Trump campaign chief is registered to vote in Florida at unoccupied home

[agent00f]

These discussions aren't going to change anything. You guys in blue states will continue to not bother verifying identity in any way because you think "it's not a problem" and think the more votes the better no matter what. Red states are going to continue to impose voter identification laws and they'll likely converge on the Indiana law that's already been reviewed/approved by SCOTUS. The two sides will continue thinking the other is acting completely in bad faith and for completely selfish reasons.

The difference is one side is disenfranchising voters far more than possible cases of fraud, but I suppose by conservative standards that's fair and balanced.

 

[Jhhnn]

These discussions aren't going to change anything. You guys in blue states will continue to not bother verifying identity in any way because you think "it's not a problem" and think the more votes the better no matter what. Red states are going to continue to impose voter identification laws and they'll likely converge on the Indiana law that's already been reviewed/approved by SCOTUS. The two sides will continue thinking the other is acting completely in bad faith and for completely selfish reasons.

Texas, N Carolina & Wisconsin had that very opportunity. That's not what they did, is it?

It's not that identity shouldn't be verified in any way when people register to vote or to vote. It's that you fail to demonstrate any problem at all with in person voter fraud as justification for onerous requirements.

Here's how it works in my state & we don't seem to have any real issues at all-

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html

 

[fskimospy]

These discussions aren't going to change anything. You guys in blue states will continue to not bother verifying identity in any way because you think "it's not a problem" and think the more votes the better no matter what. Red states are going to continue to impose voter identification laws and they'll likely converge on the Indiana law that's already been reviewed/approved by SCOTUS. The two sides will continue thinking the other is acting completely in bad faith and for completely selfish reasons.

That seems pretty likely, but let's be clear here: one side is backed by evidence and the other is not. In addition, one side has an idea that people are against voter ID because it helps them electorally and the other side has public statements of elected officials to that effect.

While it's unfortunate that some people will continue to pursue irrational laws in the face of contrary evidence the best the rest of us can do is support the rational people that do exist.

 

[glenn1]

Texas, N Carolina & Wisconsin had that very opportunity. That's not what they did, is it?

It's not that identity shouldn't be verified in any way when people register to vote or to vote. It's that you fail to demonstrate any problem at all with in person voter fraud as justification for onerous requirements.

Here's how it works in my state & we don't seem to have any real issues at all-

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html

You have what's called "non-strict identification" then. While photo ID is obviously more robust (although creating issues for some if they're not provided free as I've proposed) but pretty much anything is better than what fskimsospy and his ilk desire which is absolutely no checks of identity whatsoever. He literally does not care if you just looked up someone's name in the phone book and went to vote as them and opposes even the mere suggestion that someone should be asked to validate their identity. In this very thread he's even opposed means of doing so that could not possibly disenfranchise anyone such as requiring an affidavit to affirm your identity in cases where someone had no identification (even a utility bill which is trivially easy to pilfer from someone's mailbox) is something that he opposes.

Oddly enough folks like him LOVE to cite the example of Europe when it comes to things like government paid healthcare, but completely and utterly ignore the fact that the United States is an outlier in terms of being so extraordinarily permissive in allowing people to vote without any attempt to validate their identity whatsoever. Evidently those dastardly Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise the citizens of Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, and others with their strict photo ID requirements and government provided ID.

http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/3.2_8_Schaffer.pdf

 

[DrPizza]

He literally does not care if you just looked up someone's name in the phone book and went to vote as them

If that happened, then it would stick out like a sore thumb when people went to vote and someone had already voted in their name. There. Debunked with common sense. Why do you keep repeating it?

 

[Paratus]

You have what's called "non-strict identification" then. While photo ID is obviously more robust (although creating issues for some if they're not provided free as I've proposed) but pretty much anything is better than what fskimsospy and his ilk desire which is absolutely no checks of identity whatsoever. He literally does not care if you just looked up someone's name in the phone book and went to vote as them and opposes even the mere suggestion that someone should be asked to validate their identity. In this very thread he's even opposed means of doing so that could not possibly disenfranchise anyone such as requiring an affidavit to affirm your identity in cases where someone had no identification (even a utility bill which is trivially easy to pilfer from someone's mailbox) is something that he opposes.

