What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[petej0]

By researching it? Actually go to these places and find out? You created a fictional situation but don't even know if it's happening.

How do you know where to go? Think about this for a second. You are an administrator "counting" the votes. What red flags will be triggered to make you investigate a possible fraud at the polls?

What do you think the government does when it spends that $1m? It's also providing jobs and services etc.

For what and why? Why does government have to create the job if the millionaire does when he buys his new toys?

[Zhangfei]

How do you know where to go? Think about this for a second. You are an administrator "counting" the votes. What red flags will be triggered to make you investigate a possible fraud at the polls?

A 20yr old voting for a 45yr old is a big one? I still don't get the point. I could create a scenario where Chinese hackers have successfully fixed the system and made up over 3m votes; they can't be traced because it was too advanced. Do you suggest we should fix this problem? You can't provide evidence for it because of how good they are, so should we spend a few billion developing a better protection system for the machines?

For what and why? Why does government have to create the job if the millionaire does when he buys his new toys?

It doesn't "have to," the point is it still does and usually for a much better greater good than the millionaire's spending.

[Masark]

So if it was amended to include those forms of ID, is it still restricting and suppressing?.

No, but it would still probably be a waste of money, brains, and time.

[Grizzly Willy]

A 20yr old voting for a 45yr old is a big one? I still don't get the point. I could create a scenario where Chinese hackers have successfully fixed the system and made up over 3m votes; they can't be traced because it was too advanced. Do you suggest we should fix this problem? You can't provide evidence for it because of how good they are, so should we spend a few billion developing a better protection system for the machines?

There's a problem and we don't know how to fix it, let's do nothing?

[Nadev]

No, but it would still probably be a waste of money, brains, and time.

Why does Canada have it then?

[Rukentuts]

There's a problem and we don't know how to fix it, let's do nothing?

There's really no significant problem, and our fix only creates a significant one; in addition to spending millions in the process.

[Grizzly Willy]

There's really no significant problem, and our fix only creates a significant one; in addition to spending millions in the process.

3 million isn't a significant problem?

[Zhangfei]

There's a problem and we don't know how to fix it, let's do nothing?

There might be a problem and we don't know how to fix it, let's spend billions?

[Kasierith]

3 million isn't a significant problem?

The idea there would be to invest money in researching the security breach first, so that we can then formulate a protection strategy. To bring it back to voter fraud, the basic idea should be to invest money into figuring out exactly what allows voter fraud to happen and what gaps can be closed, as opposed to doing a rather blatantly politically-influenced set of laws that may or may not address the problem with hand. The voter ID systems seem absolutely fraught with ulterior motives with no real intention of solving the proposed issue.

[Rukentuts]

3 million isn't a significant problem?

There's not 3M cases of voter fraud. It's in the range of a couple thousand every election.

[Grizzly Willy]

There might be a problem and we don't know how to fix it, let's spend billions?

You just stated that the problem exists. And why would the fix cost billions?

There's not 3M cases of voter fraud.

It's 3 million illegal votes.

[Zhangfei]

You just stated that the problem exists. And why would the fix cost billions?

No I didn't. I stated that the problem is hypothetical and unproven and gave an equally hypothetical and unproven example that would also cost billions to "fix."

[Rukentuts]

You just stated that the problem exists. And why would the fix cost billions?

It's 3 million illegal votes.

You have a source that says 3M illegal aliens voted?

[Grizzly Willy]

The idea there would be to invest money in researching the security breach first, so that we can then formulate a protection strategy. To bring it back to voter fraud, the basic idea should be to invest money into figuring out exactly what allows voter fraud to happen and what gaps can be closed, as opposed to doing a rather blatantly politically-influenced set of laws that may or may not address the problem with hand. The voter ID systems seem absolutely fraught with ulterior motives with no real intention of solving the proposed issue.

I think voter ID's could be a solution to a potential (keyword being potential) issue if they could keep track of and verify the legitimacy of the ID's, so they would know that you're not voting multiple times.

Again, keyword being potential issue.

[petej0]

A 20yr old voting for a 45yr old is a big one?

How does the poll worker know if age isnt listed. How does the person counting the votes know?

I still don't get the point.

Maybe I am not explaining it clearly.

My name is Joe Doe. I show up on the 5th street polls to vote. I give them my name.

Me: "Hello, my name is Joe Doe I am here to vote."

