I'm not against absentee ballots, but I am aware of the drawbacks and the potential for fraud. As you are determined not to explain how its 'different' for overseas military voters specifically, I'm not sure I want to play some game of guessing how it could be done for you to bring out some deus ex machina I would not know about to prove it is impossible.

I am not saying that the military are any more, or less, likely to commit fraud, or perhaps be the victims of it (as if someone uses another's vote, there is a victim). No postal system is foolproof, whether by professional deliverers or with informal distribution. As people in the military - particularly when overseas - may move around, their mail may not catch them up [which could explain non-votes as much as any Federal/State government action/inaction itself] and may be vulnerable. Who can say what would stop, for example, people being subject to peer-pressure to vote one way or the other.

Of course, maybe there's no evidence of fraud because no-one is looking. They have, however, been checking that the forms are filled in properly, and even then when such votes are rejected (as they should be regardless of whether sent by civilians or military) that has been lumped in above as 'suppression'.

by the way, I love how the States fail to comply with the law, but it's the Federal government's fault for not making them (as if they could turn back the clock and force them to retrospectively).

A lot of the evidence you cite by proxy is comparing 2008 (a Presidential election) to 2010 (midterms). What about the 2012 election - surely a better comparison with 2008?

danivon wrote:I'm not against absentee ballots, but I am aware of the drawbacks and the potential for fraud.

Actually, the potential for fraud is pretty minimal. There are, as i mentioned earlier, who move to Florida and retain their voting rights in NY, MA, etc. They then vote in person in Florida and by mail. It appears to be a problem:

Earlier this year, Pew Research found more than 2.75 million people nationwide are registered to vote in more than one state.

The problem is we know there's a problem. We know there's a hole in the system. What we don't know is how many are using it:

Chaotic voter registration rolls make it too easy to commit voter fraud. A February study by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States found one in eight voter registrations were inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicates. Nearly 2.8 million people were registered in two or more states, and perhaps 1.8 million registered voters are dead.

Critics of voter ID laws also fail to note they are designed not just to stop voter impersonation but also multiple voting, non-citizen voting, people voting in the wrong precinct, out-of-state voting and voting in the names of fictitious people.

Examples of fraud are plentiful. Three non-citizens were arrested in Iowa last month for voting illegally in the 2010 general election and 2011 city election. A Democratic nominee for Congress resigned in Maryland last month after allegations that she had voted in two states at the same time. A 2004 New York Daily News study found that 46,000 people were registered to vote in both New York City and Florida, and that 400 to 1,000 had voted in both states in the same election. Florida decided the 2000 presidential election by 537 votes.

However, there is zero evidence our troops overseas are committing voter fraud.

As you are determined not to explain how its 'different' for overseas military voters specifically, I'm not sure I want to play some game of guessing how it could be done for you to bring out some deus ex machina I would not know about to prove it is impossible.

Yet, you want me to explain how it's impossible. Funny that.

I will say that it would be nearly impossible. Each service person has his/her own ID# and mailbox. Mail is to servicemen overseas what the Qur'an is to a Muslim. To mess with anyone's mail could get you killed. Seriously.

If the guy/gal in charge of the mail saw absentee ballots for two States delivered to the same person, he/she could report that. Again, I think the problem is just one of logistics--how would they get registered in two States? That would be a neat piece of work.

You can postulate all you want. It is as near-impossible as anything you can imagine.

I am not saying that the military are any more, or less, likely to commit fraud, or perhaps be the victims of it (as if someone uses another's vote, there is a victim). No postal system is foolproof, whether by professional deliverers or with informal distribution.

True, but again, it underestimates the value the military put on mail. That cannot be overstated.

Of course, maybe there's no evidence of fraud because no-one is looking.

I'm going to quote that again. With feeling.

]Of course, maybe there's no evidence of fraud because no-one is looking

Thank you for explaining the whole argument for requiring ID.

Btw, polls show this is overwhelmingly popular. What stops it? Democrats.

