Trump's Commission on Voter Fraud

[laughing dog]

Determination of voter eligibility, enforcement and registration is the province of the state not the federal government. The federal government has no authority in these matters.

But the Feds can say 'we'll cut of (for example Highway) funding until you bring your voter rolls up to the following standards: .....'

That's how they got the states to adopt and later to actually enforce the 55mph speed limit on roads the Feds didn't control.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the Federal gov't can only cutoff funding for the relevant activity. If the Federal gov't funds to some degree either voter registration, voter eligibility efforts and voter enforcement at the state level, it may have some leverage. I seriously doubt a Republican Congress would open the door to threaten funding for a completely unrelated activity.

 

[whichphilosophy]

True, but the Constitution clearly gives control of voting to the States. The Feds only got involved when states intercede in allowing people to vote. This would be the other way around.

OMG!!! Huge Democrat Voting Scandal Uncovered by Trump Commission!!!

Vice Chairman Kris Kobach unleased thundering allegations of voter fraud committed by the Democrats in a press conference today which marked the release of the Trump Voting Commission's report. "Our findings indicate not only a voter fraud," started the Secretary of State of Kansas, "but a clearly coordinated effort to manipulate elections within states and across state lines."

Included in the report was a "damning revelation" that certain people voted upwards of 15,000 times in a single election. "Not only did the Democrats do this, they didn't even bother to cover their tracks. A person named 'Carlos Garcia' voted 11,284 times in the 2012 General Election alone. 11,284 times."

Kobach indicated that these votes were casted in several states, including stronghold Latino areas, indicating that the Latino support for Democrats was not the "apparent lock we are told to believe it is".

Do the fucking math, folks. Nobody voted 11,000 times - it would be logistically difficult to vote 11 times, let alone 11,000 times.
These propaganda rags rely heavily on the utter stupidity of their readership.

It would be a practical impossibility for 1 person to vote 11,000 times in terms of queuing time for the polling booths. As you said even 11 (or 5 times) would be extremely difficult.

If the name showed up 11,000 times it should be produced as evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I may be mistaken, but I believe the Federal gov't can only cutoff funding for the relevant activity. ... I seriously doubt a Republican Congress would open the door to threaten funding for a completely unrelated activity.

I don't know if there's any sort of restriction on what is essentially blackmail. But if there was, i'm sure they'd package it carefully. It won't blatantly be a restriction of funds in order to compel cooperation. It'll just be a coincidence that military base closings turn out to be necessary in states that aren't cooperating, or that Federal lands have been ceded to the DEA for nuclear waste disposal in those states...

Ultimately, though, i don't think this is the primary goal of getting the data. I think they want to be able to claim that they've examined the data and found reason to justify various voting restrictions such as voter ID and ballots by mail, and whatever else they can think of. And something will be mined out of the data to look like it supports their claims...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I may be mistaken, but I believe the Federal gov't can only cutoff funding for the relevant activity. ... I seriously doubt a Republican Congress would open the door to threaten funding for a completely unrelated activity.

I don't know if there's any sort of restriction on what is essentially blackmail. But if there was, i'm sure they'd package it carefully. It won't blatantly be a restriction of funds in order to compel cooperation. It'll just be a coincidence that military base closings turn out to be necessary in states that aren't cooperating, or that Federal lands have been ceded to the DEA for nuclear waste disposal in those states...

Ultimately, though, i don't think this is the primary goal of getting the data. I think they want to be able to claim that they've examined the data and found reason to justify various voting restrictions such as voter ID and ballots by mail, and whatever else they can think of. And something will be mined out of the data to look like it supports their claims...

In the UK we have to produce ID when we vote. This is standard to ensure a minimising of any duplication. Ballots by mail should be overseen and counted in the same manner once the ballot papers arrive. The names without unsealing the ballot paper should be checked against the electoral register and ensuring this did not come up before.

In the US I think it is one person counting per 100-150 votes as there were around 1 million ballot clerks during the last presidential election.

