Voting Twice in the Midterm Elections

[Airbrush]

Does anyone know how anyone can vote twice?  I have always voted by mail, here in California.  No way I could vote twice.  BTW, why do many people need to stand in line for hours to vote?   Something is wrong with their state.  Anyhow, what is it like to vote at the poll?  Do you prove your identity, then they look up your name on a list and check you off the list when you vote?  Then how can you vote twice, if your name is already checked?

Trump claims that people vote then go out to their car and change their appearance and then go into the poll and vote again.  Then the dems just say that is ridiculous, but don't explain how it is not possible to vote more than once.  So Trump wins the argument, as usual, because he successfully planted the seed, the idea, of people voting multiple times (I suppose only dems do that) and nobody that I have seen in cable news has challenged his outrageous claim, except to scoff at the idea.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

This isn't a Trump specific lie. Politicians, Republican ones specifically, have been crying wolf about this issue for decades. Trump simply gets more attention than politicians from past election cycles. Making it about Trump just provides Republicans cover. This is an old long running argument which gets used election after election to manipulate local voting processes. Below is an example from over 20yrs ago in your home state involving the same groups Trump targets today:

Quote

 

The House is set to dismiss former GOP Rep. Robert K. Dornan's challenge to election results that forced him to give up his California seat to Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez, ending an acrimonious 13-month battle that many Republican leaders believe has hurt the party with Hispanic voters nationwide.

Sanchez took the seat from six-term incumbent Dornan in November 1996 by just 984 votes. Dornan claimed the election was stolen through rampant illegal voting by non-citizens.

Acting on a recommendation from a contested-election task force, the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 4 voted 8 to 1 to drop the investigation of Dornan's claims. The full House is likely to accept that verdict when the resolution is introduced sometime the week of Feb. 9.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/sanchez.html

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know how anyone can vote twice?  I have always voted by mail, here in California.  No way I could vote twice.  BTW, why do many people need to stand in line for hours to vote?   Something is wrong with their state.  Anyhow, what is it like to vote at the poll?  Do you prove your identity, then they look up your name on a list and check you off the list when you vote?  Then how can you vote twice, if your name is already checked?

Trump claims that people vote then go out to their car and change their appearance and then go into the poll and vote again.  Then the dems just say that is ridiculous, but don't explain how it is not possible to vote more than once.  So Trump wins the argument, as usual, because he successfully planted the seed, the idea, of people voting multiple times (I suppose only dems do that) and nobody that I have seen in cable news has challenged his outrageous claim, except to scoff at the idea.

Use a different name the second time? Preferably one you know will not vote. Or use an accomplice working the poll station, They can choose what name to cross off.

Obviously there will be safeguards against doing this, which may vary from place to place.

And of course only one party would ever try it...

Edited November 20, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know how anyone can vote twice?  I have always voted by mail, here in California.  No way I could vote twice.  BTW, why do many people need to stand in line for hours to vote?   Something is wrong with their state.  Anyhow, what is it like to vote at the poll?  Do you prove your identity, then they look up your name on a list and check you off the list when you vote?  Then how can you vote twice, if your name is already checked?

This kind of voter fraud rarely happens. But, you could be registered in two separate voting districts. You could have a false identity.

You could try to vote in person and also with an absentee ballot. You would likely be caught, since they check, but nothing would prevent you from trying.

 

edit: four cases in 2016. Two were Trump supporters; one of them voted in two separate locations.

One was a person filling in an absentee ballot for her dead spouse, and the last was an official who filled in absentee ballots that they were in charge of counting.

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know how anyone can vote twice?  I have always voted by mail, here in California.  No way I could vote twice.  BTW, why do many people need to stand in line for hours to vote?   Something is wrong with their state.  Anyhow, what is it like to vote at the poll?  Do you prove your identity, then they look up your name on a list and check you off the list when you vote?  Then how can you vote twice, if your name is already checked?

Trump claims that people vote then go out to their car and change their appearance and then go into the poll and vote again.  Then the dems just say that is ridiculous, but don't explain how it is not possible to vote more than once.  So Trump wins the argument, as usual, because he successfully planted the seed, the idea, of people voting multiple times (I suppose only dems do that) and nobody that I have seen in cable news has challenged his outrageous claim, except to scoff at the idea.

The point is not really to show feasibility but simply to repeat a talking point to make it sound plausible. Even if you talk about it just to show how improbable or implausible it is, the fact that folks are talking about it makes it more likely that folks (mis-)remember it as a thing. This is a similar principle on which advertisements work. Only if you critically engage with the subject does a discussion or debunking actually has any effect. 

