Who should vote?

HillsboroMom

Active member
Let's say I had a magic machine that could determine someone's eligibility to vote with 99% accuracy. As an added trick, you could pre-select the 1% that it would get wrong. In other words, you could choose: either it would OVER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would allow 1% of the people who attempted to vote would be found eligible even though they weren't, but it would never wrongly claim someone was ineligible), or it would UNDER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would reject 1% of the people who were eligible to vote but it would say they were not).

Which would you pick? Would you rather see a few people vote who really weren't supposed to, as long as everyone who was allowed to got to, or would you rather ensure no one who wasn't allowed to got to vote, even if that meant that some eligible voters lost their rights?

And why?

Okay, now let's say I tinkered with my machine, and managed to get the error rate down to 0.1%. Does that change anything?

Now, what if it's 0.001%?

What if I told you that, in the states that have mail-in ballots exclusively or almost exclusively, the error rate for people getting to vote who don't have the right is under 0.001%? (It's around 0.0004%.)

Would you support having the whole country switch to such a system, to ensure accurate and legal counts?

If not, why not?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
We just saw what happens with “magic” machines that can be pre-selected. No thank you.

In answer to your OP question, only eligible U.S. Citizens should be allowed to vote. With valid ID.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Let's say I had a magic machine that could determine someone's eligibility to vote with 99% accuracy. As an added trick, you could pre-select the 1% that it would get wrong. In other words, you could choose: either it would OVER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would allow 1% of the people who attempted to vote would be found eligible even though they weren't, but it would never wrongly claim someone was ineligible), or it would UNDER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would reject 1% of the people who were eligible to vote but it would say they were not).

Which would you pick? Would you rather see a few people vote who really weren't supposed to, as long as everyone who was allowed to got to, or would you rather ensure no one who wasn't allowed to got to vote, even if that meant that some eligible voters lost their rights?

And why?

Okay, now let's say I tinkered with my machine, and managed to get the error rate down to 0.1%. Does that change anything?

Now, what if it's 0.001%?

What if I told you that, in the states that have mail-in ballots exclusively or almost exclusively, the error rate for people getting to vote who don't have the right is under 0.001%? (It's around 0.0004%.)

Would you support having the whole country switch to such a system, to ensure accurate and legal counts?

If not, why not?
You don't understand audits. Dominion decides which votes count.They panic at the thought of an audit.

“It doesnt matter how many people vote, only who counts them.”​


― Stalin

Stalin was your type.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Let's say I had a magic machine that could determine someone's eligibility to vote with 99% accuracy. As an added trick, you could pre-select the 1% that it would get wrong. In other words, you could choose: either it would OVER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would allow 1% of the people who attempted to vote would be found eligible even though they weren't, but it would never wrongly claim someone was ineligible), or it would UNDER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would reject 1% of the people who were eligible to vote but it would say they were not).

Which would you pick? Would you rather see a few people vote who really weren't supposed to, as long as everyone who was allowed to got to, or would you rather ensure no one who wasn't allowed to got to vote, even if that meant that some eligible voters lost their rights?

And why?

Okay, now let's say I tinkered with my machine, and managed to get the error rate down to 0.1%. Does that change anything?

Now, what if it's 0.001%?

What if I told you that, in the states that have mail-in ballots exclusively or almost exclusively, the error rate for people getting to vote who don't have the right is under 0.001%? (It's around 0.0004%.)

Would you support having the whole country switch to such a system, to ensure accurate and legal counts?

If not, why not?
Every American citizen should be eligible to vote, and should not have to jump through hoops to do this. Voting should be equally easy everywhere - no 8 hour lines, or even one hour lines. Mail in voting or drop box options should become standard.

I have no objection to photo IDs as long as the govt makes them available to all citizens and makes them free and easy to get.

Some states are stripping people from voting rolls for trivial reasons, like a mistyped name or because they didn't vote for a year or two. Not acceptable.

There will always be people who make mistakes, like voting before their citizenship papers are finalized, or voting in the wrong district. Mistakes should not be prosecuted, but deliberate fraud, like someone who votes twice in the same election or who votes for a dead relative, should be prosecuted.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Let's say I had a magic machine that could determine someone's eligibility to vote with 99% accuracy. As an added trick, you could pre-select the 1% that it would get wrong. In other words, you could choose: either it would OVER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would allow 1% of the people who attempted to vote would be found eligible even though they weren't, but it would never wrongly claim someone was ineligible), or it would UNDER-estimate by 1% (meaning it would reject 1% of the people who were eligible to vote but it would say they were not).

Which would you pick? Would you rather see a few people vote who really weren't supposed to, as long as everyone who was allowed to got to, or would you rather ensure no one who wasn't allowed to got to vote, even if that meant that some eligible voters lost their rights?

And why?

Okay, now let's say I tinkered with my machine, and managed to get the error rate down to 0.1%. Does that change anything?

Now, what if it's 0.001%?

What if I told you that, in the states that have mail-in ballots exclusively or almost exclusively, the error rate for people getting to vote who don't have the right is under 0.001%? (It's around 0.0004%.)

Would you support having the whole country switch to such a system, to ensure accurate and legal counts?

If not, why not?
To be consistent with the American legal system, you'd ensure all eligible voters would vote even if it meant some ineligible ones didn't. This is parallel to the legal principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than it is to convict an innocent person.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
We just saw what happens with “magic” machines that can be pre-selected. No thank you.

In answer to your OP question, only eligible U.S. Citizens should be allowed to vote. With valid ID.
I'm curious as to why you think poor people who are eligible US Citizens should lose their constitutional rights for no reason except that they are poor? Do you believe that poor people are less worthy than others? Do you think that God loves poor people less than others? Do you believe that their poverty is a sign that God loves them less than others, or that their poverty is a result of some sin that invalidates their worth as human beings?

And where, in the Bible and/or in the constitution, do you find any support for those beliefs?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I'm curious as to why you think poor people who are eligible US Citizens should lose their constitutional rights for no reason except that they are poor? Do you believe that poor people are less worthy than others? Do you think that God loves poor people less than others? Do you believe that their poverty is a sign that God loves them less than others, or that their poverty is a result of some sin that invalidates their worth as human beings?

And where, in the Bible and/or in the constitution, do you find any support for those beliefs?
I think poor people are as capable of getting ID’s as anyone else.

By the way, Georgia gives out ID cards free.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I have no objection to photo IDs as long as the govt makes them available to all citizens and makes them free and easy to get.
^^^^ This.

I know a lot of people who argue "other countries require photo IDs to vote." This is true. Those countries assign photo IDs free to all of their citizens, and they're often mailed to the citizens on the citizen's 18th birthday, or similar milestone.

Some states are stripping people from voting rolls for trivial reasons, like a mistyped name or because they didn't vote for a year or two. Not acceptable.
The new Georgia law that says you can't give people water while they're waiting in line. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible. "When I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink."

Not that the Bible should be the basis of US law, but I wonder how many people who voted in favor of that law realize they are violating Biblical mandates by supporting that law?


There will always be people who make mistakes, like voting before their citizenship papers are finalized, or voting in the wrong district. Mistakes should not be prosecuted, but deliberate fraud, like someone who votes twice in the same election or who votes for a dead relative, should be prosecuted.
This is extremely rare. As I said, the states with the LOWEST rates of fraud are the states that have mail-in ballots. Although even in the states with the highest rates of fraud, we're talking about less than 0.1%. There has never been a race that has been won by LESS than the rate of fraud. Not that that makes the fraud okay, but the claim that fraud can cause the "wrong" candidate to win is simply factually incorrect.

Fraud is wrong, and should be prosecuted.

Voter suppression is more wrong, and should be prosecuted.

The second happens at a MUCH higher rate.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
To be consistent with the American legal system, you'd ensure all eligible voters would vote even if it meant some ineligible ones didn't. This is parallel to the legal principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than it is to convict an innocent person.
Well, that would be consistent with what the constitution seems to claim.

It isn't consistent with what today's Republicans believe.

Just another case where the Democrats (though I don't like them) are more American than the Republicans. Today's Republicans should be deeply ashamed of what they've become.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I think poor people are as capable of getting ID’s as anyone else.

By the way, Georgia gives out ID cards free.


A state-issued ID card in Georgia is $32.

EDIT PER MOD rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vibise

Well-known member
^^^^ This.