 

[RavenSky]

OMG!!! Huge Democrat Voting Scandal Uncovered by Trump Commission!!!

Vice Chairman Kris Kobach unleased thundering allegations of voter fraud committed by the Democrats in a press conference today which marked the release of the Trump Voting Commission's report. "Our findings indicate not only a voter fraud," started the Secretary of State of Kansas, "but a clearly coordinated effort to manipulate elections within states and across state lines."

Included in the report was a "damning revelation" that certain people voted upwards of 15,000 times in a single election. "Not only did the Democrats do this, they didn't even bother to cover their tracks. A person named 'Carlos Garcia' voted 11,284 times in the 2012 General Election alone. 11,284 times."

Kobach indicated that these votes were casted in several states, including stronghold Latino areas, indicating that the Latino support for Democrats was not the "apparent lock we are told to believe it is".

This is a joke, right? (It's hard to tell these days)

 

[hardeep]

In the UK we have to produce ID when we vote. This is standard to ensure a minimising of any duplication. Ballots by mail should be overseen and counted in the same manner once the ballot papers arrive. The names without unsealing the ballot paper should be checked against the electoral register and ensuring this did not come up before.

We do NOT have to show an ID to vote in U.K. elections - you just have to announce your name and address.

I'm sure many people,like myself, as a courtesy offer their polling card to the official to help them find the name so it can be crossed off. but there isn't even a need to have the card with you when you vote.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In the UK we have to produce ID when we vote. This is standard to ensure a minimising of any duplication. Ballots by mail should be overseen and counted in the same manner once the ballot papers arrive. The names without unsealing the ballot paper should be checked against the electoral register and ensuring this did not come up before.

We do NOT have to show an ID to vote in U.K. elections - you just have to announce your name and address.

I'm sure many people,like myself, as a courtesy offer their polling card to the official to help them find the name so it can be crossed off. but there isn't even a need to have the card with you when you vote.

Not when I voted but you are correct. The article I just checked in the Guardian shows you are correct on this. Northern Ireland is different on this. As you vote they check your name on a list (which they did with me anyway) and it shows a person claiming to be that person did vote. This is as you say.

I think therefore what we have in Northern Ireland should be applied.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/how-do-i-vote-in-the-uk-general-election

You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.

f you’re voting in Northern Ireland, you must show photo ID.

 

[southernhybrid]

We do NOT have to show an ID to vote in U.K. elections - you just have to announce your name and address.

I'm sure many people,like myself, as a courtesy offer their polling card to the official to help them find the name so it can be crossed off. but there isn't even a need to have the card with you when you vote.

Not when I voted but you are correct. The article I just checked in the Guardian shows you are correct on this. Northern Ireland is different on this. As you vote they check your name on a list (which they did with me anyway) and it shows a person claiming to be that person did vote. This is as you say.

I think therefore what we have in Northern Ireland should be applied.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/how-do-i-vote-in-the-uk-general-election

You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.

f you’re voting in Northern Ireland, you must show photo ID.

Enough about how you Brits vote. We are no longer a colony of England. We are "Murcans" and we have this thng called the 10th Amendment. Voting registration and voting matters are an issue for the states. And finally, Trump has done something that has pissed off both the left and the right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/06/daily-202-principled-conservatives-show-federalism-is-more-than-a-talking-point-by-rejecting-voter-data-requests/595d5566e9b69b7071abca8d/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_daily202-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

When Barack Obama was in charge, it was easy for GOP officials of all stripes to talk up states’ rights and decry out-of-control spending. Less than six months into President Trump’s tenure, much of that concern has fallen by the wayside. Each day brings fresh examples of rank hypocrisy.

But there are also principled conservative politicians who are proving that they follow the same moral compass whether Republicans are in power or in the wilderness.

The past week has brought a career-defining litmus test for secretaries of state in capitals across the country. By refusing to participate in the fishing expedition of a panel that was created by Trump to bolster his absurd claim that he “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” several Republicans in ruby-red states are demonstrating a politically courageous commitment to federalism.