Oddly enough folks like him LOVE to cite the example of Europe when it comes to things like government paid healthcare, but completely and utterly ignore the fact that the United States is an outlier in terms of being so extraordinarily permissive in allowing people to vote without any attempt to validate their identity whatsoever. Evidently those dastardly Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise the citizens of Spain, France, Belgium, Italy, and others with their strict photo ID requirements and government provided ID.

http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/3.2_8_Schaffer.pdf

Wow. Democrats don't want people to ID themselves to vote? What an utter load of bullshit. The sad thing is I think you're deluded enough to actually believe that.

 

[werepossum]

Florida does require two forms of ID, and one must be photo. (usually your drivers license, or you can get an ID Card at the DMV) I even have a voting ID card, but I've registered for early voting through the mail, so I usually vote before election day and check validation online. If you do not have a photo ID you can still use a provisional ballot...

http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/for-voters/voting/election-day-voting/

What Bannon is doing does sound pretty shady, if he is not truly a resident and is registered elsewhere.

If he is not voting elsewhere, I'd put it on the side of barely legal. The polling system itself was the problem with Florida in the past, chads etc, not registration.

Yeah, if he's registered to vote elsewhere and did so, I would think that would be hammer time.

Voting may be the least of his problems. Breitbart is headquartered in California. California has a sizable income tax. Florida has no income tax. Occam's Razor suggests tax fraud, and while Dems are committed to the notion that voter fraud doesn't exist, they are very much in favor of prosecuting tax fraud.

 

[glenn1]

Wow. Democrats don't want people to ID themselves to vote? What an utter load of bullshit. The sad thing is I think you're deluded enough to actually believe that.

See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.

 

[gorobei]

See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.

hate to break it to you but CA voting doesnt work the way you seem to think. i've been voting in CA for the better part of 3 decades.
registered voters are required to vote in specific locations, so there is no double voting in different precincts.
your name has to be on the voting register and you have to show id before they give you a ballot or let you near a machine/booth. accepted id's are in many forms picture and otherwise.
any irregularities means you are given a provisional ballot. you vote and your eligibility is verified later and then added to the vote count.
the machines used even give you a receipt printout.
it isnt just walk in give a name and you get to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.

Of course I don't think we shouldn't verify identify at all, where did you get this silly idea? I said photo ID was stupid and a waste of time. I've lost track of how many ridiculous arguments you've made in this thread. You're losing it, guy.

And if you think California doesn't require any identification of a voter that just shows you've never voted in California. I have.

 

[glenn1]

Of course I don't think we shouldn't verify identify at all, where did you get this silly idea? I said photo ID was stupid and a waste of time. I've lost track of how many ridiculous arguments you've made in this thread. You're losing it, guy.

And if you think California doesn't require any identification of a voter that just shows you've never voted in California. I have.

I have also. And I already linked the rules directly, why are you arguing against the literal foremost authority on the subject who says you are wrong? Stop making stuff up because it weakens your position that you very intentionally want no controls at all. If you do agree that verifying voter identity is something we should do then state so directly and without throwing out distractions like "unicorn patrol!" and such. It's not hard, I have said that you would refuse any voter identification at all, here's your chance to deny this directly and state what means of doing so are acceptable to you.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/where-and-how-vote/#id

Will I need to bring identification?
In most cases, California voters are not required to show identification at their polling place.

 

[fskimospy]

I have also. And I already linked the rules directly, why are you arguing against the literal foremost authority on the subject who says you are wrong? Stop making stuff up because it weakens your position that you very intentionally want no controls at all. If you do agree that verifying voter identity is something we should do then state so directly and without throwing out distractions like "unicorn patrol!" and such. It's not hard, I have said that you would refuse any voter identification at all, here's your chance to deny this directly and state what means of doing so are acceptable to you.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/where-and-how-vote/#id

Stop selectively quoting things because you've become emotionally invested in this nonsense. Verifying your identity is a requirement in California to both register and when initially voting.

If you believe I have ever argued that we should not verify voter identity in any way then quote the post that I said it in. If not, then apologize for repeatedly lying about my position. I won't post on this again until I get a quoted post or an apology, just so you know.

You seem upset that I keep pointing out how irrational your position is. It's not my fault that a unicorn patrol is approximately as useful as the thing you want to spend millions of dollars on, it's your fault. I'm just glad that I can pull this nonsense out every time you ever complain about government waste in the future as you just proved you're perfectly fine with it.

