Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Mil voters disenfranchised??

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,247
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Mil voters disenfranchised??

    Saw this on Friday.. Apparently a group known as Center for American Progress (a liberal progressive think tank), feels cause of all the hackings going on these days, Military people stationed overseas should lose the right to vote electronically (either via fax or email)..

    FIRST OFF< i've never even HEARD of someone overseas voting in that manner.. They were always paper ballots.
    Secondly, if this is for hacking prevention, WHY not extend it to all voting done electronically...

    And lastly where are all the usual suspects on the left, calling this wrong/bad/evil for disenfranchising the military vote??

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...litary-voting/

  2. #2
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,757
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Saw this on Friday.. Apparently a group known as Center for American Progress (a liberal progressive think tank), feels cause of all the hackings going on these days, Military people stationed overseas should lose the right to vote electronically (either via fax or email)..

    FIRST OFF< i've never even HEARD of someone overseas voting in that manner.. They were always paper ballots.
    Secondly, if this is for hacking prevention, WHY not extend it to all voting done electronically...

    And lastly where are all the usual suspects on the left, calling this wrong/bad/evil for disenfranchising the military vote??

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...litary-voting/
    Electronic voting has been a thing for at least two cycles that I know of.

    I don't know that this would be outright disenfranchising the military (really US persons overseas ... the majority of which are military); they could still vote via absentee ballot.

    I am not a fan of restricting anyone's ability to vote, but unless the electronic submissions were done via a secure network, there really isn't a way to tell who is sending that ballot.

    We have seen that at least some bad-actors have shown a willingness to conduct influence operations related to U.S. elections, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that interfering with electronic ballots is a COA.

    It is ironic that a progressive group would be making such a recommendation, then again it sort of isn't ... since the military tends to vote more conservatively. The counter point is that it is ironic that conservatives are generally beating a drum about voter fraud, when this proposal could limit voter fraud or fraudulent ballot submission.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #3
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I followed the links in the OP but I didn't find anything where The Center for American Progress wants to disenfranchise military or overseas voters. If I missed them saying it then please show me where they said they want to disenfranchise military voters. What they said was:
    Most experts agree that returning voted ballots electronically is not safe. An official from DHS’s Cyber Security Division warned that “online voting, especially online voting in large scale, introduces great risk into the election system by threatening voters’ expectations of confidentiality, accounting and security of their votes and provides an avenue for malicious actors to manipulate the voting results.”44 The National Institute of Standards and Technology has also warned against online voting.45 Furthermore, it is impossible to carry out meaningful post-election audits on voted ballots submitted electronically because there is no reliable paper record that can be referenced during the auditing process.


    Of course, it is of utmost importance that military personnel and U.S. citizens stationed and living overseas are provided opportunities to vote and have their voices heard in our democracy. It is equally important, however, that their votes be delivered securely and their privacy protected. Currently, that means returning a hard copy paper ballot via U.S. mail. Requiring UOCAVA voters to return ballots by mail does not appear to have a significant impact on ballot return rates. If we base projections of UOCAVA ballot return rates on information contained in Pew surveys of unreturned UOCAVA ballots in the states in 2012 and 2014,46 we see that see that states requiring UOCAVA voters to return voted ballots via mail actually had a slightly higher return rate those years than states that permit voted ballots to be returned electronically.47

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/02/12/446336/election-security-50-states/






  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,247
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    The whole disenfranchising is MY take on it. Afterall, that's the common statement from the left/dems, when ever someone on the RIGHT (GOP) wants to do something to put any new laws on voting, such as Voter IDs etc.. "That we are disenfranchising XYZ groups" cause of it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    The whole disenfranchising is MY take on it. Afterall, that's the common statement from the left/dems, when ever someone on the RIGHT (GOP) wants to do something to put any new laws on voting, such as Voter IDs etc.. "That we are disenfranchising XYZ groups" cause of it.
    The report wasn't about disenfranchising military voters but about securing their vote of everyone; civilian and military. They pointed out a problem with electronic voting in that it isn't secure. If this was about disenfranchising anyone's vote then the "left/dems" would be complaining about it because they are the one trying to remove the impediments to voting by American citizens.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,247
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    If it was just about securing the votes of everyone, why are they so rabidly against voter ID laws, or states that want to clear up their voter rolls?