Pushback from the right, more than any other factor, has now imperiled the nascent work of the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.”

And, if the information requested by the idiot in chief was all supplied, it would have the potential to be a gift for hackers. You want to make my name, date of birth, address and the last four digits of my SS number public? Seriously?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not when I voted but you are correct. The article I just checked in the Guardian shows you are correct on this. Northern Ireland is different on this. As you vote they check your name on a list (which they did with me anyway) and it shows a person claiming to be that person did vote. This is as you say.

I think therefore what we have in Northern Ireland should be applied.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/how-do-i-vote-in-the-uk-general-election

You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.

f you’re voting in Northern Ireland, you must show photo ID.

Enough about how you Brits vote. We are no longer a colony of England. We are "Murcans" and we have this thng called the 10th Amendment. Voting registration and voting matters are an issue for the states. And finally, Trump has done something that has pissed off both the left and the right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p_hp-top-table-low_daily202-9a:homepage/story

When Barack Obama was in charge, it was easy for GOP officials of all stripes to talk up states’ rights and decry out-of-control spending. Less than six months into President Trump’s tenure, much of that concern has fallen by the wayside. Each day brings fresh examples of rank hypocrisy.

But there are also principled conservative politicians who are proving that they follow the same moral compass whether Republicans are in power or in the wilderness.

The past week has brought a career-defining litmus test for secretaries of state in capitals across the country. By refusing to participate in the fishing expedition of a panel that was created by Trump to bolster his absurd claim that he “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” several Republicans in ruby-red states are demonstrating a politically courageous commitment to federalism.

Pushback from the right, more than any other factor, has now imperiled the nascent work of the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.”

And, if the information requested by the idiot in chief was all supplied, it would have the potential to be a gift for hackers. You want to make my name, date of birth, address and the last four digits of my SS number public? Seriously?

In order to do it in a secure manner, I think the information should be provided to the Trump commission on microfiche.

 

[funinspace]

In order to do it in a secure manner, I think the information should be provided to the Trump commission on microfiche.

Better yet, they should Tweet it all out, while squeezing as much as they can into each Tweet (with random types of delineation of course)

 

[Shadowy Man]

And, if the information requested by the idiot in chief was all supplied, it would have the potential to be a gift for hackers. You want to make my name, date of birth, address and the last four digits of my SS number public? Seriously?

I assume that the last 4 of the SSN are there to differentiate between a parent and child with the same name living in the same house. What else is it good for in this context?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not when I voted but you are correct. The article I just checked in the Guardian shows you are correct on this. Northern Ireland is different on this. As you vote they check your name on a list (which they did with me anyway) and it shows a person claiming to be that person did vote. This is as you say.

I think therefore what we have in Northern Ireland should be applied.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/how-do-i-vote-in-the-uk-general-election

You do not need to show ID to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. You just need to tell polling staff your name and address. They will then cross your name off the list and give you a ballot paper.

f you’re voting in Northern Ireland, you must show photo ID.

Enough about how you Brits vote. We are no longer a colony of England. We are "Murcans" and we have this thng called the 10th Amendment. Voting registration and voting matters are an issue for the states. And finally, Trump has done something that has pissed off both the left and the right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/07/06/daily-202-principled-conservatives-show-federalism-is-more-than-a-talking-point-by-rejecting-voter-data-requests/595d5566e9b69b7071abca8d/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_daily202-9a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

When Barack Obama was in charge, it was easy for GOP officials of all stripes to talk up states’ rights and decry out-of-control spending. Less than six months into President Trump’s tenure, much of that concern has fallen by the wayside. Each day brings fresh examples of rank hypocrisy.

But there are also principled conservative politicians who are proving that they follow the same moral compass whether Republicans are in power or in the wilderness.

The past week has brought a career-defining litmus test for secretaries of state in capitals across the country. By refusing to participate in the fishing expedition of a panel that was created by Trump to bolster his absurd claim that he “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” several Republicans in ruby-red states are demonstrating a politically courageous commitment to federalism.

