First Republican 'faithless elector' announces intent to vote against Trump

[Dch48]

Even other republicans were against some of the inclusions in the 2016 party platform, specifically those inclusions as they affect LBGT individuals. What do you have against gay people, the environment, and paying people a living wage?

Marriage is not a right for anyone. It is a social convention and the Supreme Court had no right to even issue a ruling. Most of the environmental stuff is either greatly overblown or downright false. The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage". In our system, a business's right to make a profit and survive is more important than how much they pay employees and it should not be forced to the point where businesses have to close or outsource.

[Shadee]

Dude no you fucking can't. The requirement is that you have to identify yourself not that you have to present a valid state I'd. That is 100% different. What it does is make illegal for me to give them zero identifying information because that creates a pain in the ass for them to process you. You are so damn wrong please stop embarrassing yourself and your family with your stubbornness and attrocious reading comprehension

Wrong

10cha

infracted - minor spam

[Shadee]

So, you're saying gay marriage shouldn't be illegal? If you say the supreme court can't issue a ruling, you can't say it shouldn't be legal.

- - - Updated - - -



Why don't you quit spamming and actually contribute to the conversation instead of looking like an uneducated tool.

Just pointing out that people are wrong

[Shadee]

Wrong.

Am I doing it right?

Nope, that's wrong.

[Jibjub]

Congrats on completely missing the point. There's nothing sensitive in my post. It was a sarcastic reply to your partisan hackery meant to highlight the stupidity of partisan generalizations.


Ta da.

Oh, sorry. I had 4 replies to my comment and I just randomly picked one to reply to.

[NYC17]

Oh, sorry. I had 4 replies to my comment and I just randomly picked one to reply to.

So the same effort you apparently put into your overall thought process.

Noted.

[Celista]

Marriage is not a right for anyone. It is a social convention and the Supreme Court had no right to even issue a ruling. Most of the environmental stuff is either greatly overblown or downright false. The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living wage". In our system, a business's right to make a profit and survive is more important than how much they pay employees and it should not be forced to the point where businesses have to close or outsource.

I see. If marriage is a social convention then I suppose government has no business in issuing marriage licenses at all. I see we can agree on that one.

I see we disagree on the bolded, we should not allow what is akin to slave labor to thrive in the United States because a business isn't being managed properly by upper level management/ownership. Businesses that can't afford to pay a decent wage to employees deserve to die off and allow for more competently run business entities to take their place.

Conservatives seem to be against welfare except when it comes to businesses. Then apparently they expect everyone else to bail them out for their mistakes. Doesn't seem much different from being a welfare queen to me.

[Elegiac]

And certainly the postal service has proven itself exceptionally skilled at delivering packages on time and only to the correct address.

We don't seem to have that issue in Washington. Maybe your state government is just, you know, incompetent.

It's comical that you can assert this with what I assume to be a straight face. Anything, ANYTHING, other than a person bodily presenting themselves in a polling location where they can offer objective proof of their identity to be matched against a recorded list of persons eligible to vote in that place. ANYTHING BUT THAT! Oh the humanity!

The issue isn't with photo ID; it's with the fact voter ID is exploited to bullshit ends by the southern states.

Mail in voting avoids this issue since identity is established from the get go during the registration process, it avoids the problem of wait times in polling places, and it gives people a larger window to consider their options before filling out the ballots.

[Daerio]

Mail in voting avoids this issue since identity is established from the get go during the registration process, it avoids the problem of wait times in polling places, and it gives people a larger window to consider their options before filling out the ballots.

I guess you're attempting to preach to the choir with this nonsense, but once again, anyone who actually believes mail-in ballots are secure is living in total fantasy land.

I don't think you're really going to convince the "opposite side" of the aisle that we should replace a push for voter ID laws with a push for mail-in ballots. It's like we aren't even speaking the same language. You seem to want to compromise further in your direction. That isn't how this stuff works.

[Elegiac]

I guess you're attempting to preach to the choir with this nonsense, but once again, anyone who actually believes mail-in ballots are secure is living in total fantasy land.

They're secure enough when done correctly; WA's process works just fine.

I don't think you're really going to convince the "opposite side" of the aisle that we should replace a push for voter ID laws with a push for mail-in ballots. It's like we aren't even speaking the same language. You seem to want to compromise further in your direction. That isn't how this stuff works.

Why would I be interested in compromising with people who use 'voter ID" as an excuse for disenfranchisement?

That aside, I'm all in favor of federally issued ID cards, early voting, automatic registration, and vastly more polling places.

[Daerio]

They're secure enough when done correctly; WA's process works just fine.

Since you're an expert; I'd like to know more. What system is in place to ensure the mailman cannot influence the process? (This was the point of weakness being exploited in the UK and why their mail-in ballot system is about to disappear, or at least undergo reforms) What system is in place to assure the person marking the ballot is the person it was intended for? What system is in place for that person to verify their vote was received and counted? What system is in place to ensure ballots aren't getting mailed to people who shouldn't get them?