 

[glenn1]

Here's another source that confirms what I have already stated and confirming that fskimospy is wrong and he knows it. Plus it's from a progressive source so you know it's not just Republican propaganda.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/1...he-sdfp-quick-and-easy-guide-to-election-day/

Do I need a California State ID to Vote?

• If you have voted before and your name is on the roster of voters, no. (Ed. note: You will be asked your name and address; the poll worker will repeat each back to you. Then you sign the roster of voters list. That’s it.)
• If this is your first time voting and you are registered by mail without giving your California driver’s license or state identification number or the last four digits of your social security number, then you may need to show photo identification (e. g. valid driver’s license or state ID) or a paycheck, utility bill, or government document that shows your name and address.
• To be safe, take a photo ID with you to the polls.
• Update: If the poll workers check the roster and cannot locate your name they will assist you to try to find your correct polling location. If you believe you are registered to vote and want to vote at the polling location where you are, you are entitled to a provisional ballot. You do not have to show any ID in order to vote provisionally. (Source)

 

[gorobei]

I have also. And I already linked the rules directly, why are you arguing against the literal foremost authority on the subject who says you are wrong? Stop making stuff up because it weakens your position that you very intentionally want no controls at all. If you do agree that verifying voter identity is something we should do then state so directly and without throwing out distractions like "unicorn patrol!" and such. It's not hard, I have said that you would refuse any voter identification at all, here's your chance to deny this directly and state what means of doing so are acceptable to you.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/where-and-how-vote/#id

quote the whole paragraph, not a snippet that doesnt contain full context

Will I need to bring identification?
In most cases, California voters are not required to show identification at their polling place. However, it is a good idea to bring identification with you when you vote for the first time. A poll worker may ask to see your identification if you mailed your voter registration application and did not include your driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number.

A copy of a recent utility bill, the sample ballot booklet you received from your county elections office, or another document sent to you by a government agency are examples of acceptable forms of identification. Other examples include your passport, driver license, official California identification card, or student identification card.

the clear implication is that part of your voting registration requires identification that will be used to confirm identity at the precinct. if you haven't provided that info so they can verify, then you either dont get to vote or you get provisional.
if you are in some small backwater where everyone knows each other or you have a long history of voting(as demonstrated by mailed ballot booklets) then they might skip the verification. but in no case are you being given carte blanch to just walk in and vote unchallenged.

 

[glenn1]

Stop selectively quoting things because you've become emotionally invested in this nonsense. Verifying your identity is a requirement in California to both register and when initially voting.

If you believe I have ever argued that we should not verify voter identity in any way then quote the post that I said it in. If not, then apologize for repeatedly lying about my position. I won't post on this again until I get a quoted post or an apology, just so you know.

You seem upset that I keep pointing out how irrational your position is. It's not my fault that a unicorn patrol is approximately as useful as the thing you want to spend millions of dollars on, it's your fault. I'm just glad that I can pull this nonsense out every time you ever complain about government waste in the future as you just proved you're perfectly fine with it.

Okay so you think that verifying identity once ever is sufficient. Any more than once however is racist and disenfranchising. That's soooooooooooooooooo much better.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay so you think that verifying identity once ever is sufficient. Any more than once however is racist and disenfranchising. That's soooooooooooooooooo much better.

While this is at least a small admission of error on your part it's combined with more baseless bullshit. You're going to have to do much better.

This is also a sad attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

 

[glenn1]

While this is at least a small admission of error on your part it's combined with more baseless bullshit. You're going to have to do much better.

This is also a sad attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

It's not an admission of error, it's me codifying your position. You think that because a voter identified themselves with a water bill 50 years ago, that it's racist and disenfranchising to ask them to verify their identity in any subsequent election for the rest of time. Because asking someone to show a utility bill or swear an affidavit every four years to verify they're who they say they are, that's racist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Voting may be the least of his problems. Breitbart is headquartered in California. California has a sizable income tax. Florida has no income tax. Occam's Razor suggests tax fraud, and while Dems are committed to the notion that voter fraud doesn't exist, they are very much in favor of prosecuting tax fraud.

Again with the false attribution, huh? It's obviously necessary to the argument. Dems contend that voter impersonation is extremely rare & have the research & data to back it up-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

OTOH, it seems logical that if strict voter ID advocates had the data to back up their suspicions that they'd publish it. Which hasn't happened, of course, so they invoke the bigfoot principle instead.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not an admission of error, it's me codifying your position. You think that because a voter identified themselves with a water bill 50 years ago, that it's racist and disenfranchising to ask them to verify their identity in any subsequent election for the rest of time. Because asking someone to show a utility bill or swear an affidavit every four years to verify they're who they say they are, that's racist.