Pushback from the right, more than any other factor, has now imperiled the nascent work of the “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.”

And, if the information requested by the idiot in chief was all supplied, it would have the potential to be a gift for hackers. You want to make my name, date of birth, address and the last four digits of my SS number public? Seriously?

Privacy and protection of SS Number is of course a valid statement even if not made public or restricted.

If you were asked to improve an electoral system, what improvements would you implement to minimise the possibility of irregularities? It s just possible there a one or two dead votes or someone voted on behalf of someone after taking their polling cards which I am sure would be very rare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, if the information requested by the idiot in chief was all supplied, it would have the potential to be a gift for hackers. You want to make my name, date of birth, address and the last four digits of my SS number public? Seriously?

I assume that the last 4 of the SSN are there to differentiate between a parent and child with the same name living in the same house. What else is it good for in this context?

Removing old registrations when someone moves.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I assume that the last 4 of the SSN are there to differentiate between a parent and child with the same name living in the same house. What else is it good for in this context?

Removing old registrations when someone moves.

Ok.. so, if someone's name and last 4 of SSN match, but address differs?

 

[RavenSky]

If you were asked to improve an electoral system, what improvements would you implement to minimise the possibility of irregularities?

Get rid of gerrymandered districts and go back to some version of paper ballots (at least as a safeguard against hackers). I also suggest automatic voter registration and automatic early voting ballots to be mailed to every voter. And finally, mandatory early in-person voting and election day be a national holiday.

All of these, of course, will mean that Republicans will lose so they won't happen.

 

[bilby]

If you were asked to improve an electoral system, what improvements would you implement to minimise the possibility of irregularities?

Get rid of gerrymandered districts and go back to some version of paper ballots (at least as a safeguard against hackers). I also suggest automatic voter registration and automatic early voting ballots to be mailed to every voter. And finally, mandatory early in-person voting and election day be a national holiday.

All of these, of course, will mean that Republicans will lose so they won't happen.

Mandatory provision of sufficient resources, voting locations and staff to cater for a 100% turnout with a maximum wait time of 30 minutes. Large personal fines for the senior official in charge of any district that fails to meet this standard. Given the typical turnout is well below 100% this should completely eliminate queuing.

Paper ballots.

Electoral boundaries to be set by an independent non-partisan body, with a mandate to minimize boundary lengths within sensible geographic constraints.

Mandatory registration to vote, with small fines for non-compliance.

Mandatory attendance at a polling place, on or before election day, unless a postal vote has been arranged, again with small fines for non-compliance.

Instant Runoff Voting

Voting only for legislative assemblies and government executive positions (eg presidents, governors). Judicial and junior state positions (Judges, sheriffs, civil servants, District Attorneys, school board members, dog catchers) to be appointed based on merit, not elected. Referenda only on constitutional amendments.

The Electoral College to be expected to reject obviously unsuitable presidential candidates, regardless of state and/or nationwide voting results (or to be disbanded in favour of nationwide IRV).

Primaries to be eliminated, in favour of candidate selection by a vote of fully paid up political party members only.

Campaigns to be publicly funded, with each candidate given $100,000 to spend, which must be refunded should they fail to secure 5% of the vote. No other money to be spent on campaigning, with candidates disqualified for any breach of the $100,000 cap.

No campaigning permitted except in the two weeks prior to election day.

Automatic jail terms for any representative, senator, governor or president who accepts any gift worth in excess of $50 from any person or organization while in office. Elected office holders total income to be limited to equal to their in-office remuneration for ten years after leaving office. Any income above that level to be taxed at 100%.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you were asked to improve an electoral system, what improvements would you implement to minimise the possibility of irregularities?

Get rid of gerrymandered districts and go back to some version of paper ballots (at least as a safeguard against hackers). I also suggest automatic voter registration and automatic early voting ballots to be mailed to every voter. And finally, mandatory early in-person voting and election day be a national holiday.

All of these, of course, will mean that Republicans will lose so they won't happen.