  7. #7
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Voter ID laws is a republican solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. It's part of their "voter fraud" campaign to make people believe illegal aliens are voting, people are voting multiple times, etc... In fact, the number of voter fraud cases nationwide is so small you could probably fit all those who voted illegally into a small movie theater.

    As for voter ID laws, when you register to vote you are making a legal statement that you are a legal resident at the address you register and if that information is fraudulent you can be prosecuted. The real purpose of voter ID laws is to keep people who are poor or unable to travel to obtain a state ID from voting because they tend not to support republicans. I've registered voters and I run a polling site during primary and general elections and I have never seen any form of voter fraud. When you register to vote you have to provide either the last four digits of your social security number or state driver's license. If neither are included on the registration form then we'll ask for one of the 10 plus forms of ID before we give them a ballot. I've been working the polls since 2006 and I have never had a problem with people providing me an ID when required.

  8. #8
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,757
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    Voter ID laws is a republican solution to a problem that really doesn't exist. It's part of their "voter fraud" campaign to make people believe illegal aliens are voting, people are voting multiple times, etc... In fact, the number of voter fraud cases nationwide is so small you could probably fit all those who voted illegally into a small movie theater.

    As for voter ID laws, when you register to vote you are making a legal statement that you are a legal resident at the address you register and if that information is fraudulent you can be prosecuted. The real purpose of voter ID laws is to keep people who are poor or unable to travel to obtain a state ID from voting because they tend not to support republicans. I've registered voters and I run a polling site during primary and general elections and I have never seen any form of voter fraud. When you register to vote you have to provide either the last four digits of your social security number or state driver's license. If neither are included on the registration form then we'll ask for one of the 10 plus forms of ID before we give them a ballot. I've been working the polls since 2006 and I have never had a problem with people providing me an ID when required.
    Voter fraud isn't the problem (numerically) that it is made out to be; but not without repurcussions:

    From 07-29-2015, 10:56 AM

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    While voter fraud may not take place in large or even majority numbers, it can have substantial secondary and tertiary effects (I actually did my Master's Thesis at Georgetown on voter fraud):

    In the 2008 elections, Al Franken (D) challenged incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R) from Minnesota; the election was one of the closest ever. At first Coleman was ahead by a bit over 700 votes, the 111th Congress was seated in Jan 2009 with the seat still disputed in the state, after months of recounts and legal challenges, Franken was declared the winner by just over 300 in July 2009 and sworn in as the junior Senator from Minnesota.

    A secondary effect of Sen. Franken's win was he was the 60th Senator to caucus with the Democrats in the 111th Congress -- giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority (which would last through the death of Sen. Kennedy and his appointed substitute Sen. Paul Kirk until the election and swearing in of Sen. Scott Brown.)

    A tertiary effect of Sen. Franken's win was the party line vote (60 - 40) for cloture on H.R. 3590 (originally a modification of the Internal Revenue Code and replaced with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)

    In 2010, it was initially alleged that over 1300 voters in the 2008 election were convicted felons and ineligible to vote, as of late 2013 (when I included this topic in my Master's Thesis) the number had fallen to 1099 and over 300 convictions had been made by state prosecutors. Of the 1099 ineligible voters, almost 90% voted a straight democratic ballot. Now, I am not stating that a vast left-wing conspiracy colluded to elect Sen. Franken, any of the Senator's from the Democratic party in the 11th Congress could be considered the 60th vote; his was just the closest election that cycle. But, you can easily see that voter fraud, even just a few hundred in sleepy Minnesota can have huge repercussions.




