After privacy controversy, Trump's voter fraud panel gets to work

[webfact]

After privacy controversy, Trump's voter fraud panel gets to work

 

FILE PHOTO: A voter wears a shirt with words from the United States Constitution while casting his ballot early as long lines of voters vote at the San Diego County Elections Office in San Diego, California, U.S., November 7, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Blake

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House commission set up to look into U.S. President Donald Trump's allegations of voter fraud, which critics have said could be a vehicle to suppress voting rights, is slated to meet for the first time on Wednesday.

 

Studies have shown voter fraud is rare in U.S. elections. Trump charged without evidence last year that millions voted unlawfully in the November presidential election. He won the Electoral College, which tallies wins in states and determines the presidential winner. But he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

 

Trump assigned Vice President Mike Pence to lead the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

 

The panel ran headlong into controversy last month when its vice chair Kris Kobach, the secretary of state for Kansas and a high-profile advocate of tougher laws on immigration and voter identification, asked states to turn over voter information.

 

The data included names, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, addresses, birth dates, political affiliation, felony convictions and voting histories.

 

Some states refused, and others said they needed to study whether they could provide the data.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the commission, and a watchdog group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sought a temporary restraining order against Kobach's request.

 

Civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers have said the commission could lead to new ID requirements and other measures making it harder to vote.

 

The commission's meeting will be live-streamed on the White House website beginning at 11 a.m. (1500 GMT).

 

(Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-19

[Srikcir]

Sounds like a witch hunt!

Something Trump should understand.

[Credo]

I am completely against this.   

 

I am very guarded in who I vote for.  I usually don't tell people anything about my political affiliations and I don't think I have ever voted a straight party ticket.   

 

 

[Jingthing]

It's about voter suppression. 

[mrwebb8825]

It's about making sure ONLY US citizens are allowed to vote in US elections. Most of this information is readily available through the vote registration data banks anyway. All the panel is trying to do is make sure the data is up to date and we don't have votes being cast from the grave or by persons whom are not eligible to vote (like convicted felons and illegal aliens).

There was a released and then suppressed report shortly after President Trump made the claim about some 9,000+ people in 1 county in VA. that were listed on the voter registration who weren't even US citizens.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

It's about making sure ONLY US citizens are allowed to vote in US elections. Most of this information is readily available through the vote registration data banks anyway. All the panel is trying to do is make sure the data is up to date and we don't have votes being cast from the grave or by persons whom are not eligible to vote (like convicted felons and illegal aliens).

There was a released and then suppressed report shortly after President Trump made the claim about some 9,000+ people in 1 county in VA. that were listed on the voter registration who weren't even US citizens.

In making such a claim, you might want to back it up with some source.   I don't think that the press can or would suppress something as big as 9,000 non-citizens on the voter roles in one county in VA.  

[iReason]

"Trump charged without evidence last year that millions voted unlawfully in the November presidential election.

He won the Electoral College, which tallies wins in states and determines the presidential winner.

But he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton."

 

Get used to it.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

In making such a claim, you might want to back it up with some source.   I don't think that the press can or would suppress something as big as 9,000 non-citizens on the voter roles in one county in VA.  

At this stage unproven - covered in detail at:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/noncitizens-lurking-on-virginia-voter-rolls/

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

In making such a claim, you might want to back it up with some source.   I don't think that the press can or would suppress something as big as 9,000 non-citizens on the voter roles in one county in VA.  

OK. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/noncitizens-lurking-on-virginia-voter-rolls/

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

It's about making sure ONLY US citizens are allowed to vote in US elections. Most of this information is readily available through the vote registration data banks anyway. All the panel is trying to do is make sure the data is up to date and we don't have votes being cast from the grave or by persons whom are not eligible to vote (like convicted felons and illegal aliens).

There was a released and then suppressed report shortly after President Trump made the claim about some 9,000+ people in 1 county in VA. that were listed on the voter registration who weren't even US citizens.

 

And all of this is the responsibility of the states.

[thaihome]

Judge: Kobach Statements 'Demonstrate a Pattern' of Misleading Claims

DAVID A. GRAHAM

 JUL 26, 2017

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach could use a little credibility at the moment. President Trump’s so-called election-integrity commission, of which he is the de facto chief, has come under suspicion for both its methods and its purpose. But citizens seeking assurance about Kobach’s motives won’t find that from the federal courts.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/judge-kobachs-statements-demonstrate-a-pattern-of-insupportable-claims/534975/

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, simple1 said:

At this stage unproven - covered in detail at:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/1/noncitizens-lurking-on-virginia-voter-rolls/

"Between 2009 and 2014, the Washington, D.C., exurb of more than 350,000 residents had disqualified more than 9,000 of them for jury duty because they were not U.S. citizens.:

"Loudoun County jury pools come from two sources — voter registration lists and Department of Motor Vehicle driver’s license applications."