I also think a universal register covering the whole election would be useful.
A National holiday to allow voting would be an excellent implementation.
Hacking could present a problem but despite the problems I think we are moving or have moved this way.

I don't believe millions of votes are derived from the morgues but I am sure may happen now and again. Perhaps automatic deregistration onto the National Electoral Role should (in theory) reduce this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Get rid of gerrymandered districts and go back to some version of paper ballots (at least as a safeguard against hackers). I also suggest automatic voter registration and automatic early voting ballots to be mailed to every voter. And finally, mandatory early in-person voting and election day be a national holiday.

All of these, of course, will mean that Republicans will lose so they won't happen.

I also think a universal register covering the whole election would be useful.
A National holiday to allow voting would be an excellent implementation.
Hacking could present a problem but despite the problems I think we are moving or have moved this way.

I don't believe millions of votes are derived from the morgues but I am sure may happen now and again. Perhaps automatic deregistration onto the National Electoral Role should (in theory) reduce this.

We need a transparent system that also protects citizen privacy.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Get rid of gerrymandered districts and go back to some version of paper ballots (at least as a safeguard against hackers). I also suggest automatic voter registration and automatic early voting ballots to be mailed to every voter. And finally, mandatory early in-person voting and election day be a national holiday.

All of these, of course, will mean that Republicans will lose so they won't happen.

Mandatory provision of sufficient resources, voting locations and staff to cater for a 100% turnout with a maximum wait time of 30 minutes. Large personal fines for the senior official in charge of any district that fails to meet this standard. Given the typical turnout is well below 100% this should completely eliminate queuing.

Paper ballots.

Electoral boundaries to be set by an independent non-partisan body, with a mandate to minimize boundary lengths within sensible geographic constraints.

Mandatory registration to vote, with small fines for non-compliance.

Mandatory attendance at a polling place, on or before election day, unless a postal vote has been arranged, again with small fines for non-compliance.

Instant Runoff Voting

Voting only for legislative assemblies and government executive positions (eg presidents, governors). Judicial and junior state positions (Judges, sheriffs, civil servants, District Attorneys, school board members, dog catchers) to be appointed based on merit, not elected. Referenda only on constitutional amendments.

The Electoral College to be expected to reject obviously unsuitable presidential candidates, regardless of state and/or nationwide voting results (or to be disbanded in favour of nationwide IRV).

Primaries to be eliminated, in favour of candidate selection by a vote of fully paid up political party members only.

Campaigns to be publicly funded, with each candidate given $100,000 to spend, which must be refunded should they fail to secure 5% of the vote. No other money to be spent on campaigning, with candidates disqualified for any breach of the $100,000 cap.

No campaigning permitted except in the two weeks prior to election day.

Automatic jail terms for any representative, senator, governor or president who accepts any gift worth in excess of $50 from any person or organization while in office. Elected office holders total income to be limited to equal to their in-office remuneration for ten years after leaving office. Any income above that level to be taxed at 100%.

If the Electoral College rejected unreasonable candidates, then we may lack a few. However this would be up to the voters.

Is the Electoral College necessary?
I like the last one. There's an old movie with Fred Astaire or was it Bob Hope who played the part of a senator. He was at a ball game with a businessman. He was offered a hot dog but said, "No thanks, I don't take bribes."

I'm not sure if the last one would be reasonable.

 

[Malintent]

Determination of voter eligibility, enforcement and registration is the province of the state not the federal government. The federal government has no authority in these matters.

For transparency there should be a national voter's register which contains all names of all voters with NHI Numbers and addresses. This way the states still carry on with registration or it would be too costly for a central government to do this.

When people vote they should produce photo ID

The British system seems to work quite well so it's a good idea for the US government to incorporate what I suggested.

I agree that photo ID is a good idea. Seems silly that one does not need to positively identify one's self, currently.
However, the idea of centralizing the voting records is a terrible one. The current decentralization of voting data is better for security... and prescribed by law (10'th amendment?)