    One of the issues cited in the Supreme Court ruling this year in the case of Wisconsin's voter ID law (which SCOTUS allowed to stand) was that Wisconsin made ID's free and available to any resident of the state. Which seems to be the standard across the board is that states offer a free ID for voting (distinct from a driver's licence etc.) Now, if you have to pay to get a copy of a birth certificate to get the ID, that may be an unintended cost but how far back / how many steps does one go on that? Voter ID laws are often said to target the poor & roughly 10% of eligible voters do not have any form of voter ID (most of those are low-income), however about 3/4 of them are able to obtain government assistance, which does require some type of ID (maybe not acceptable for voting ... but it is what it is.) In those states that offer free ID's, yes ... you have to get yourself to an ID office which could be a problem in rural areas, but according to Pew (from 2013) over 90% of those low income people without ID's live in urban areas and roughly 1-3 miles of some type of government ID office ... so not at all unattainable.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #9
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Most of the voter ID laws have been passed by republican controlled states for the purpose of suppressing minority voter turnout who tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates. Case in point, in 2015 Alabama enacted a voter ID law and then immediately closed the DMVs, where a person could obtain a state issued ID, in eight of 10 counties with the highest number of minority (Black) voters. This means it became hard for a person in those counties to travel to another county just to get an ID card. Those supporting voter ID laws say it prevents people from pretending to be somebody else to cast a vote but there are two thing the average supporter doesn't take into account: 1. Those manning the voter polls are usually from area so the person attempting to pretend to be someone else doesn't know if the poll worker knows the real voter. 2. Pretending to be someone else and voting is a very time-consuming process having to go from one poll to another to vote is a very hard way to steal an election.

    I have a question about your comment that nearly 90% of the felons voting voted for the Democratic candidate. If a person's vote is secret then how do you know who they voted for?

  10. #10
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    2,757
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    Most of the voter ID laws have been passed by republican controlled states for the purpose of suppressing minority voter turnout who tend to vote for Democratic Party candidates. Case in point, in 2015 Alabama enacted a voter ID law and then immediately closed the DMVs, where a person could obtain a state issued ID, in eight of 10 counties with the highest number of minority (Black) voters. This means it became hard for a person in those counties to travel to another county just to get an ID card. Those supporting voter ID laws say it prevents people from pretending to be somebody else to cast a vote but there are two thing the average supporter doesn't take into account: 1. Those manning the voter polls are usually from area so the person attempting to pretend to be someone else doesn't know if the poll worker knows the real voter. 2. Pretending to be someone else and voting is a very time-consuming process having to go from one poll to another to vote is a very hard way to steal an election.
    No disagreement that some voter ID laws were intended to target / disenfranchise certain blocks of voters; I did not agree with the Alabama issue you mention. Wisconsin did a pretty good job with their voter ID system in that they provided mobile ID centers (buses) that could go to rural areas etc. and would make house calls. When it was challenged in the Supreme Court the majority decision cited that the state had done due diligence in efforts to provide a free ID for the purpose of voting to every citizen who wanted to register.

    You are right, in some places everyone knows everyone and fraudulent voting / pretending to be someone else would be difficult, in other places not so much. Going to from district to district would not be efficient and difficult in a state wide election. But, in smaller races (VA last year where there ended up being an exact tie in the vote count for example) you don't need a large margin if it is a pretty close split. That one election in VA was resolved with a coin toss, and a Republican won, which meant Republicans maintained control of the VA House of Delegates. Where smaller elections for state seats is a HUGE deal, is in the states redrawing congressional districts (national impact) ... PA has a case right now related to gerrymandering that favors Republicans, Maryland is a heavily gerrymandered state, based on our congressional delegation you would think the state is heavily democratic, but in total it is much closer than you would think but large blocks of republican voters in and around my area are split into 4 congressional districs.

    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    I have a question about your comment that nearly 90% of the felons voting voted for the Democratic candidate. If a person's vote is secret then how do you know who they voted for?
    The absentee ballots had names & signatures on them. Once it was determined that the voter was ineligible, the ballot was not secret, it was evidence; what I had read on it was the ones that voted in person were asked as part of the investigation (as contested as that election was, if I was an investigator I would want that data point as well); 2 & 3 years later the MN GOP was still trying to get the results overturned ... no joy. In the years since, the numbers have gotten really goofed up. Some have had their convictions thrown out ... they were still ineligible to vote but claimed they did not know they were ineligible. Some sources say Franken would have won, as best as I can tell they add the overturned but still ineligible ballots back into the totals. The whole this was a shit show.

    All of my absentee ballots for Louisiana have my name & address printed on them; I asked my wife (she votes here in MD) she has to print her name on the ballot flap and sign the ballot. Not sure how it would work with electronic voting ... but what I remember when I was doing the research on the thesis was that about half of the states if needed to make a case of fraudulent voting could trace an individual ballot to a voter. If I remember right, New Mexico’s seemed the easy to backtrack if needed. As I remember it, in many places voting is by secret ballot, but not as secret as you would think.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •