Apparently, I am a "Challenged" Ballot Voter

[akh]

Well,

 

It does seem that the entire issue stemmed from the initial registration at the DMV that had the incorrect address, which I was told by the DMV employee would also be corrected. I blame myself for not following through, but not for the problem. I still do not have any understanding as to exactly why my citizenship was in question. They are not really giving me any answers other than the address issue and that this is the first time I voted in this county. This process requires a human hand, its not just automated. Sadly, I am left with the conclusion that my name may have played into the issue. I asked them if they had quotas, or were directed to spread the "Challenged Ballot" across demographics so as to eliminate suggestion of bias. Its not like ethnicity (W) is unknown to the Board of Registrations and Elections. The women I spoke with said that she was "unaware of quotas", which is akin to I don't know, or maybe, or yes.

 

My suspicion is that the discrepancy of address was flagged (they had my address as a house two down from where I live), they noted the first time voter, looked at my very foreign name, and upon review, they put the challenge through as a question of nationality. The letter I have specifically states that "you indicated that you are a citizen, but the information on your Driver Services record does not match". The only thing that did not match was the address, period. The rest of any evaluation was done by a person or persons. Which leaves my name, as the only indication of distinction.

 

In my opinion, that is discrimination. I bet I wouldn't have had an issue in Glendale, CA

[JohnB]

Got it. The figures are right and America has the bestest and truest system in the world.

 

Americans will kill, rape and pillage at the same rates as the rest of the world but won't cheat at election time. This is because cheating in an election is just so much more wrong than murder, rape and importing illegal drugs from South America.

 

The wider point that you avoided is that the stats for fraud are so far out of line compared to other crime stats that there must be a problem. Other crimes have similar rates across the developed world, why is this one different?

 

Please divulge the secret Oh Great Ones as to why the American populace are just likely to kill, steal or rape (per 100,000 population and within a few percentage points) but are orders of magnitude less likely to cheat on a vote. The data diverges and this makes me suspect the data, if you don't agree then what is the reason for the divergence?

 

It's that simple.

[akh]

Got it. The figures are right and America has the bestest and truest system in the world.

 

Americans will kill, rape and pillage at the same rates as the rest of the world but won't cheat at election time. This is because cheating in an election is just so much more wrong than murder, rape and importing illegal drugs from South America.

 

The wider point that you avoided is that the stats for fraud are so far out of line compared to other crime stats that there must be a problem. Other crimes have similar rates across the developed world, why is this one different?

 

Please divulge the secret Oh Great Ones as to why the American populace are just likely to kill, steal or rape (per 100,000 population and within a few percentage points) but are orders of magnitude less likely to cheat on a vote. The data diverges and this makes me suspect the data, if you don't agree then what is the reason for the divergence?

 

It's that simple.

 

Nice, lovely stuff.

 

Numbers and citations please. You still have no proof of actual voter fraud in the US which is greater than published numbers. You still are making generalizations and correlations with nothing to back them up. Quite honestly, its the same disposition the Teabaggers in this country posed and this position has been found to be utterly false. I don't equate kill, rape, pillage (Do individuals really pillage? I thought that took collective action, like a group of 20 or more.) with voter fraud. Voter fraud requires an intentional, planned thought process. High risk, high penalty (up to $5000 fine and five years in prison) for essentially no personal return. So yes, it may not follow the same pattern as any other crime trend, in this country and in this culture. The ones most commonly accused of voter fraud are poll officials themselves, not the voter. No change in ID law will address that issue.

Edited November 8, 2012 by akh

[iNow]

Got it. The figures are right and America has the bestest and truest system in the world.

This seems quite tangential to the actual point most of us are here making.

[JohnB]

And quite misses the point I'm making.

 

High risk, high penalty (up to $5000 fine and five years in prison) for essentially no personal return.

 

akh, people do things for "the cause", and they do terrible things. It wasn't that long ago that white hoods and burning crosses were seen in the US, are you suggesting that a population containing people who would lynch a n***** wouldn't do voter fraud?

 

The point is that it is out of step by such a margin that a really good explanation is needed. Using the UNDOC figures, (scroll down for the by nation/per 100,000) you find Australia for homicides is 1 and America is 4.2. On a purely statistical basis I am 4 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than here.