[Ten oz]

Democratic candidates for the House got over 8.5 million more votes than Republican candidates for the house. Democratic candidates for the House collectively won nearly as many votes in the mid-term  as the President did which  has never happened before Here. The GOP is truly a minority party. People often say the country is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans but that is simply not true. Since polling for party affiliation has existed Democrats have always had the larger base. Republicans have never age out Democrats in party affiliation exit polling (linked above). 

Republicans complain about voter fraud as a means of legitimizing themselves. Republicans do not have the majority support of the nation or any intention to humbly adopt policies that reflect the interests of the major. So they claim voter fraud as a way to claim parity. It also serves are a justification for changing local election regulations and resist many people as possible from voting. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Democratic candidates for the House got over 8.5 million more votes than Republican candidates for the house. Democratic candidates for the House collectively won nearly as many votes in the mid-term  as the President did which  has never happened before Here. The GOP is truly a minority party. People often say the country is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans but that is simply not true. Since polling for party affiliation has existed Democrats have always had the larger base. Republicans have never age out Democrats in party affiliation exit polling (linked above). 

Republicans complain about voter fraud as a means of legitimizing themselves. Republicans do not have the majority support of the nation or any intention to humbly adopt policies that reflect the interests of the major. So they claim voter fraud as a way to claim parity. It also serves are a justification for changing local election regulations and resist many people as possible from voting. 

This bodes well for 2020...

[OldChemE]

It can be done-- but it seems sufficiently rare as to be insignificant.  I say it can be done because in one recent election I simply showed the poll worker that I had my sample ballot in my hand and they handed me a voter card-- never checked my name or had me sign anything.  I suspect this was a moment of carelessness, not a normal practice.

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

It can be done-- but it seems sufficiently rare as to be insignificant.  I say it can be done because in one recent election I simply showed the poll worker that I had my sample ballot in my hand and they handed me a voter card-- never checked my name or had me sign anything.  I suspect this was a moment of carelessness, not a normal practice.

Oh I am sure there are plenty of such cases. However, the reason why voter fraud is very low is simply that there is no incentive for individual frauds (after all, the effect would be negligibly low). It would need a systematic effort to actually have an effect and that would be much harder to hide.

 

[Raider5678]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

People often say the country is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans but that is simply not true.

Agreed. About 45% delusional fools, 10% people who genuinely care about the government and are willing to research to decide the votes, and 45% people who simply don't care and will occasionally vote if they feel like it and it's convenient.

[Airbrush]

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

The point is not really to show feasibility but simply to repeat a talking point to make it sound plausible. Even if you talk about it just to show how improbable or implausible it is, the fact that folks are talking about it makes it more likely that folks (mis-)remember it as a thing. This is a similar principle on which advertisements work. Only if you critically engage with the subject does a discussion or debunking actually has any effect. 

Exactly so!  A clever sales person must be a natural at that.  Will the presidents of the US be more likely slick, sales persons going forward?

[Raider5678]

14 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Exactly so!  A clever sales person must be a natural at that.  Will the presidents of the US be more likely slick, sales persons going forward?

Since when have they not been?

Populist presidents virtually always win, and they're simply sold America on what they're promising to give them.

 

[Airbrush]

 

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

Oh I am sure there are plenty of such cases. However, the reason why voter fraud is very low is simply that there is no incentive for individual frauds (after all, the effect would be negligibly low). It would need a systematic effort to actually have an effect and that would be much harder to hide.

Yes and the punishment for every act of fraud is severe.  Who would be willing to go to prison and be fined, just to attempt voting twice?

"Under federal law, perpetrators face up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000 for each act of fraud."

 

39 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Since when have they not been?

Populist presidents virtually always win, and they're simply sold America on what they're promising to give them.

That is why I think presidential candidates must pass a number of hurdles in qualifications in education, such as economic and political knowledge, rather than be simply a popular sales person.  Could that weed out con artists from the highest office?

It looks like it will take someone like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson to defeat Trump in 2020.  Besides being a popular celebrity, he's a nice guy.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Airbrush

[Raider5678]

43 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

That is why I think presidential candidates must pass a number of hurdles in qualifications in education, such as economic and political knowledge, rather than be simply a popular sales person.  Could that weed out con artists from the highest office?