 

Non-citizens have a reason to apply for a drivers license at the DMV.  They have no reason to register to vote.  It's reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of these 9000 came from the DMV.

 

Every argument I've seen that states millions "may" have voted illegally began with incomplete information interpreted in the worst possible manner  None of these arguments hold up after further investigation.

[heybruce]

I'm sure the goal is to follow the Florida model for a voter database purge:

 

"Past efforts to purge the voter rolls of noncitizens ahead of the 2012 election caused a national furor, as elections supervisors resented targeting voters with data they viewed as unreliable and political groups said the removals disproportionately targeted minority voters. Some groups accused the Scott administration of seeking to scrub the voter file of people who might not be inclined to support Republican candidates."

 

"The 2012 list of about 180,000 suspect voters was based on driver's license data. The state soon whittled it to 2,600 and then to 198. Ultimately, about 85 voters were removed from the rolls."   http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/florida-halts-purge-of-noncitizens-from-voter-rolls/2172206 

 

Wikipedia describes some of the "guidance" given in the purge that was used to cast as wide a net as possible.  One sentence in particular was telling:

 

" According to the Palm Beach Post, among other problems with the list, although blacks accounted for 88% of those removed from the rolls, they made up only about 11% of Florida's voters.^[7] "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File   

 

Voting illegally is a crime with harsh penalties and little or no reward.  It's easy to manufacture evidence that suggests it may be a problem, but all serious studies show that it is rare.  But a temporary purge of voter rolls can disenfranchise enough people to change the outcome of a close election, and history shows that those disenfranchised are from groups that usually vote Democrat.  That's why Republicans are fans of disenfranchising voters.

 

 

[YetAnother]

On 7/19/2017 at 2:16 PM, webfact said:

He won the Electoral College, which tallies wins in states and determines the presidential winner. But he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

the big flaw in the usa presidential voting system;just the existence of the electoral college system; also some states split their electoral votes, others: winner-take-all

[attrayant]

The flaw is not that it exists, but that it didn't work as designed.  The electors were supposed to have the final say in the event of some unforeseen circumstance such as an electorate voting a foreign proxy into office, or the public voting in somebody with no experience in government whatsoever.  The electors are not supposed to merely echo their state's election results, but be a circuit breaker in case something goes terribly askew.

 

Now that they have officially proven themselves useless, why bother keeping them?  It's just an extra layer of bureaucracy that provides no useful function.

Edited July 27, 2017 by attrayant

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/27/2017 at 2:03 PM, attrayant said:

or the public voting in somebody with no experience in government whatsoever.

So, according to what you say, if the American People choose a candidate and the bureaucracy machine doesn't like him or her those 538 can tell the 350 million "Sorry, we don't like him or her no matter what you wanted"? Why have campaigns then? Why not leave all that money in the federal reserve and just gather these 538 people together every 4 years and hold auditions? 

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/27/2017 at 0:53 PM, attrayant said:

 

And all of this is the responsibility of the states.

Which they quite obviously aren't able or willing to handle. Makes 1 curious to see just how many illegal aliens are registered to vote in those sanctuary cities. Of the over 11 million illegals in the country, 1/2 or more are in those cities.

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

So, according to what you say, if the American People choose a candidate and the bureaucracy machine doesn't like him or her those 538 can tell the 350 million "Sorry, we don't like him or her no matter what you wanted"? Why have campaigns then? Why not leave all that money in the federal reserve and just gather these 538 people together every 4 years and hold auditions? 

 

Not according to what I say, according to what Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers.  From Federalist #68:

 

Quote

[The sense of the people] will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 

No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.

[emphasis mine]

 

In other words, he wanted the exact opposite of a bureaucracy deciding the outcome of elections.

 

Adams continues:

 

Quote

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

 

In other words, electors should ensure that candidates are well qualified.  Adams clarifies further:

 

Quote

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

 

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

 

With "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", it's clear that the founding fathers wanted to keep the highest office free from demagogues like Trump.  Finally, the icing on the cake:

 

Quote

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

 

My original point stands: The Electoral College is not working as originally intended.

Edited July 29, 2017 by attrayant
reworded

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Which they quite obviously aren't able or willing to handle.

