The Right Side of the News

That's exactly what I was thinking. The only kind of voter fraud that an ID would prevent would be if you tried to pose as somebody else who's registered. That could only work under a few conditions which would make it very difficult to use on a massive enough scale to fix an election.One of the holes in our election system is that each state has different election laws and procedures. My experience is with how we do it in California, so actual mileage may vary.In California all registered voters are assigned a polling place to go to. There, they have two computer printouts: one sorts all registered voters belonging to that polling place by street name and number, the other is a log book of registered voters which we sign. You tell them your street name, then they ask for your address number, and then finally your name. If they find you listed, they line out your name and refer you to the next person who has opened the log book to your name where you sign the log book and write in your address.A third person prints out a receipt with a number which I assume is unique to you, the second person writes that number in the log book next to your name, and you use that number to log into the voting machine. Our voting machines are electronic, at the end they have you verify your selections, and your selections are printed out on paper inside the machine (you can see what it's printing).Now, that all requires you to have already been registered, so voter ID would do nothing to stop additional unregistered votes to enter the system. In addition, everybody gets marked off when they vote, so there's no voting multiple times. And if somebody had voted posing as you then you come in to vote, then that would immediately raise a red flag, in which case I assume that that unique number in the log book could be used to find and eliminate that false ballot. Or in the case of an impostor trying to vote after you had voted, then the culprit would be exposed on the spot. In either case, I assume that the second person would need to produce some kind of ID.In the situation that the voter is/should be registered but isn't in the printout, then he fills out a provisional ballot which election officials will verify later to determine whether it is valid. Reasons for needing a provisional ballot can include administrative error, going to the wrong polling place, having been purged from the rolls, or not having an authorized ID (where required). In the states practicing voter suppression, voters are urged (not by the election officials) to fill out a provisional ballot anyway.There are also other ways to vote. In early voting, you go to a central location, they verify you in their records (no ID required in Calif.), and you vote -- I assume that the polling places' printouts are updated accordingly. There's also absentee ballots that are mailed in or dropped off -- this is actually the most common vector for actual voter fraud as we're seeing in the on-going drama of North Carolina's 9th Congressional District (voter fraud committed by the Republicans -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/...at-happened-north-carolina).The weak link in our election systems is in voter registration and electoral roll (AKA "voter roll") and that is where reform is really needed. Voter rolls are not always updated when a voter dies, moves to a different precinct, or becomes disenfranchised and that produces discrepancies. Virtually all the figures given by advocates of Voter ID laws are taken from enumerations of those voter roll discrepancies -- basically they make the ludicrous assumption that each discrepancy is a case of voter fraud instead of merely having that potential.For Voter-ID-preventable voter fraud to work, it needs to be scaled up and highly organized. First, you would need a reliable list of registered voters who are guaranteed to not vote, such as discrepancies in the voter rolls. That would require infiltrating the election offices and most likely enlisting local election officials as your co-conspirators. Then you would need an army of faux voters to pose as those discrepant registered voters. This would be a scheme that Voter ID would stop.If you cannot make it an inside job, then an alternative could be flooding the rolls with false registrations that you can then . Over half a century ago, I heard stories out of Cook County, Ill, of party machine operatives combing the cemeteries for names to register to vote. Again, you would need an army of faux voters to pose as those discrepant registered voters. This would be another scheme that Voter ID would stop.Then there was Trump's ridiculous claim that someone could cast multiple votes by going out to the car and putting on a hat and coming back in posing as somebody else. Something like that would be done by some political machines (Tammany Hall comes to mind) would have a guy with a beard vote, then partially shave and vote again, then shave a bit more and vote yet again, until at the end he'd be clean-shaven and had voted half a dozen times. That's probably a common enough story in NYC for Trump to have heard while growing up, it would not work now with our tighter voting procedures -- eg, Tammany Hall didn't have to get around computer printouts of the voting rolls.I am in agreement that the only purpose of Voter ID laws is voter suppression. And while I believe strongly that we need to do a better job of maintaining voter rolls, the new voter roll purging and "exact match" practices and rules are again nothing but voter suppression.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add 1 blank line between paragraphs to fix tiny flaw in otherwise wonderful formatting.

Seems to be a pretty good method of voter ID - You need to know your address.It's been a number of years since I did the voting judge thing in our tiny local precinct - Something like 120 voters is typical. I think Minnesota has also has both of those books, but IIRC, only the second one is normally used in the voting procedure. Our local system uses four election judges.The first is the registration judge - Minnesota has available instant registration at the same time as you vote. To register, the voter must have an ID and some piece of documentation that s/he is a precinct resident (which might also be the ID). An alternative is to have another already registered voter vouch for you, that you are indeed valid to be a voter at the site. The registration judge usually does a lot of sitting around doing nothing.The second is the person who signs you in in the registered voter roll book, adding you to that book if you are a newly registered. No ID procedure in involved - Just give your name.The third gives you a (numbered?) little piece of paper that you put into a slotted metal box at the fourth judge.The fourth judge gives you the paper ballot. At least at our location, there is no electronic voting, although there is a machine available to help you do your ballot.When you complete your ballot, you fold it and stuff it into another locked slotted box. In Minnesota there is no identification on the ballot that connects to the ID of what voter did that ballot.Moose

Reuters reports that there will be a new election.I’ve heard that the Republican primary will be rerun because the same candidate cheated there, too.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Yes, the party of election fraud will get to field a new candidate. I am sure Harris will go back to his sinecure as a wingnut pastor.

quote:

---

One partisan episode will change the way the new election is conducted: Republicans in November lost their super-majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. In the final weeks of a lame duck term, they passed an election law that would require a new primary to be held in the case of a general election redo.
Cooper vetoed the bill, and Republicans overturned his veto Dec. 27, just days before the end of their veto-proof majority. This means Republicans have a chance to field someone other than Harris, who didn’t say whether he intends to run again...

​

Former Representative Robert Pittenger, a three-term Republican who lost the 2018 primary to Harris, says he has no interest in participating in a new primary. Dowless was part of Harris’s team for the primary and the general election.

---

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Why bother inactivating your account when you could just not respond for awhile? I don't know why you get so emotionally invested here. It's not that big of a deal. Just take a hiatus

Going on Inactive gives me a speed bump that helps when I'm tempted to post. It didn't work this morning, but it's worked for almost two months.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Answer to Message 2791As I understand it, much of the report is of Grand Jury testimony which is not legally allowed to be revealed because it's testimony by people in a prosecutorial context that does not allow them to have a lawyer or any of the usual protections provided in other legal proceedings. Also, testimony in such a context could involve top secret information that could put the witness in jeopardy of serious harm, even death.This demand that it all be revealed is therefore either a disingenuous ploy to be able to claim that some kind of fraud explains it when it isn't all revealed, or just shows the ignorance of the people demanding it. Barr's job is not just window dressing or a matter of his own personal judgment. He has to carefully determine which information can legally and safely be released to the public. And there's nothing to stop him from also indicating its relevance or lack of it to the central concern of the investigation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

To Phat's Message 2798 Hi Phat. I guess you are unaware of Percy's demand that I not post on the Trump thread. He even threatened dire consequences the last time I did it.Anyway, since you ask, I've been in and out of the hospital and then a couple of weeks in rehab for a severe, truly intolerable,.pain in my left side that defied all the tests they could think of. Finally on my fourth visit to the ER the doctor identified a shingles rash that he thought might explain the pain, although the pain seemed to me to be internal and to be localized to two very specific spots. Now I've come around to accepting the shingles diagnosis even though I can't say I understand it. I don't have a rash any more, just pain that is excruciating to the touch on my upper left body, that has developed over the last few weeks. I hope and pray it won't last much longer.I also have a writing project I spend time on when I can. That keeps me from the temptation to post a lot here.

Top secret information is discussed in closed congressional meetings all of the time, so that isn't an issue. However, I think an interview with Mueller could settle a lot of issue without needing to produce grand jury testimony. I fully agree that grand jury testimony should not be publicly available unless it is deemed to be in the public interest, and that should be a high bar.

That should do it. Thing is, the demand for the release of the whole thing calls Mueller's own summary into question doesn't it? He already said when he gave the report to Barr that he found no evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign team. (Yeah he did add that he couldn't exonerate Trump either, but that isn't within his job description so it's just a bone gratuitously thrown out for the Democrats to chew on: his job was to determine if there was evidence of any criminal activity and to indict if he found any. He didn't. End of story).If more of it is released does anyone expect that conclusion to be reversed? A lot of Democrats are still looking for some kind of evidence for collusion in spite of Mueller's conclusion. Well, they've been believing the lie for so long I guess they just can't stop. I certainly hope the perpetrators of this attempt to bring down Trump with known lies get prosecuted in their turn as they so richly deserve. This was a failed coup and an attack on America itself and the Constitution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

we don't have Mueller's summary we have Barr's. And Barr's summary does not claim that there was no evidence of collusion but that it "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." which is not the same thing as "no evidence". he couldn't exonerate trump on the claim of obstruction of justice in regards to the firing of Comey. Again at least that's what Barr's summary claims. The investifation did find criminal activity, that's why there have been, multiple indictments, guilty pleas and a conviction.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Ha ha. Since there was no evidence of any kind of collusion how does firing Comey amount to obstruction of justice? No justice was interfered with and Trump was completely within his right to fire him. But hey, let's put all that on trial too so it too can be found to be another piece of idiotic meaningless accusation just to keep casting doubt on Trump. Oh how I hope these connivers get brought down, brought to the true justice they've been denying Trump.Oh come on. Read in context. You know in context I was talking about criminal activity of the collusion sort or of any sort remotely related to the reason for the investigation in the first place. How you all grasp at straws. But it was never anything but a pile of straws supported by lies and wishful thinking in the service of politics, truth be hanged.This investigation has been the lowest level American politics has ever sunk to, nothing short of an attempt on the Constitution itself, all because the Democrats lost the election to Trump and can't get over it. And most likely all in the service of covering up the foul deeds of his opposition in the first place. Dear God please let all of this come out and save our Republic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again there isn't "no evidence". just that they could not establish collusion (again according to Barr's summary of the report).

I would love to discuss life 101 with you at our own private topic. I will try and respect you. I can be a loose Canon sometimes. Random Discussion: Faith & Phat ONLYAll I know about Mueller is that he was respected by both sides. And he did a thorough job. If he couldn't find anything substantial about President Trump than Congress won't find anything. Trump is not perfect, but then again none of us are. Let he who is without sin start throwing rocks.

All Barr did was quote and summarize what Mueller said. Blaming Barr isn't going to fly. Sorry, Mueller found "no evidence" of collusion. That was what the investigation was supposed to look for, evidence of collusion. It found none. "No evidence" means, surprise surprise, "no evidence." And again, that's what Barr reported Mueller said. But I guess the twisting of this sort is just going to go on and on until the last holdout is forced to give up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.