They have, however, been checking that the forms are filled in properly, and even then when such votes are rejected (as they should be regardless of whether sent by civilians or military) that has been lumped in above as 'suppression'.

Because military mail is sometimes not as efficient as it should be. When you're voting from a forward outpost in Afghanistan some people think you deserve a bit more time than when you're voting absentee in the Starbucks in Atlanta.

by the way, I love how the States fail to comply with the law, but it's the Federal government's fault for not making them (as if they could turn back the clock and force them to retrospectively).

Because the DOJ is responsible for enforcing it. You know, the brilliant, integrity-filled, Eric Holder? The guy who lets real voter intimidation go unpunished and is pretty much indifferent about military voters? Yeah, him.

It's a Federal mandate--like so many others.

A lot of the evidence you cite by proxy is comparing 2008 (a Presidential election) to 2010 (midterms). What about the 2012 election - surely a better comparison with 2008?

Knock yourself out.

Look, this started with freeman3 whining about potential voter suppression. I supplied actual voter fraud cases and numbers. I then showed that some military votes were suppressed and asked what was an acceptable number. Now you want me to prove overseas voter fraud by military personnel is impossible.

Whatever.

Look, have everyone show an ID. I'm fine with that.

I asked for ONE case of voter fraud by an overseas serviceman. You said no one is checking. That's not actually true. However, the bigger question is who is checking Stateside?

No one.

The best way to check would be to look at ID. However, some people think that is discriminatory. Actually, they claim it is discriminatory. Everyone knows it's not. The list of things you have to provide ID for in the US is long and getting longer, but somehow it's onerous for only one aspect of life: voting.

Weird.

Doctor Fate wrote:However, there is zero evidence our troops overseas are committing voter fraud.

Right. I'll let Tom deal with this one:

GMTom wrote:and still more of the same, "we have no proof of fraud so it doesn't happen".
As I said earlier, we must not have any jay walking either, we have no proof of it in citations given so it must not happen.

If you do not enforce something, if you make it near impossible to detect fraud, then you will not see any "proof" will you?

One of you must be right?

Doctor Fate wrote:I asked for ONE case of voter fraud by an overseas serviceman. You said no one is checking. That's not actually true.

If you are refusing to explain how and who is checking, how am I supposed to know?

There is some checking for in-person voting (and as you know, fraud is detected as a result). Maybe not to the level you want, but still. Is it less, or more, than for absentee ballots (whoever they are for)?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, there is zero evidence our troops overseas are committing voter fraud.

Right. I'll let Tom deal with this one:

GMTom wrote:and still more of the same, "we have no proof of fraud so it doesn't happen".
As I said earlier, we must not have any jay walking either, we have no proof of it in citations given so it must not happen.

If you do not enforce something, if you make it near impossible to detect fraud, then you will not see any "proof" will you?

One of you must be right?

You're very good at missing the forest, aren't you?

I cited fraud in 46 of the 50 states. I've cited other specific instances. So, please, tell me Mr. Smartaleck, where is the ONE case of overseas military voting fraud?

Or, are you content to just be a jerk? You do it well, btw.

Doctor Fate wrote:I asked for ONE case of voter fraud by an overseas serviceman. You said no one is checking. That's not actually true.

If you are refusing to explain how and who is checking, how am I supposed to know?

There is some checking for in-person voting (and as you know, fraud is detected as a result). Maybe not to the level you want, but still. Is it less, or more, than for absentee ballots (whoever they are for)?

Not really. Asking for an address and a name is not checking. Anyone can look up someone's name and address. Furthermore, the Obama campaign demonstrated you can see who has not voted. Therefore, anyone with that info can commit fraud quite easily.

What part of this is hard for you to grasp?

Oh yeah. I forgot. You don't like reality.

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/dyf10paxrv/tabs_VRA_0726272013.pdf

Democrats support ID in order to vote 60-33.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:However, there is zero evidence our troops overseas are committing voter fraud.