 

akh, if you really want the stats, then go here. (I hope the link works)

 

The point is that America scores middling to high on every single major crime when compared to the ROW yet you claim it scores orders of magnitude lower than the ROW on voter fraud. You can't provide a sensible reason for this beyond some vague hand waving about penalties.

 

On any sane planet there would be only two options, either the figures are real and there is a good and logical reason for them or the figures are suspect. I'm suggesting that you have a serious under reporting problem going on.

 

But the rest of us poor plebs would really like to know the secret. Why will Americans murder, rape and rob far more often per 100,000 population than most of the developed world but are supposed to be 100s of times less likely to commit voter fraud?

 

The closest analogy I can think of would be for the Governors of the various States to have a meeting to compare crime figures and they all roughly match until we get to car theft and while 49 States report 100 thefts per 100,000 cars Arizona reports 1 per 100,000. Wouldn't it be reasonable to either question the figures or ask what the reason for the discrepancy is?

 

And the reason I keep saying "roughly" similar is that while the US murder rates is 4 times ours, the practical difference is nothing. 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 25,000, neither are worth worrying over.

 

Edit: I forgot the link to the UNDOC figures.

Edited November 13, 2012 by JohnB

[Ringer]

And quite misses the point I'm making.

 

 

 

akh, people do things for "the cause", and they do terrible things. It wasn't that long ago that white hoods and burning crosses were seen in the US, are you suggesting that a population containing people who would lynch a n***** wouldn't do voter fraud?

 

The point is that it is out of step by such a margin that a really good explanation is needed. Using the UNDOC figures, (scroll down for the by nation/per 100,000) you find Australia for homicides is 1 and America is 4.2. On a purely statistical basis I am 4 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than here.

 

akh, if you really want the stats, then go here. (I hope the link works)

 

The point is that America scores middling to high on every single major crime when compared to the ROW yet you claim it scores orders of magnitude lower than the ROW on voter fraud. You can't provide a sensible reason for this beyond some vague hand waving about penalties.

 

On any sane planet there would be only two options, either the figures are real and there is a good and logical reason for them or the figures are suspect. I'm suggesting that you have a serious under reporting problem going on.

 

But the rest of us poor plebs would really like to know the secret. Why will Americans murder, rape and rob far more often per 100,000 population than most of the developed world but are supposed to be 100s of times less likely to commit voter fraud?

 

The closest analogy I can think of would be for the Governors of the various States to have a meeting to compare crime figures and they all roughly match until we get to car theft and while 49 States report 100 thefts per 100,000 cars Arizona reports 1 per 100,000. Wouldn't it be reasonable to either question the figures or ask what the reason for the discrepancy is?

 

And the reason I keep saying "roughly" similar is that while the US murder rates is 4 times ours, the practical difference is nothing. 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 25,000, neither are worth worrying over.

 

Edit: I forgot the link to the UNDOC figures.

 

Well, considering those crimes are completely different I would not only say that it's not a valid comparison, but completely irrelevant. For one, those crimes tend to be heat of the moment and not well planned out. Since voter fraud takes a lot of planning ahead and time, I would say with utmost confidence that yes they happen at a much smaller scale.

 

Also, if you want to compare crime rates do it for the actual crime. Otherwise it's completely meaningless.

 

 

 

[JohnB]

Well, considering those crimes are completely different I would not only say that it's not a valid comparison, but completely irrelevant. For one, those crimes tend to be heat of the moment and not well planned out. Since voter fraud takes a lot of planning ahead and time, I would say with utmost confidence that yes they happen at a much smaller scale.

 

Also, if you want to compare crime rates do it for the actual crime. Otherwise it's completely meaningless.

 

And again the main question is sidestepped.

 

Ringer, even if what you say is true then it would apply to all or most developed nations and so the rate for electoral fraud would be similar in all nations. The point here is that it is not. The question is "Why?". Either there is a reason or the figures are suspect. People keep saying the figures must be right, but cannot supply any sort of logical reason in explanation.