1

My only problem with that, is that it'd most certainly be considered racist/sexist.

If you put education requirements on voting, it's racist. If you do the same for president, it'd also be racist.

[Ten oz]

On 11/20/2018 at 1:31 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

This bodes well for 2020...

Trump already won with millions of less votes. There is not a direct correlation between what the majority voters want and what they end up with. If more votes equaled more positions in govt Democrats would control every branch. The amount of people a politician represents also doesn't have a direct correlation. In the Senate Democratic Senators represent 40 million more people (more people than live in all of Canada) yet continue to be the minority party. I do not think the volume of votes from the 2018 mid-term can be used to say anything about the potential outcome for 2020. Ultimately how every group (male, female, white, Black, Hispanic, etc, etc) was identical to 2016. I'd think an argument can be made it bodes well for Trump. His base has remained  intact through his first 2yrs in office. The votes Republicans lost during the mid-terms are ones they never had in the first place. 

[Ten oz]

18 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Agreed. About 45% delusional fools, 10% people who genuinely care about the government and are willing to research to decide the votes, and 45% people who simply don't care and will occasionally vote if they feel like it and it's convenient.

I disagree this. The highest voter turnout for a Presidential year over the last 100 years was 62% and the lowest was 49%. If 45% "occasionally" voted there be a much larger swing in turnout election to election. Over the last 4 elections (every election in your life) turn out was 55%, 55%, 58%, 56%. You really think there could be that much consistency election after election with 45% eligible voters choosing to vote some of the time but not other times?

I believe 40% of eligible voters simply never vote. The 60% who do vote basically account for 99% of all voting within any specific election. Among those who vote 1 in 6  or a little over 16% "occasionally" will or will not participate. It is that small difference which accounts for fluctuations in turn out levels which influence races. Among those who vote 99% vote the exact same way within any given couple of election cycles regardless of world events, issues, candidates, and etc. 

The consistency of the voter turnout and how specific groups vote simply doesn't make any sense if 90% of the populations were either delusional or occasional voters. You are ignoring the data. There would be appreciable differences election to election if 90% of the population was as you describe.  

Mitt Romney and Donald Trump are two very  different politicians. They have different styles, promoted different policies, and ran for president vs different candidates. If you look at 2012 and 2016 Romney and Trump did the same. 

Men voted  - 52%  Romney and 52% Trump

Women voted - 44% Romney and 41% Trump

Whites voted - 59% Romney and 57% Trump

Blacks voted - 6% Romney and 8% Trump

Hispanics voted - 27% Romney and 28% Trump

Asians Voted - 26% Romney and 27% Trump

Exit polling is how voting Demographics are studied. Exit polling has a error margin. Romney and Trump's numbers are all with the margin of error of each other. MOE They are more or less identical. You honestly don't think that between the 10% you claim "genuinely" care and the 45% who "occasionally" vote there would be some slight difference between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump?  I think it is fairly obvious that people vote the same way election to election no matter what and the only thing that changes outside the margin of error is turn out among a small group of occasional voters. 

Here is 2016 and Here is 2012

 

 

[Airbrush]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 3:38 AM, swansont said:

This kind of voter fraud rarely happens. But, you could be registered in two separate voting districts. You could have a false identity.

You could try to vote in person and also with an absentee ballot. You would likely be caught, since they check, but nothing would prevent you from trying.....

If someone could be registered in two separate voting districts, why isn't there a way to catch that?   How about comparing the voter lists for all voting districts in the nation, by running them thru a computer program, to catch duplicate identities?

"Nothing would prevent you from trying" to vote both in person and with an absentee ballot?  How about a big sign posted at the entrance to all polling places that trying to vote more than once is voter fraud, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison AND a fine of $10,000, for each act of fraud?  Also it is a crime that is documented with your identity(identities) attached to evidence for the crime(s). 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

If someone could be registered in two separate voting districts, why isn't there a way to catch that?   How about comparing the voter lists for all voting districts in the nation, by running them thru a computer program, to catch duplicate identities?

"Nothing would prevent you from trying" to vote both in person and with an absentee ballot?  How about a big sign posted at the entrance to all polling places that trying to vote more than once is voter fraud, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison AND a fine of $10,000, for each act of fraud?  Also it is a crime that is documented with your identity(identities) attached to evidence for the crime(s). 

Voting locally in one state and then nationally from another might not be a crime. 