I know a lot of people who argue "other countries require photo IDs to vote." This is true. Those countries assign photo IDs free to all of their citizens, and they're often mailed to the citizens on the citizen's 18th birthday, or similar milestone.


The new Georgia law that says you can't give people water while they're waiting in line. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible. "When I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink."

Not that the Bible should be the basis of US law, but I wonder how many people who voted in favor of that law realize they are violating Biblical mandates by supporting that law?



This is extremely rare. As I said, the states with the LOWEST rates of fraud are the states that have mail-in ballots. Although even in the states with the highest rates of fraud, we're talking about less than 0.1%. There has never been a race that has been won by LESS than the rate of fraud. Not that that makes the fraud okay, but the claim that fraud can cause the "wrong" candidate to win is simply factually incorrect.

Fraud is wrong, and should be prosecuted.

Voter suppression is more wrong, and should be prosecuted.

The second happens at a MUCH higher rate.
In the Bush/Gore election, Bush won by ~500 votes in Florida. However, his brother, who was governor at the time, purged about 30K people from the voter rolls. How many of those people do you think were Dems?

The issue of election integrity goes way beyond questions of individual voter fraud. And seriously, what individual would think they could sway an election by fraudulently casting a single vote?
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
My niece lives in Texas.

Her purse was stolen some years back. She went to the DMV to get a replacement ID card. (She does not drive.)

She had to take the day off of work to do this, because in order to get to the DMV, she had to take a bus there and back an hour each way, and she knew she would be waiting in line for several hours, and they're not open on weekends. So she had to take one of her vacation days.

She came with a copy of her lease and a school ID (which was the only picture ID she had). They told her that wasn't enough. She needed a copy of her birth certificate, which she doesn't have. In order to get a copy of her birth certificate, she would have had to pay $15. At that point, my parents stepped in to help. They got a copy of her birth certificate, and flew down to Texas to help her. They drove her to the DMV (she still had to take time off from work). Even with them there, they claimed the birth certificate wasn't enough. She did not get the ID, because they said it was only one form of ID, and they needed at least two. That time, she only came with the birth certificate.

I'll give you 3 guesses as to what race my niece is.

BTW, the Texas DMV website did NOT say any of this at the time. (I think they've updated it since then.)

Picture IDs are not free. They are not easy to get. They are especially hard to get if you are poor, and/or if you are in an underserved population.

Requiring photo IDs to vote is a form of voter suppression. It is utilized primarily by Republicans because they know their policies unfairly target the poor and minorities, and that if poor people and minorities vote, they're less likely to win. It has nothing to do with preventing non-citizens from voting. It is easier for non-citizens to get fake IDs that look convincing than it is for poor citizens to get legitimate IDs. Therefore, ID laws don't prevent non-citizens from voting, they prevent poor citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote from voting.

It is a racist and classist policy. Anyone who embraces such a policy has no business calling themselves a patriot, let alone a Christian.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member

A state-issued ID card in Georgia is $32.

EDIT PER MOD

“The State of Georgia offers a free ID Card. An ID Card can be issued at any county registrar's office free of charge.”​

 
Last edited by a moderator:

HillsboroMom

Active member
Oh, I should add that my niece is more of an American citizen than I am. Her dad -- my brother -- was adopted, so we don't know how far back his lineage goes, but we know both of his parents were born in this country, so she's at least 4 generations American on that side, and her mom's family is descended from slaves, so they've been in this country longer than most white people. Meanwhile, I'm 2nd generation on my dad's side and 4th on my mom's. So no, voter suppression is unconstitutional, un-American, and racist.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
In the Bush/Gore election, Bush won by ~500 votes in Florida. However, his brother, who was governor at the time, purged about 30K people from the voter rolls. How many of those people do you think were Dems?

The issue of election integrity goes way beyond questions of individual voter fraud. And seriously, what individual would think they could sway an election by fraudulently casting a single vote?
In 2000, that was a margin of 0.009%. There was only 1 case of voter fraud in Florida that year. 1 is less than 500, last I checked.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
You said some very vile things to me. You should be ashamed.
I am sorry.

EDIT PER MOD rule 12.8
The numerous accusations of “you are lying” or “you are a liar” or “that is a lie” will stop and no longer permitted on our forums to accuse posters of a “lie”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top