Right. I'll let Tom deal with this one:

GMTom wrote:and still more of the same, "we have no proof of fraud so it doesn't happen".
As I said earlier, we must not have any jay walking either, we have no proof of it in citations given so it must not happen.

If you do not enforce something, if you make it near impossible to detect fraud, then you will not see any "proof" will you?

One of you must be right?

You're very good at missing the forest, aren't you?

I cited fraud in 46 of the 50 states. I've cited other specific instances. So, please, tell me Mr. Smartaleck, where is the ONE case of overseas military voting fraud?

Or, are you content to just be a jerk? You do it well, btw.

Thanks for the personal attacks. I was pointing out that our friend Tom has said that even with no proof of fraud that doesn't mean it can't happen. Just as there are potential problems with in-person voting, there are potential problems with absentee ballots.

There is some checking for in-person voting (and as you know, fraud is detected as a result). Maybe not to the level you want, but still. Is it less, or more, than for absentee ballots (whoever they are for)?

Not really. Asking for an address and a name is not checking. Anyone can look up someone's name and address. Furthermore, the Obama campaign demonstrated you can see who has not voted. Therefore, anyone with that info can commit fraud quite easily.

What part of this is hard for you to grasp?

Oh yeah. I forgot. You don't like reality.

So, what extra checking is done for military (or anyone else's) absentee ballots?

There is some, as you acknowledge, for in-person voting. But with absentee ballots there's what? You sign a declaration and someone witnesses it? Not exactly fool-proof.

danivon wrote:Thanks for the personal attacks.

You're welcome. You deserved them. I'm quite sure you're not as block-headed as you oft pretend to be.

I was pointing out that our friend Tom has said that even with no proof of fraud that doesn't mean it can't happen. Just as there are potential problems with in-person voting, there are potential problems with absentee ballots.

Right, and then "all" you've suggested is that I prove such fraud cannot happen involving troops overseas. There's no way to prove that. However, given the many obstacles--logistics, increased penalties, probable lack of two non-military addresses to claim to be absent from in different States, and I'm sure others--this seems an exceedingly remote possibility. That said, if absentee ballots are restricted for civilians, they can't be for service members overseas.

There is some checking for in-person voting (and as you know, fraud is detected as a result). Maybe not to the level you want, but still. Is it less, or more, than for absentee ballots (whoever they are for)?

Not really. Asking for an address and a name is not checking. Anyone can look up someone's name and address. Furthermore, the Obama campaign demonstrated you can see who has not voted. Therefore, anyone with that info can commit fraud quite easily.

What part of this is hard for you to grasp?

Oh yeah. I forgot. You don't like reality.

So, what extra checking is done for military (or anyone else's) absentee ballots?

I'm sure that varies State-to-State. I've no interest in researching all 50 States and reporting back.

However, I've established voter fraud exists. You've not established one case, not even one, wherein fraud was committed by a service member serving overseas. Surely if it's a problem it must have been caught one time?

There is some, as you acknowledge, for in-person voting. But with absentee ballots there's what? You sign a declaration and someone witnesses it? Not exactly fool-proof.

The funny thing is I would support a system that is fraud-proof, including absentee fraud. Democrats won't.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Thanks for the personal attacks.

You're welcome. You deserved them. I'm quite sure you're not as block-headed as you oft pretend to be.

Can't help yourself, I see.

I was pointing out that our friend Tom has said that even with no proof of fraud that doesn't mean it can't happen. Just as there are potential problems with in-person voting, there are potential problems with absentee ballots.

Right, and then "all" you've suggested is that I prove such fraud cannot happen involving troops overseas. There's no way to prove that. However, given the many obstacles--logistics, increased penalties, probable lack of two non-military addresses to claim to be absent from in different States, and I'm sure others--this seems an exceedingly remote possibility. That said, if absentee ballots are restricted for civilians, they can't be for service members overseas.

I have not suggested you prove that it can't happen - I asked you to explain why it was absurd to think it was even possible, which is similar, I guess, but not quite the same. Your assertion that there's no evidence of fraud in this situation does not pass the 'GMTom' test.