 

This isn't about whether electoral fraud is less common in the US compaered to murder, nor is it about comparing apples to oranges. It is comparing the rates for various crimes across international boundaries. The murder rates across boundaries are similar, as are the rates for rape and robbery. You are about as likely to be the victim of a crime in the USA as in any other developed nation. Yet supposedly when we compare the electoral fraud figures Americans are hundreds of times less likely to commit this crime. Really? Why? Other nations have laws against it and fines and imprisonment for committing the crime, so what makes the USA special for this one crime only? It takes just as much forward planning to commit electoral fraud in Australia, some would say more since we have an independent body looking after elections.

 

I'll try putting it another way since it appears that people are constantly missing my point.

 

While I tend to dislike two value logic it does work in this case. The figures are either right or wrong. Given that american rates for all other crimes are roughly in step with the rest of the planet then the expectation would be that rates of electoral fraud would follow the same pattern and also be in step with the rest of the planet. This is not the case. So we have a choice, either the figures are right and therefore America is somehow different and special in that they will commit all forms of crime at the same rate as everyone else on the planet except electoral fraud and there is a good and sufficient reason for this discrepancy. Or the figures are wrong.

 

So far nobody has even come close to providing a decent reason for the discrepancy. All the "reasons" given either apply to virtually all developed nations or apply to many crimes. I'm willing to bet that a drug cartel does way more forward organising and planning to get their stuff in from Columbia than a political party would need to do to fake some votes.

[iNow]

And again the main question is sidestepped.

 

Ringer, even if what you say is true then it would apply to all or most developed nations and so the rate for electoral fraud would be similar in all nations. The point here is that it is not. The question is "Why?". Either there is a reason or the figures are suspect. People keep saying the figures must be right, but

Whom here exactly do you think is presenting that argument?

[JohnB]

Are you freaking mentally deficient?

 

Seriously? I've been arguing that there must be something suspect in the figures for a number of posts and every responder has disagreed with me. How can you in the name of freaking sanity ask that question?

 

If you don't think the bloody figures for the USA are correct, then why in the name of Thor are you arguing?

 

Jesus wept.

[Essay]

And again the main question is sidestepped.

I'll try putting it another way since it appears that people are constantly missing my point.

 

The figures are either right or wrong. Given that american rates for all other crimes are roughly in step with the rest of the planet then the expectation would be that rates of electoral fraud would follow the same pattern and also be in step with the rest of the planet. This is not the case.

...could you provide citations showing that this is not the case?

 

 

(Phys.org)—A team of Austrian researchers has applied a new statistical method in looking at elections in various countries and the ways that some of them might be influenced by fraud, and have found, as they describe in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that two recent elections stood out as likely suspect, one in Uganda and one in Russia. Traditionally, to detect voter fraud, statisticians have looked at voting patterns that appear to adhere to a certain constant (ten, hundred, etc) indicating that whole blocks of votes were cast for a certain candidate. The downside to such a method is that the best it can offer is an indication that there might have been some irregularities in an election, but nothing definitive, which is far too little to go on to spout claims of fraud. To get around that problem the new team instead focused on areas of regional voting. The idea is that if a certain small region has a very high voter turnout and virtually all of the votes from that area are for just one candidate, it's probably due to some serious ballet stuffing (and likely destruction of votes for the other party) which of course tends to skew the results. If a sufficient number of regions are able to show such numbers, it becomes possible to alter the outcome of the election, and that is what the researchers found when looking at the elections held in Uganda last year and in Russia earlier this year. Read more here.... http://scinewsblog.b...d-by-using.html

 

The evidence against significant election fraud in the US is ample. If the argument is that the US is not exceptional--and so must experience rates of fraud similar to the rest of the world--then there should be citations about voter fraud in Australia, or other OECD countries, or anywhere outside of the US, istm, if the suggestion is that the rest of the world has high rates of voter fraud.

~

[Ringer]

And again the main question is sidestepped.

 

Ringer, even if what you say is true then it would apply to all or most developed nations and so the rate for electoral fraud would be similar in all nations. The point here is that it is not. The question is "Why?". Either there is a reason or the figures are suspect. People keep saying the figures must be right, but cannot supply any sort of logical reason in explanation.