 

What makes it obvious?

 

Quote

Makes 1 curious to see just how many illegal aliens are registered to vote in those sanctuary cities.

 

Oh, then you don't really know.  But you just said it's obvious.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

So, according to what you say, if the American People choose a candidate and the bureaucracy machine doesn't like him or her those 538 can tell the 350 million "Sorry, we don't like him or her no matter what you wanted"? Why have campaigns then? Why not leave all that money in the federal reserve and just gather these 538 people together every 4 years and hold auditions? 

Or we could just do away with the electoral college and go with majority voting.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Which they quite obviously aren't able or willing to handle. Makes 1 curious to see just how many illegal aliens are registered to vote in those sanctuary cities. Of the over 11 million illegals in the country, 1/2 or more are in those cities.

What is obvious about it?  I have yet to see credible evidence of wide-spread voting fraud. 

 

Why would illegal aliens register to vote?  The penalties for voter fraud are severe, the benefits are negligible to non-existent.

[ilostmypassword]

On 7/27/2017 at 9:58 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

It's about making sure ONLY US citizens are allowed to vote in US elections. Most of this information is readily available through the vote registration data banks anyway. All the panel is trying to do is make sure the data is up to date and we don't have votes being cast from the grave or by persons whom are not eligible to vote (like convicted felons and illegal aliens).

There was a released and then suppressed report shortly after President Trump made the claim about some 9,000+ people in 1 county in VA. that were listed on the voter registration who weren't even US citizens.

It was so supressed that it was immediately findable via google. And actually, no, the report does not say illegal immigrants were registered to vote. It said non-citizens were registered to vote. The registered voters in question came via the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. These were people who had driver's licenses. Most likely, they were green card holders. Some of them may have answered wrongly on their form whether or not they were citizens. In which case they would automatically be registered to vote. But being registered to vote is not the same thing as voting. And it seems absurdly unlikely that people holding a green card would incur the risk of, at the very least, losing their residency in the usa for the sake of voting. 

Five states run by Republicans did a massive search to undercover voter fraud. They found virtually nothing.

[heybruce]

An obvious example of smoke and mirrors.  Hyping a non-existent voter fraud problem is a useful distraction from the administration's inability to accomplish anything of significance.

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

An obvious example of smoke and mirrors.  Hyping a non-existent voter fraud problem is a useful distraction from the administration's inability to accomplish anything of significance.

You hit the nail on the head.  This is Trump trying to say he would have won the popular vote if there wasn't so much fraud.  What a horrible president we have!

 

How about focusing on things that matter.  Right...never going to happen.

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/29/2017 at 4:19 PM, ilostmypassword said:

It was so supressed that it was immediately findable via google. And actually, no, the report does not say illegal immigrants were registered to vote. It said non-citizens were registered to vote.

Please highlight where I said "Illegal Immigrants".

[iReason]

10 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Please highlight where I said "Illegal Immigrants".

 

On July 29, 2017 at 6:33 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

Makes 1 curious to see just how many illegal aliens are registered to vote in those sanctuary cities.

Of the over 11 million illegals in the country, 1/2 or more are in those cities.

[mrwebb8825]

2 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

That wasn't the post that he quoted.

[iReason]

13 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

That wasn't the post that he quoted.

 

Right.

 

You asked a question.

 

You recieved an answer.

 

I guess you forgot what you wrote just two days ago...

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

That wasn't the post that he quoted.

Because it wasn't the post I quoted, does that mean you didn't say it? Gee, sorry for forgetting to include it in my response.

Here it is now.  I will concede that you wrote "illegal aliens" instead of "illegal immigrants." Which I think qualifies as a distinction without a difference.

 

On 7/29/2017 at 6:33 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

Which they quite obviously aren't able or willing to handle. Makes 1 curious to see just how many illegal aliens are registered to vote in those sanctuary cities. Of the over 11 million illegals in the country, 1/2 or more are in those cities.

 

[mrwebb8825]

4 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Right.

 

You asked a question.

 

You recieved an answer.

 

I guess you forgot what you wrote just two days ago...

 

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Because it wasn't the post I quoted, does that mean you didn't say it? Gee, sorry for forgetting to include it in my response.

Here it is now.  I will concede that you wrote "illegal aliens" instead of "illegal immigrants." Which I think qualifies as a distinction without a difference.

 

 

since you 2 are in cahoots, I'll group you. Yes, I have posted the 2 words "Illegal" and "Immigrants". Not in the context you're describing nor even in the same post as a reply to others. I'll let it go at that. Too much like the MSM here.