However, there is still the question - if we need to ensure that fraud is much less likely, and can be more adequately measured using ID for in-person voting, is there anything that can be done to ensure a better level of scrutiny on absentee ballots?

Penalties, by the way, are not necessarily a deterrent (and while the UCMJ is important, it cannot be assumed that everyone always abides by it.

I'm sure that varies State-to-State. I've no interest in researching all 50 States and reporting back.

However, I've established voter fraud exists. You've not established one case, not even one, wherein fraud was committed by a service member serving overseas. Surely if it's a problem it must have been caught one time?

By the 'GMTom test', that does not mean a lot. What is useful to know is what measures are in place.

It may not be the service member who commits the fraud - it may be that their vote is used fraudulently by someone else.

There is some, as you acknowledge, for in-person voting. But with absentee ballots there's what? You sign a declaration and someone witnesses it? Not exactly fool-proof.

The funny thing is I would support a system that is fraud-proof, including absentee fraud. Democrats won't.

Actually, ID is not fraud-proof. Fake ID is a thing.

danivon wrote:I have not suggested you prove that it can't happen - I asked you to explain why it was absurd to think it was even possible, which is similar, I guess, but not quite the same.

Hair-splitting on a level that can only be explained by DFDS.

Your assertion that there's no evidence of fraud in this situation does not pass the 'GMTom' test.

Not really. The main difference: it's quite simple to pretend to be someone else at a voting station when no ID is required. However, to pull off the same fraud via the post is more intricate. You might have to steal their mail or you could (as I've alluded to in several posts) be registered in more than one State. However, the military could (not sure if they do) pretty easily check that. In any event, it's much more difficult to pull off when in Afghanistan, etc.--and there is more of a chance of it being exposed because you have far less privacy.

However, there is still the question - if we need to ensure that fraud is much less likely, and can be more adequately measured using ID for in-person voting, is there anything that can be done to ensure a better level of scrutiny on absentee ballots?

Well, let's look at the numbers. If you want to reduce fraud (Is that the same as "ensure fraud is much less likely?" I guess I'll let you decide), what do you prioritize--that which is known and demonstrable or that for which not a single case has been put forth?

I know, I know, it's tough.

Penalties, by the way, are not necessarily a deterrent (and while the UCMJ is important, it cannot be assumed that everyone always abides by it.

Hmm, wow, that's weird. Thanks for the info. As someone who arrested people for violating the UCMJ, I probably know just a bit about it, but I can learn more, so do tell!

Penalties cannot stop fraud. There are means to do it--and I said:

Doctor Fate wrote:The funny thing is I would support a system that is fraud-proof, including absentee fraud. Democrats won't.

So, I'm fine with quashing it altogether. Democrats are not. They call it "suppression." In their minds, every fraudulent vote must count!

I'm sure that varies State-to-State. I've no interest in researching all 50 States and reporting back.

However, I've established voter fraud exists. You've not established one case, not even one, wherein fraud was committed by a service member serving overseas. Surely if it's a problem it must have been caught one time?

By the 'GMTom test', that does not mean a lot. What is useful to know is what measures are in place.

Let's see. So, I can demonstrate that people are killed by vehicles, but no one has been hit by a falling rocket lately. You say . . . "that does not mean a lot."

Okay.

One form of fraud is known. It is measurable. The overseas military voter fraud has NEVER been demonstrated. So, naturally, you want to freaking harp on about it incessantly. Brilliant.

It may not be the service member who commits the fraud - it may be that their vote is used fraudulently by someone else.

There are means to make sure this doesn't happen.

There is some, as you acknowledge, for in-person voting. But with absentee ballots there's what? You sign a declaration and someone witnesses it? Not exactly fool-proof.

The funny thing is I would support a system that is fraud-proof, including absentee fraud. Democrats won't.

Actually, ID is not fraud-proof. Fake ID is a thing.

You are really being a twit. There is no other word for it.

I didn't say "ID is fraud-proof." Then again, why would I expect you to actually read what I write or to think cogently.

