Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    40,586

    Default We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    If you got to vote, and someone decides to challenge you, the burden should be on THEM to prove you are not who you claim to be.

    If they prevent you from voting, but cannot prove you are not you, they need to be charged with a crime.

    Under those conditions, they would have to be quite sure someone is not whom they claim to be. If they can prove the individual is not who he claims to be, the individual ought be charged with a crime. But the burden is on the one making the accusation.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    10,703

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    If you got to vote, and someone decides to challenge you, the burden should be on THEM to prove you are not who you claim to be.

    If they prevent you from voting, but cannot prove you are not you, they need to be charged with a crime.

    Under those conditions, they would have to be quite sure someone is not whom they claim to be. If they can prove the individual is not who he claims to be, the individual ought be charged with a crime. But the burden is on the one making the accusation.
    Just for fun, let's appoint you as someone with the right to challenge.

    A person known to you as not being eligible to vote wants to vote. That person has all the documents and signatures necessary to vote. The person even has witnesses who will attest to his right. Who gets to adjudicate the matter. Remember the time constraints on certifying the vote. Remember that you get to challenge everyone. So you challenge everyone and you have personal knowledge that none of them have a right to vote.

    How many illegal voters can you process and does it really matter?
    Life is complex.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Greater Northern Arizona Republic
    Posts
    407

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,216

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    If you got to vote, and someone decides to challenge you, the burden should be on THEM to prove you are not who you claim to be.

    If they prevent you from voting, but cannot prove you are not you, they need to be charged with a crime.

    Under those conditions, they would have to be quite sure someone is not whom they claim to be. If they can prove the individual is not who he claims to be, the individual ought be charged with a crime. But the burden is on the one making the accusation.
    Just for fun, let's appoint you as someone with the right to challenge.

    A person "known to you" as "not being eligible to vote" wants to vote. That person has all the documents and signatures necessary to vote. The person even has witnesses who will attest to his right. Who gets to adjudicate the matter? Remember the time constraints on certifying the vote. Remember that you get to challenge everyone. So you challenge everyone and "you have personal knowledge that none of them have a right to vote."

    How many illegal voters can you process and does it really matter?
    Does my editing of your post clarify what you're trying to convey to John, or have I missed your point?

    Both posts sound to me like an argument for valid photo ID and rigorous voting registration requirements.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    12,329

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Interesting! I believe I agree.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    54,428

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    If you got to vote, and someone decides to challenge you, the burden should be on THEM to prove you are not who you claim to be.
    It is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative.

    Why not just leave it up to the staff of the polling station? It is their job to check each voter and issue the ballot form..
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    40,586

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    It is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative.

    Why not just leave it up to the staff of the polling station? It is their job to check each voter and issue the ballot form..
    I agree, but that appears it won't be the case. It appears as if 'poll watchers' may challenge many voters. THEY should have to prove their case, and it should be a crime to get it wrong.

    That would eliminate random challenges, and only challenges of merit are apt to be made.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    54,428

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I agree, but that appears it won't be the case. It appears as if 'poll watchers' may challenge many voters. THEY should have to prove their case, and it should be a crime to get it wrong.

    That would eliminate random challenges, and only challenges of merit are apt to be made.
    You let people into the polling stations who are not there to vote?

    What a perverse idea. We keep them outside the door (preferably in the rain) where they are allowed to do an exit poll, but that is all.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    10,703

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by kgr1 View Post
    Does my editing of your post clarify what you're trying to convey to John, or have I missed your point?

    Both posts sound to me like an argument for valid photo ID and rigorous voting registration requirements.
    I have no idea if it clarifies what I was writing. I have no idea if it conveys the correct meaning.

    I find it foolish to fight over this issue. Currently we let the officials at the voting place do verification. It might be best to ensure they are doing their job in a fair manner rather than worry about the individual voter.
    Life is complex.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    10,703

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You let people into the polling stations who are not there to vote?

    What a perverse idea. We keep them outside the door (preferably in the rain) where they are allowed to do an exit poll, but that is all.
    It varies from state to state. But each political party may have someone at voting locations. I have never seen one.

    But I frequently see a police car at my polling place. The officers are out of sight - probably within calling distance.
    Life is complex.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    40,586

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    You let people into the polling stations who are not there to vote?

    What a perverse idea. We keep them outside the door (preferably in the rain) where they are allowed to do an exit poll, but that is all.
    Republican new laws are going to more of an extreme.
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    54,428

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    It varies from state to state. But each political party may have someone at voting locations. I have never seen one.

    But I frequently see a police car at my polling place. The officers are out of sight - probably within calling distance.
    As I said, they are allowed at the station, but outside. No political badges nor posters within a given distance of the door either. That way, no intimidation of voters to guarantee a free vote.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    10,703

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    As I said, they are allowed at the station, but outside. No political badges nor posters within a given distance of the door either. That way, no intimidation of voters to guarantee a free vote.
    I don't know why you would think there is intimidation here. Aside from John Smith's inaccurate claims.
    Life is complex.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    40,586

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    I don't know why you would think there is intimidation here. Aside from John Smith's inaccurate claims.
    Look at some of the new laws being passed. Aside from intimidation; if someone prevents you from voting based on their belief that you are not who you claim to be, why would they not have the burden to prove you're committing a crime, and if they prevent you from voting, and you manage to prove you are you, why would they not have committed a crime?
    "alternative facts (lies)" are a cancer eating through a democracy, and will kill it. 1st amendment is not absolute.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    54,428

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    I don't know why you would think there is intimidation here. Aside from John Smith's inaccurate claims.
    The issue was that an employer could and did influence the vote by having his foremen intimidate hie workers.
    Now tell me that some unscrupulous boss could not send in"poll watchers" to do just that.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    67,204

    Default Re: We've accepted a voting problem that's backwards

    From here it seems the the probability of bias and corruption is built into your existing electoral systems, if not congress itself. Designed in even.

    But I do understand that some of the provisions, as the practice of States running Federal elections, had it's basis in the tyranny of distance and slow communications.

Posting Permissions

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