[Elegiac]

Since you're an expert; I'd like to know more. What system is in place to ensure the mailman cannot influence the process? (This was the point of weakness being exploited in the UK and why their mail-in ballot system is about to disappear) What system is in place to assure the person marking the ballot is the person it was intended for? What system is in place for that person to verify their vote was received and counted? What system is in place to ensure ballots aren't getting mailed to people who shouldn't get them?

WA voting is done as such; ballots are mailed out for each registered voter (by name) with one ballot per voter roughly two and a half weeks prior to the count - the ballot also contains a secondary envelope which needs to be properly sealed, signed, and dated. The signature is checked against the one on file done at the point of registration to ensure the ballot is legitimate; if the envelope isn't sealed or the signature doesn't match, it's thrown out and the voter notified. WA voters are able to track their ballot online at their discretion, as well.

So basically in order to tamper with it the mail carrier would need to have a spare ballot, a spare envelope and sleeve, and know the person's name and signature. None of which they are supplied with en masse.

[Daerio]

WA voting is done as such; ballots are mailed out for each registered voter (by name) with one ballot per voter roughly two and a half weeks prior to the count - the ballot also contains a secondary envelope which needs to be properly sealed, signed, and dated. The signature is checked against the one on file done at the point of registration to ensure the ballot is legitimate; if the envelope isn't sealed or the signature doesn't match, it's thrown out and the voter notified. WA voters are able to track their ballot online at their discretion, as well.

So basically in order to tamper with it the mail carrier would need to have a spare ballot, a spare envelope and sleeve, and know the person's name and signature. None of which they are supplied with en masse.

So what kind of signature comparison software are they using, because I've never heard of such a thing before now. I have however heard of people complaining that their voter registration was changed online this cycle using a signature that clearly did not match the one on file, so obviously no active signature comparison is performed on the spot.

So basically your entire system relies on a signature capture comparison, which I assume can only be done retroactively during an audit. So you have a poll worker leafing through documents and comparing signatures by eyeball if a recount is demanded, and otherwise no checks are performed at all.

Sounds real 'secure' to me. Sign here to vote. Better not lie though, or else!

[Elegiac]

So what kind of signature comparison software are they using, because I've never heard of such a thing before now. I have however heard of people complaining that their voter registration was changed online this cycle using a signature that clearly did not match the one on file, so obviously no active signature comparison is performed on the spot.

So basically your entire system relies on a signature capture comparison, which I assume can only be done retroactively during an audit. So you have a poll worker leafing through documents and comparing signatures by eyeball if a recount is demanded, and otherwise no checks are performed at all.

And you'd assume incorrectly then; signature matches are done when ballots are received and checked off against the voter rolls, and any discrepancy results in the voter being notified.

[Daerio]

And you'd assume incorrectly then; signature matches are done when ballots are received and checked off against the voter rolls, and any discrepancy results in the voter being notified.

Then you're able to provide me with examples of people who were notified that their signature failed to match, right? Evidence that the system is actually functional and in use?

[Elegiac]

Then you're able to provide me with examples of people who were notified that their signature failed to match, right? Evidence that the system is actually functional and in use?

Yep. Me; I've had it happen before.

[I Push Buttons]

Then you're able to provide me with examples of people who were notified that their signature failed to match, right? Evidence that the system is actually functional and in use?

That happened to me twice in 2012 when I voted absentee. That is, my ballot was returned to me because my signature didn't match their record, or so they claim.

Upon my third submission of my ballot with the same signature, I assume it was accepted. I didn't get it back a third time and my county's board of elections has a record of my having voted in that election.

[Daerio]

Yep. Me; I've had it happen before.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it.

- - - Updated - - -

That happened to me twice in 2012 when I voted absentee. That is, my ballot was returned to me because my signature didn't match their record, or so they claim.

Upon my third submission of my ballot with the same signature, I assume it was accepted. I didn't get it back a third time and my county's board of elections has a record of my having voted in that election.

Yes, sounds like a much more efficient system than voter ID.

How do you know someone didn't change your signature online, and vote for you? Perhaps that's why your signature failed to match?

[Elegiac]

Yes, sounds like a much more efficient system than voter ID.

Considering that you don't have to take time off work to go wait in a queue at a polling place and given adequate time to consider all issues on the specific ballot; yes, by several orders of magnitude.

[Daerio]

Considering that you don't have to take time off work to go wait in a queue at a polling place and given adequate time to consider all issues on the specific ballot; yes, by several orders of magnitude.

Mailling ballots back and forth 3 times and hoping your vote went through doesn't sound better to me. It also doesn't sound more secure.