 

This isn't about whether electoral fraud is less common in the US compaered to murder, nor is it about comparing apples to oranges. It is comparing the rates for various crimes across international boundaries. The murder rates across boundaries are similar, as are the rates for rape and robbery. You are about as likely to be the victim of a crime in the USA as in any other developed nation. Yet supposedly when we compare the electoral fraud figures Americans are hundreds of times less likely to commit this crime. Really? Why? Other nations have laws against it and fines and imprisonment for committing the crime, so what makes the USA special for this one crime only? It takes just as much forward planning to commit electoral fraud in Australia, some would say more since we have an independent body looking after elections.

 

 

I made no other argument than your analogy was lacking because violent crimes and well planned out crimes tend to happen at very different rates. What, exactly, are the rates for electoral fraud in other developed nations with well established democracies? I can't find them on a cursory search, but since you are making this argument I assume you have supplied/will supply them if you have them to make statements from. If it's already posted I must have missed it. Not to mention the laws that people are discussing do nothing to stop the kinds of fraud that happen on the large scale, which is the registration of non-eligible voters. If you're registered you would be able to get an ID that would be passable. Even if ID laws went into effect it would do next to nothing because fake IDs are not that difficult to find or make.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Are you freaking mentally deficient?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

These sorts of comments aren't really appropriate for the forum. Keep the insults out of it in future.

[iNow]

Are you freaking mentally deficient?

In many ways, yes. We all are, and it's something I try to address each day of my life in an attempt to make myself a better man with quality mentation.

 

 

Seriously? I've been arguing that there must be something suspect in the figures for a number of posts and every responder has disagreed with me. How can you in the name of freaking sanity ask that question?

 

If you don't think the bloody figures for the USA are correct, then why in the name of Thor are you arguing?

 

 

I think I've been pretty clear. Focusing on whether the reported rates of voter fraud in the US are flawed or not is a red herring from the actual point being discussed in this thread.

 

The reports in the US show about 80 cases per election, give or take 30 (let's say). Even if that's wrong, and even if the US is more like other nations that experience 380 or even 780 cases of fraud in each election, it's a total distraction from the actual issue, which as I stated quite clearly and succinctly is:

 

The larger issue is that the cure seems worse than the disease. We can let the 80 or so real frauds happen, or we can implement a policy that disenfranchises 800,000. You do the comparison. The math is not hard.

Replace my number of 80 with 380 or 780 or even 7,800... The math is still not hard, and the cure remains worse than the disease.

 

Folks aren't necessarily arguing with you that the numbers may be under-representative, John. They're saying your point is both insignificant and irrelevant by several orders of magnitude when viewed in context.

 

Now, my original point did have an issue. We don't have to "let" the 80 or so actual frauds happen. We can implement smart changes to reduce those. The changes being implemented, however, seem not to be terribly smart and seem more focused on keeping "undesirables" from voting than from addressing the challenges of fraud.

[ecoli]

Caucasian by all accounts, but not lily white. Middle and last name are Armenian.

How ironic. Since the Caucasus mountains actually go through Armenia you likely actually are Caucasian, even though the majority of people from white europeans are not.

 

Two other voters that appeared at the provisional desk before I left were black and asian... no joke. Asian guy was super mad, but I didn't listen in on his issue because i did not feel it was my business. Huge voting issues in the neighboring county. Multiple voters who had registered did not show up in the rolls.

Not surprised and these blips happen all the time so I'm hesitant to accuse any side of conspiratorial foul play. However, I'm glad in NY id is not required to vote after the first time. I mean honestly what the worst that happens... a couple of illegal immigrants get to have input on representation? Really this is a non-existent problem.

[iNow]

See, I'd actually support voter ID laws on the condition that they find ways to ensure they are made available to the elderly, to those who are not very mobile, to those who don't drive, and anyone else that may struggle to get to a government office to obtain one.

 

Also, I'd support them on the condition that the calls to ensure everyone have one (to make it a requirement) take place outside of the election cycle, and not just 2 or 3 months before people are scheduled to cast their vote.

 

Do it now. Immediately after an election. Not immediately before. Take steps to ensure it's easy for everyone to have one, and take steps to ensure everyone does get one even if they're not aware or not mobile. I can get behind that. Even Mexico has a solid voter ID program...