Quote

Underlying these state statutes is the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on “voting more than once.” 52 U.S.C. § 10307(e). NCSL has been unable to find a prosecution of any person under that statute for voting in multiple states at the same time (for instance, voting for state and federal offices in the 2016 election in State X and for state offices in State Y, when the voter owns residences in both states). Thus, the question of whether federal law prohibits such voting practices remains unresolved. Here

I think one of the problems is that there is not a national standard for voting. Every individual state has their own laws and practices. The link I provided outlines them by State. 

The population is more mobile than it once was. It is normal for an individual to live in more than one state throughout their lives. I have lived in 4 states and currently own homes in 2 states. The matters of states rights, the electoral college, and manner in which states receive representatives is antiquated.

There were less than 4 million people living in the United States in 1790...... let that soak in a minute....less than 4 million. Population wise the largest state was VA at 690,000 and the smallest was WVA at 55,00. Today those numbers are equal to a small metro and a average size subarb. In Congress there were 65 house members to 26 senators, not a huge difference. Today the population is 330 million. Largest state is CA at 40 million and and the smallest is WY at 590,000. That is the difference between a large country and small metro. In Congress there are 535 house members and 100 senators. It is a very different country. In my opinion it is insane that Wyoming gets an equal say in the Senate as California and neither state is using a nationalized election standard for those Senate seats. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

If someone could be registered in two separate voting districts, why isn't there a way to catch that?   How about comparing the voter lists for all voting districts in the nation, by running them thru a computer program, to catch duplicate identities?

"Nothing would prevent you from trying" to vote both in person and with an absentee ballot?  How about a big sign posted at the entrance to all polling places that trying to vote more than once is voter fraud, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison AND a fine of $10,000, for each act of fraud?  Also it is a crime that is documented with your identity(identities) attached to evidence for the crime(s). 

I think you’ve pointed out reasons that the people get caught on the rare occasion they try. Probably harder these days with computerized databases. Which is a reason that we know this is a manufactured “crisis”

You asked about voting twice. You didn’t mention getting away with it.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion it is insane that Wyoming gets an equal say in the Senate as California 

I know your sentence continues and makes a slightly different point, but taking this phrase alone...

IMO, this wouldn’t be as big of a deal if the filibuster (itself an extra-constitutional process never conceived of by the founders) was abandoned... and appropriately tossed into the dustbin of history. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/11/20/obama-filibuster-impossible-to-govern-orig-me.cnn/video/playlists/the-axe-files/

To be sure, I most definitely agree with you on the need for a national standard on how Senate seats get filled. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

IMO, this wouldn’t be as big of a deal if the filibuster (itself an extra-constitutional process never conceived of by the founders) was abandoned... and appropriately tossed into the dustbin of history. 

 

I laughed my ass off when Kavanaugh was being appointed while I was at my state capitol.

Democrats previously: "We can't have a filibuster when appointing a supreme court justice." *get's rid of it to get their guys appointed*

Democrats during the appointment: "Ah! Fuck! Put it back! Put it back! Put it back! This was a terrible idea! Oh my god!!!!! It never occurred to use that us getting rid of that it be used against us! Dammit! Fuck! Ahhhh!"

Not publicly, but I sat in during a State Senators Democratic Caucus, and they were talking about it. It was basically this when one of them said, "The Republicans don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There is no way Brett gets appointed." "Uh. Didn't they change that?" *Page pipes up* "Yeah. You guys got rid of it under Obama." *Room bursts into yelling and arguing between the State Senators*

Don't be too quick to get rid of the filibuster.

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I laughed my ass off when Kavanaugh was being appointed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wow. Nobody cares. My point wasn’t about judicial nominations. It was about the filibuster itself. 

/offtopic

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but wow. Nobody cares. My point wasn’t about judicial nominations. It was about the filibuster itself. 

 

And my point was about the filibuster as well.

[iNow]

I still don’t care, but in fairness to you I’ve been up since 2am and my feedback is hardly objectice. 

Yes. Dems, or Harry Reid in particular, killed the filibuster for judicial appointments. It’s easy to understand why he did it, but it was short sighted and still harms the broader process today. 

I’m glad you find humor in it. I find it sad because it prevents us from adequately addressing the major challenges we face.

We’re still off topic. Let’s move on, please. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m glad you find humor in it.

I find humor in the irony, not so much the results. In my opinion, sometimes the best thing to do is look for the humor in situations, as it typically opens people up to realize that maybe the said situation actually does need to be changed/shouldn't have been changed. But agreed, back on topic now.