I of course do not think that. Please provide a quoted post or an apology.

As an aside I'm kind of amazed how invested you are in this totally irrational position. Don't you care about logic and evidence?

 

[glenn1]

I of course do not think that. Please provide a quoted post or an apology.

As an aside I'm kind of amazed how invested you are in this totally irrational position. Don't you care about logic and evidence?

If you don't think that, then kindly agree with me saying all states should implement a non strict voter identity law using whatever documents or means you see fit. "None" doesn't count since you would be validating my statement that you would refuse anything but one time/ valid forever check.

 

[fskimospy]

Again with the false attribution, huh? It's obviously necessary to the argument. Dems contend that voter impersonation is extremely rare & have the research & data to back it up-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

OTOH, it seems logical that if strict voter ID advocates had the data to back up their suspicions that they'd publish it. Which hasn't happened, of course, so they invoke the bigfoot principle instead.

This is pretty unbelievable. You would think in rational discourse if you were able to lay down the fact that the thing someone is complaining about doesn't exist they would stop complaining about it and admit their error.

It says a lot, and nothing good, when even when the facts are clearly established people just can't let go of what they believe even when the outcome is what they claim to want.

 

[fskimospy]

If you don't think that, then kindly agree with me saying all states should implement a non strict voter identity law using whatever documents or means you see fit. "None" doesn't count since you would be validating my statement that you would refuse anything but one time/ valid forever check.

I haven't seen a quoted post or an apology so I won't be able to help you there. Will that be forthcoming any time soon?

 

[Jhhnn]

If you don't think that, then kindly agree with me saying all states should implement a non strict voter identity law using whatever documents or means you see fit. "None" doesn't count since you would be validating my statement that you would refuse anything but one time/ valid forever check.

So you're arguing for the status quo?

 

[DrPizza]

See the response directly above yours by Dr Pizza and others by fskimospy and others for evidence that what I'm saying is true. It's not an "utter load of bullshit", it's exactly what they're saying and the exact policy they want. They have literally constructed a reality where saying people's identity should be verified is a "unicorn patrol" or "debunked with common sense." I've already linked the California webpage that confirms that CA does not validate identity at all. Again, this isn't about disagreeing with a particular method of verifying identity like photo ID vs, non-photo ID (e.g. "strict photo ID" versus "non-strict" that I described in the post you quoted), saying we should not verify identity this is the position of fskimospy and others. This isn't a discussion about how we should validate identity, it's one about whether even doing so is both "waste of time and money" and racist.

Whoa, hang on a second there. I know English is your first language, so why don't you reread what I responded to. In fact, I shortened the part of your post down to one point, so there would be no mistake. You said that someone could just pick a name out of a phone book and show up and vote. I said that if that happened, it would show up like a sore thumb. If people randomly voted for someone else, with a 50% voting rate, the number of incidents of someone showing up to vote and finding that someone had already voted in their name would be huge. As that appears to be incredibly rare, it follows logically that what you insinuated happens could actually not be happening.

I'm fine with required identification - but there should be multiple ways for someone to identify themselves - a couple of bills to their address with their name on it, etc. It's been shown that it's rather onerous for the poor to obtain photo identification. If you want to switch to photo IDs, then make it simpler for them to obtain them - longer hours, or weekend hours where they can obtain such an ID. The system set up to obtain such IDs seems to have been developed by someone thinking in the point of view that they can just drive over - which they cannot do without driver's licenses.

I don't know about other states, but here in NY, I get a little post card at some point during the summer, informing me of where my polling location is. I hate to make assumptions, but the post card isn't "timely." That is, it doesn't get to me a week or even just two before voting - it arrives quite early (I received it a few weeks ago.) Presumably, this is so that if it's returned by the post office because I don't live here, (or there's no such address, etc.) they can update their records. I doubt that such a system is perfect, but I would think it's more than sufficient for preventing widespread fraud.

Another thought that I come back to a lot, is do you really think there are that many people willing to take one for the team if they get caught? You think people are really willing to risk a huge fine or jail time, just to increase the vote by 1 or 2 votes??

 

[pcgeek11]

Seems you think what you're told to think, and ain't no facts or reason is going to stop you.

Really.

Seems to me you are an idiot.