[ParanoiA]

See, I'd actually support voter ID laws on the condition that they find ways to ensure they are made available to the elderly, to those who are not very mobile, to those who don't drive, and anyone else that may struggle to get to a government office to obtain one.

 

Also, I'd support them on the condition that the calls to ensure everyone have one (to make it a requirement) take place outside of the election cycle, and not just 2 or 3 months before people are scheduled to cast their vote.

 

Do it now. Immediately after an election. Not immediately before. Take steps to ensure it's easy for everyone to have one, and take steps to ensure everyone does get one even if they're not aware or not mobile. I can get behind that. Even Mexico has a solid voter ID program...

 

Oklahoma's voter ID law apparently allows the voter ID card to be the ID. It is mailed out to everyone, for free. Still, messing with voter laws just doesn't sit well with me.

 

I've always rejected the "impact everybody" solution models we use for things. If some element is slipping through some proverbial crack, then we usually dream up an impact everybody solution that requires 100% of the participants to add a new step, like providing an ID, or what not. I prefer something a bit more creative than flow chart solutions that impact the entire membership. I can't believe we can't investigate - successfully - voter fraud without screwing with voter laws and requiring new steps for voters.

[John Cuthber]

I think I may have made this point before.

I'm unfamiliar with the system by which the US pays out state benefits to those who need them ( the unemployed, elderly, sick and so on).

However I presume that they need to present some form of ID in order to claim.

I suggest that that ID is good enough to be used as voter ID.

It would save a lot of money because many people already have this sort of ID and wouldn't need another ID card.

 

I wonder what the Republicans would think about that

[ParanoiA]

I think I may have made this point before.

I'm unfamiliar with the system by which the US pays out state benefits to those who need them ( the unemployed, elderly, sick and so on).

However I presume that they need to present some form of ID in order to claim.

I suggest that that ID is good enough to be used as voter ID.

It would save a lot of money because many people already have this sort of ID and wouldn't need another ID card.

 

I wonder what the Republicans would think about that

 

They would need to present ID for the initial claim with the government. Then they would need ID to cash any checks they may have received.

 

And the republicans would love it, because it is the ID they are looking for - driver's license, or state issued ID.

 

The problem is, as cheap as that ID is, it still requires enfranchisement. You are going to need a birth certificate, maybe some other documents I don't know. And then you are going to need money and transportation. And then you have buy it again every two years when it "expires" (I've never understood how my age, height, weight, and all that suddenly "expires", this is just a government screw with fees, they love that shit here in the US).

Edited November 14, 2012 by ParanoiA

[akh]

How ironic. Since the Caucasus mountains actually go through Armenia you likely actually are Caucasian, even though the majority of people from white europeans are not.

 

 

Yes, most people do not realize this. Which is why I said I am Caucasian by any measure (I was hinting at that irony, nice catch!). It gives me a good chuckle to know that terms Caucasian (Caucasoid) and Aryan actual refer to darker skinned peoples in an area widely regarded as Middle Eastern, not white Europeans as many assume or want to believe. But that is a different subject entirely.

 

I am not opposed to voter ID laws per se. I am very opposed to the way that they were pushed through as a an emergency measure by the right to suppress votes. They can deny it all they want, but its pretty obvious. Honestly, I never would have dreamt that I would get caught in the bs net. Remember, I did have a valid drivers license after all! So the ID wasn't enough, and a voter ID would not have changed anything at the polls. I still had to prove that I was a citizen of the country I was born and raised in. Honestly, I would have thought that the people on the political right would be more enraged by this than the liberals. Aren't they the ones always railing against the government's intrusion into the rights of the civilian?

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Honestly, I would have thought that the people on the political right would be more enraged by this than the liberals. Aren't they the ones always railing against the government's intrusion into the rights of the civilian?

This sounds like big corporate influence. The same influence that preaches leaving the free market free of regulation and restraints, but also supports subsidies, no-bid contracts and special interest legislation designed to give advantage to one company over the other. Big corporate stood to save a lot of money if Romney got elected, which means favoring all the underhanded yet legal tactics that kept Democrats from the voting machines.