Do you mean to tell me you cannot imagine a system under which fraud is far more difficult to pull off than it is now? (Hint: I DID NOT SAY ID WOULD STOP ALL FRAUD!!!!)

I can lay it all out for you--if your imagination is not large enough to think this through.

wow, once again using what suits you at the time. If you want to say fraud doesn't exist, you can't now claim it does happen in the military. What one is it?

And as far as the military overseas votes go, is fraud possible? Certainly.
But their chance of fraud is slimmer than in the states, requiring id stateside also can allow for fraud, the idea is to easily limit the fraud. In the military, the ballots are sent directly to servicemen posted on their bases, these ballots falling into the wrong hands is slim to none.

I would like to see steps taken to reduce fraud both stateside, overseas ballots and overseas military ballots. Right now, the least fraud is almost certainly on the side of the military but reducing fraud in the easiest way possible is the goal, right now, simple ID is both easy and while I don't care what others do ...it's what just about every other country does, I just don't see how anyone can object to standard operating procedure, something should be done and this is somewhat easy, somewhat inexpensive, very unobtrusive and fairly effective.

and this fake id nonsense...
no kidding fraud is always possible, but what we have now is simply showing up and telling someone where you live and signing a book. I pointed out how I signed my name differently several years in a row and they NEVER said a word. If you require someone to fake an ID, that would be more expensive than it would be worth.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/16/oreilly_give_all_voters_a_free_photo_id_forget_about_voter_suppression.html

Would this be acceptable? If the government issues picture ID to everyone (say on the SS card), does that meet the requirement needed for ID being asked for at the polls and government offices that Danivon and RickyP say are needing to be provided?

bbauska wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/16/oreilly_give_all_voters_a_free_photo_id_forget_about_voter_suppression.html

Would this be acceptable? If the government issues picture ID to everyone (say on the SS card), does that meet the requirement needed for ID being asked for at the polls and government offices that Danivon and RickyP say are needing to be provided?

I'm fine with it. However, the far right and the far left seem not to be.

bbauska wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/16/oreilly_give_all_voters_a_free_photo_id_forget_about_voter_suppression.html

Would this be acceptable? If the government issues picture ID to everyone (say on the SS card), does that meet the requirement needed for ID being asked for at the polls and government offices that Danivon and RickyP say are needing to be provided?

(I think you are a little off on what I say is 'needed')

I personally do not have a big problem with such ID. However, there are issues about what is done with it and the data behind it. For example, I think it's ok as a means of ID where you have no alternative, but I would be concerned of that led to 'ID checks' by the state for any other purposes. I would also be concerned about what identifying data was on the card or behind it, and how that data was secured, shared, accessed etc.

And of course, the flipside is that if it is going to be hard to forge, it will cost more, than if it is straightforward. Similarly, how would the ID card be distributed and correctly allocated, especially to people on the margins of society?

On face value, as I said, I have no problem with the principle, but the practice could raise concerns with me and others.

I don't see how this accomplishes the Republican goal of reducing turn-out..voter id laws we're based on the fraudulent premise that there was fraud in order to reduce turn-out among groups that voted Democratic. These laws were promoted by Republican leadership who knew there was no fraud but who wanted to decrease Democratic voters. Now, are there many Republican voters (like Brad) who are only concerned about fraud and don't want to reduce turn-out among Democratic voters? Sure. But the origin of these voter Id laws makes me suspicious of any solution. If it ain't broke, why fix it.

freeman3 wrote:I don't see how this accomplishes the Republican goal of reducing turn-out..voter id laws we're based on the fraudulent premise that there was fraud in order to reduce turn-out among groups that voted Democratic. These laws were promoted by Republican leadership who knew there was no fraud but who wanted to decrease Democratic voters. Now, are there many Republican voters (like Brad) who are only concerned about fraud and don't want to reduce turn-out among Democratic voters? Sure. But the origin of these voter Id laws makes me suspicious of any solution. If it ain't broke, why fix it.

We must disagree on the extent of broken-ness.