And you think there;s a lot of this going on?
Why? What evidence is there?

rickyp wrote:And you think there;s a lot of this going on?
Why? What evidence is there?

I never claimed that, so please stop with the "when did you stop beating your wife?" garbage.

However, the fact that it could easily be done is not acceptable. There is no reason the possibility should exist.

rickyp wrote:And you think there;s a lot of this going on?
Why? What evidence is there?

What I think Steve is saying is the tactic of sending out post cards of the names of people and how they voted could facilitate voting fraud. I get a post card saying my neighbors Jim Smith, John Davis, Sam Jones and 7 others haven't voted in the last two presidential elections . What is to keep me from getting 10 people from another town to show up and say they are those people on and vote in those names. After all, We have their names and addresses with no need to show id.

Now you can ask what evidence of this is going on. My question to you is how would you prove that it is happening? Call every voter who did vote and ask....Did you vote this year?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:And you think there;s a lot of this going on?
Why? What evidence is there?

What I think Steve is saying is the tactic of sending out post cards of the names of people and how they voted could facilitate voting fraud. I get a post card saying my neighbors Jim Smith, John Davis, Sam Jones and 7 others haven't voted in the last two presidential elections . What is to keep me from getting 10 people from another town to show up and say they are those people on and vote in those names. After all, We have their names and addresses with no need to show id.

Now you can ask what evidence of this is going on. My question to you is how would you prove that it is happening? Call every voter who did vote and ask....Did you vote this year?

True, and very much implied by what I was saying.

I think the problem is potentially far worse. If this info is available, and I know it is (I had a candidate call me some years ago because he knew there were 4 "always" voters in the house), then what is to prevent wide-spread voter fraud of exactly the sort Russ describes?

Furthermore, I've read accounts where people are asked if they voted and they said "no," yet their "vote" was recorded.

The larger point is why should this loophole (more like a North Korean DMZ tunnel) exist?

Doctor Fate wrote:(I had a candidate call me some years ago because he knew there were 4 "always" voters in the house),

Here in PA we call them 4 of 4's or super voters. What we often do in local elections is get the list of 3 of 4's and 4 of 4's of Democrats and will focus on sending candidate lit to them.

Russell - why send to people who always vote Dem? Would you not concentrate on those who always vote but are unknowns, and then those who vote Republican but not always ahead of them?

dan

Russell - why send to people who always vote Dem? Would you not concentrate on those who always vote but are unknowns, and then those who vote Republican but not always ahead of them?

Turnout is always key in a close election.
So tehre is concentration on ensuring that voters who you know are likely to vote your way get out. Its easier to raise your previusly identified certain voters from 90% actually voting to to 95% then it is to raise identified uncertain voters from 75% to 80%
Plus the 5% increase of Certain voters is certain to deliver 98% in your favour. Whilst the 5% of uncertain is unlikely to return that kind of candidate preference..

Ricky, I understand that. But it doesn't explain why Republican election campaigns would be targetting people who always vote Democrat.

Sure, they'd want to get to those who always, or usually, or most in the household vote Republican, but the other side of the turnout coin is not wanting to encourage those who will vote another way to get to the polls.

unless, of course, the campaign material is negative and designed to put people off.

Besides, I asked Russell because he'll know the answer. I suspect you don't.

The Party does 3's & 4's of Republicans, Independents and Democrats. D's are included because the idea is they are going to show up anyway so might as well try and convince them to vote of the right way . After all, just because they are registered Democrat doesn't necessarily mean they will vote Democratic.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/10/10/286077/Roy-Exum-The-UAWs-New-Scab-List.aspx

Since this is voting, it should be secret, yes? Perhaps we can get some wide ranging disapproval of this tactic?

I do not condone the act of printing anyone's secret vote; and I call on others to voice their disdain as well.

An elected official's vote should be open record, but what happens in the voting booth should be private.

Not sure this is the appropriate thread for the story since it doesn't have anything to do with voting. I'm not entirely sure that 'scab list' is an accurate description either, since technically a scab is just a worker who chooses to cross the picket line and carry on working during a period of industrial action rather than somebody who simply doesn't join a union. I guess this is a rather semantic objection though.

It's not illegal for a union to publish a list of non-members so I'm not sure what can really be done about it. I'm not in the union at my work place and I wouldn't really give a damn if they published a similar list with my name on it (it would be a long list). That said, for all that the union is fairly militant, there really isn't any kind of social pressure to join so it wouldn't be an issue. On the whole I can't really condone this tactic, but so long as it doesn't result in any kind of intimidation of non-unionised workers then it's probably not a big deal.

Sassenach wrote:Not sure this is the appropriate thread for the story since it doesn't have anything to do with voting. I'm not entirely sure that 'scab list' is an accurate description either, since technically a scab is just a worker who chooses to cross the picket line and carry on working during a period of industrial action rather than somebody who simply doesn't join a union. I guess this is a rather semantic objection though.

It's not illegal for a union to publish a list of non-members so I'm not sure what can really be done about it. I'm not in the union at my work place and I wouldn't really give a damn if they published a similar list with my name on it (it would be a long list). That said, for all that the union is fairly militant, there really isn't any kind of social pressure to join so it wouldn't be an issue. On the whole I can't really condone this tactic, but so long as it doesn't result in any kind of intimidation of non-unionised workers then it's probably not a big deal.

There was voting for/against the union (on February 14th this year) and Union representatives make the votes of those who did not vote for that public. The term "scab list" came from the representatives themselves. Link to example:
http://uawlocal31.org/scab.html

I would recommend a lawsuit if someone or their family were to get hurt of financially affected.

bbauska wrote:http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/10/10/286077/Roy-Exum-The-UAWs-New-Scab-List.aspx

Since this is voting, it should be secret, yes? Perhaps we can get some wide ranging disapproval of this tactic?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps we don't all follow the same logical equivalences you do?

I do not condone the act of printing anyone's secret vote; and I call on others to voice their disdain as well.

An elected official's vote should be open record, but what happens in the voting booth should be private.

Except that, as has been pointed out, these are not 'votes'. They are membership or lack of. It is perfectly legal to publish names of members of your organisation, so why not non-members?

You can assume that non-members voted one way, and members voted another, but it is an assumption. In a country where party affiliation is not just legally public, but bound up in the voting system (while meaning a registered Dem/Rep/whatever can vote however they like in a General Election), it's not much different.

I agree that [b]if[/i] it can be proven there is a loss that someone might sue. Can we have the alternative that of someone can show they have been hampered by union membership in terms of how an employer treats them, that they can also sue?

I know it is legal. There is no doubt on that. I was wondering if you CONDONE an action like this. Do you condone the release of votes in a secret ballot?

Since there was no union in the factory that was voting, there were not members and non-members. I do not see where you are going with that.

In announcing the secret-ballot election, which will be held Feb. 12 through Feb. 14, Volkswagen said the U.A.W., if voted in, would work to set up a works council — a common industry practice in Germany in which managers work with representatives of white- and blue-collar workers to foster collaboration and increase productivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/business/volkswagen-workers-in-tennessee-to-vote-on-union-membership.html?_r=0

Just because an employer does not recognise a union, that does not mean there are not members there. I've been a member of a union for nearly 20 years, but only in a recognition agreement for the last 4 and a half.

And "where I am going" is reading the article you linked to. It concerns people who have stopped paying union dues. Those would be ex-members.

If you have evidence that the ballot was not secret, please present it. Otherwise stop comparing apples to combine harvesters.