Them: "Hello Joe, I see your name right here. You are cleared to vote.

I then show up on the 25th street polls to vote for my father. I give them his name.

Me: "Hello, my name is John Doe I am here to vote."

Them: "Hello John, I see your name right here. You are cleared to vote.

The poll workers count up the votes at the end of the night. What red flags are raised? How does anyone know I voted twice?

I could create a scenario where Chinese hackers have successfully fixed the system and made up over 3m votes; they can't be traced because it was too advanced. Do you suggest we should fix this problem? You can't provide evidence for it because of how good they are, so should we spend a few billion developing a better protection system for the machines?

We have no evidence of attempts by them to hack the system. We do have evidence of people voting for others.

It doesn't "have to," the point is it still does and usually for a much better greater good than the millionaire's spending.

How do you know it is much better? How does the government know what jobs the market is looking for? How do we know the jobs the government creates is not a waste because they are not sustaining? Look at all the money dumped into green energy companies that have failed. Would those jobs been better created if by the market who is looking for coal power and not solar or wind?

[Grizzly Willy]

No I didn't. I stated that the problem is hypothetical and unproven and gave an equally hypothetical and unproven example that would also cost billions to "fix."

So you're saying that in the situation you were presenting the hackers are completely fabricated? If so then I misunderstood your scenario.

[yellowgore]

You have a source that says 3M illegal aliens voted?

He has the same source as the one you used to back up your post that it's only "a couple of thousand". [none]

[Rukentuts]

He has the same source as the one you used to back up your post that it's only "a couple of thousand". [none]

I linked a study a few pages back with that figure.

[Endus]

You asked why I never researched it, and I said because the SCOTUS upheld a state's requirement.

That's a really, really bad excuse to not educate yourself on a subject, and it also doesn't justify the goalpost-shifting in response to my post.

That I don't believe there are really that many people has nothing to do with the SCOTUS.

And this is WHY it doesn't justify the goalpost-shifting. However, thank you for admitting that you deliberately avoided the issue you were confronted with in favor of another that, by your own admission here, "has nothing to do" with the original issue.

I just find it hard to believe that millions of people really are being impacted when a photo ID is so widely used in other interactions with government/business. If you're living off state benefits, you need to prove your ID, if you have a bank account you need to have an ID, and if you cash a check you need to have an ID. How it is so unreasonable to expect people have an ID when its pretty much required financially, unless these millions of people are living off unreported cash income?

None of that requires a government-issued photo ID. Just ID.

For instance, I just checked Bank of America's website;

• Full name, Social Security number and date of birth of all account holders
• Phone number and email address
• Physical U.S. address (no post office boxes)
• Debit card or account information for funding your new account
• School information (if you’re a student)

That's all they require to open a checking account. No mention of photo ID.

I like that you use the SCOTUS rulings as a defense for things you agree with, and then dismiss it when you don't agree with it. Must be nice having such a transitory belief in the validity of the SCOTUS.

It's because I understand what SCOTUS is and does. They can overrule a law as unconstitutional. They cannot create new laws. They also cannot overrule laws which the Constitution or its Amendments do not expressly forbid, however horrendous and unjust those laws may be. For instance, the Dred Scott decision, where SCOTUS ruled that slavery was entirely legal, African-Americans were not US citizens, and that the federal government could not regulate it in the states.

That did not mean SCOTUS was declaring that slavery was awesome. It meant that the federal government could not constitutionally act against it, unless they passed an Amendment to the Constitution, which they eventually did.

Understanding what SCOTUS is and what it does is not "having a transitory belief in the validity of the SCOTUS".

[Zhangfei]

How does the poll worker know if age isnt listed. How does the person counting the votes know?

Who actually worries? How much does it happen? You still haven't provided any solid evidence. You keep saying we can't get evidence - well, that's your problem. The burden of proof is on you.

We have no evidence of attempts by them to hack the system. We do have evidence of people voting for others.

How much? What sort of numbers? How will voter IDs prevent this?

How do you know it is much better? How does the government know what jobs the market is looking for? How do we know the jobs the government creates is not a waste because they are not sustaining? Look at all the money dumped into green energy companies that have failed. Would those jobs been better created if by the market who is looking for coal power and not solar or wind?

Because the government generally deals in things with tangible, noticeable benefits to society - such as education, infrastructure etc.