting"

...summarize "all measures" currently being pushed for?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from those, what other election integrity measures are there that are actively being publicly discussed? (apart from prosecuting people after the fact who happen to get caught)

If someone opposes all 5 things I listed above, isn't that tantamount to opposing all measures aimed at election integrity?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If someone opposes all 5 things I listed above, isn't that tantamount to opposing all measures aimed at election integrity?

Only if one presumes that we have zero mechanisms for preserving election integrity already in place.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Only if one presumes that we have zero mechanisms for preserving election integrity already in place.

The mechanisms apart from the ones I listed are, at best, pretty weak.

Especially without Voter ID requirements.

States with universal mail-in ballots are even weaker.

Table 14: How States Verify Voted Absentee/Mail Ballots

Summarizes methods states use to verify absentee/mail ballots, such as signature verification and having the absentee/mail ballot witnessed or notarized.

www.ncsl.org

Their best method of trying to verify them is via signature verification (and a few of the states don't even do that).

People know how to forge other people's signatures (especially the signatures of family members). Theoretically, there would be nothing to stop someone from filling out a ballot that was intended for a relative (whether it be senile relative who isn't even aware of an election, or a relative who's registered but doesn't regularly vote).

Some states have manual signature verification processes that are so manual and arduous, that there's no way they can actually be doing a thorough verification on it.

Take Colorado for instance:
Election judges compare the signature on the self-affirmation on each return envelope with the signature of the eligible elector stored in the statewide voter registration system. If the election judge determines the signatures do not match, two other election judges of different political party affiliations shall simultaneously compare the signatures. If both other election judges agree that the signatures do not match, the county clerk and recorder shall send to the eligible elector a letter explaining the discrepancy in signatures and a form for the eligible elector to confirm that the elector returned a ballot to the county clerk and recorder. If the eligible elector returns the form indicating that the elector did not return a ballot to the county clerk and recorder, or if the eligible elector does not return the form within eight days after Election Day, the self-affirmation on the return envelope shall be categorized as incorrect, the ballot shall not be counted, and the county clerk and recorder shall send copies of the eligible elector's signature on the return envelope and the signature stored in the statewide voter registration system to the district attorney for investigation.


Keeping in mind that Colorado had universal mail-in voting, given how many registered voters there are in that state, do you honestly think the outlined process above can be done at scale while still implementing the requisite amount of scrutiny to really look for irregularities? Seems like there wouldn't be enough time in the day.

 

[keith99]

Wouldn't
"Proof of citizenship at registration time"
"Voter ID laws"
"Limiting the use of absentee ballots"
"Restricting the concept of the universal mail-in ballots"
"Reigning in Early voting"

...summarize "all measures" currently being pushed for?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from those, what other election integrity measures are there that are actively being publicly discussed? (apart from prosecuting people after the fact who happen to get caught)

If someone opposes all 5 things I listed above, isn't that tantamount to opposing all measures aimed at election integrity?

Aren't the last 3 more about keeping efforts to make voting in specific areas effective? E.g. make sure the lines are long on districts that vote the 'wrong' way while keeping them short in areas that vote the 'right way'.

They also serve to make last minute smear campaigns effective and easy. Just release the false or misleading claim a couple of days before the election. Early voting of any form blunts the effectiveness of such tactics to the extent that votes have already been made before the smear.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Aren't the last 3 more about keeping efforts to make voting in specific areas effective? E.g. make sure the lines are long on districts that vote the 'wrong' way while keeping them short in areas that vote the 'right way'.

They also serve to make last minute smear campaigns effective and easy. Just release the false or misleading claim a couple of days before the election. Early voting of any form blunts the effectiveness of such tactics to the extent that votes have already been made before the smear.

I don't know that expanding early voting would stop the smear campaigns, it would just bump up the schedule for the "smearing"

That aside, the inverse is worse...what happens when you lock in your vote a month early, and then some bombshell gets released that would've otherwise caused you not to support a specific person? Or if a person decides to drop out 2 weeks before election day. Too late at that point, you vote's already been cast.

And it's not always due to scandalous reasons (this happens somewhat frequently in primaries), and it creates some headaches in a lot of states.

Here's what happens to the votes for candidates who drop out

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The abrupt departures of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar from the Democratic presidential race on the eve of <a href="https://apnews...

apnews.com

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The mechanisms apart from the ones I listed are, at best, pretty weak.

Are they? They seem to be working pretty effectively, as far as I can tell. You're making an argument from incredulity here.