2016 elections.

[Lyion]

There are few safeguards in many states that we can use to detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. The only ones who are against a valid form of Voter ID are those who are fine with the ends justifying the means. There's plenty of evidence of fraud.

Brin, the poor are not being denied votes. It's easier to vote now than just about any other time. The problem is our voting systems, machines, and partisans who are fine with corruption and fraud because it suits their narrative. Every other country requires valid IDs or recognition to vote. We should not allow people to vote with fucking library cards.

I'm personally for E-Verify.

[Arlos]

There are few safeguards in many states that we can use to detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. The only ones who are against a valid form of Voter ID are those who are fine with the ends justifying the means. There's plenty of evidence of fraud.

Brin, the poor are not being denied votes. It's easier to vote now than just about any other time. The problem is our voting systems, machines, and partisans who are fine with corruption and fraud because it suits their narrative. Every other country requires valid IDs or recognition to vote. We should not allow people to vote with fucking library cards.

I'm personally for E-Verify.

The bolded is absolute, complete and total bullshit. Absolutely totally incorrect.

Watch this if you want to know why rational people think voter ID laws are idiotic, and are designed for one thing: to suppress poor and minority voters, and prevent them from actually voting.

[Lyion]

Hey, a foreign comedian lecturing in a bubble regarding the need for no verification for elections. Sorry if I don't base my opinions based on one sided stand up routines ignoring actual facts.

Meanwhile, everyone else in the known world has some sort of set up that verifies the identity of their voters and you are not refuting the main people who are against any sort of voter ID are those who are fine with George Soros dumping billions to steal elections, and the capability for fraud especially in large inner-city precincts with very little accountability.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/06/for ... -system-2/

If memory serves, even our local Canadians are amazed at the fact that we don't require ID to vote, it's a terrible system and one we could easily rectify with E-Verify.

I'm amazed that anyone in this day and age could be against requiring an identification to vote. It's not exactly a stretch to not want fraud, and even if there weren't a lot that doesn't change the fact we should have integrity in our elections. It should not be a wedge issue, it should be a commonsense implementation ensuring votes actually matter.

[Arlos]

What fraud? Prove this is occurring. Did you miss the part of the video that explained why IDs would only stop one type of fraud that isn't actually happening? How about the part where he quoted the statistics that the groups looking into potential voter fraud have found? Did you even watch the video? It quotes a significant number of facts. If you're claiming it's fact-free, you obviously haven't watched it, and are completely talking out of your ass when you denigrate it.

Also, do you have one shred of evidence to support your claim of a district having 110% of the populace voting? You've claimed that a few times, but never backed it up. News report from a reputable news site. BBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Time, Boston Globe, LA Times, etc. *NOT* Fox news, and *NOT* random right wing echo chamber blogosphere site. Actual news. Put up, or shut up.

[brinstar]

Brin, the poor are not being denied votes. It's easier to vote now than just about any other time.

i'm sorry lyion this is just completely fucking wrong

step outside your own fucking bubble for once

[brinstar]

followup

Hey, a foreign comedian

HE NOT FRUM HERE DAT MEAN HE WRONG hahahahaha get a grip

bottom line - i am for reforms in the voting process that increase integrity and transparency, but any such reform must be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to not make it harder for poor/minority people to vote as every thus-far implemented attempt has been proven to do. you solve that problem, you have my ear and likely my support

but what happened in arizona has nothing to do with any of that shit. it's the state's republican leadership, now ridiculously unfettered by the Voting Rights Act which the roberts court gutted, actively and intentionally making it harder for EVERYONE to vote, but in particular working-class, working poor, and minority citizens. if you want to conjecture whether there was or was not some additional shenanigans perpetrated by the DNC and/or the clinton campaign on top of that, we'll have that discussion - but it is a pure and simple fact that the Voting Rights Act prevented a huge amount of this kind of bullshit from happening. reducing polling sites in maricopa by more than 60% from 2012? bullshit. many low-income and/or minority precincts not having their own polling site? bullshit. voter ID doesn't fix either of those so stop muddying the goddamn water idiot

[Lyion]

Why the fuck do I have to prove anything to want fair and valid rules? it's like having officiating being optional in sports games because there really aren't many penalties.

I'm all for simplifying voting. I just would rather we had simple rules in place so Joe Angry Leftie there isn't being a good Media Matters puppet and hitting 6 precincts and voting 12 times, which since our voting system is mired in 1950s technology would not even show up. Do I think it's a occuring a lot? No. I do however want my vote to matter.

Making it difficult to vote and requiring proper ID are segregate issues. The problem is many rail against any form of ID to vote, which I have yet to hear any valid reason for supporting. How the fuck do we have integrity in our elections if there is zero accountability for who is actually voting?

Sorry, I don't beleieve we should allow the honor system for voters. Fuck that shit, as there are many who will do anything to win, as has been seen again and again.

Voter ID is a common sense thing unless you have blinders on or are for winning at all cost. No, you should not be able to vote with a college ID or a library card. Go ask anyone neutral and see their thoughts on that. I already posted an article which shows how silly we look abroad.

[Drem]

Why even argue about it? The popular vote is meaningless. Electoral college needs to be done away with before we worry about the other stuff

[brinstar]

I already posted an article which shows how silly we look abroad.

i thought you didn't care what foreigners thought? hahahaha you're not worth arguing with sometimes

[Harrison]

On paper, without real-world data to reflect upon, Voter ID laws seem perfectly rational.

Your argument is standing on that weak leg alone. In reality, we've already proven Voter ID laws as the sham they are. I would even agree with you if there were really a problem to deal with. Reality says otherwise.

There are real problems with voting, and it has nothing to do with people voting on a 1 by 1 basis and not being who they say they are. That's fucking absurd.

[brinstar]

and yes, the burden of proof MUST BE on those who want to reform voting systems

if you change the system under the assumption that people who find themselves unfairly disenfranchised will have legal avenue to challenge their disenfranchisement, you're just being shitty. first of all, the types of people who are overwhelmingly affected by such laws typically lack the means and wherewithal to effectively challenge those laws (one of several reasons why they're such easy targets). second of all, let's say they do bring a class action lawsuit in federal court and are able to successfully demonstrate that the laws interfered with their constitutional right to vote - what are the odds the court will decide "oh yeah now we have to have a do-over since these folks didn't get to participate"? no lol even if the plaintiffs win, the results of the election(s) which they were unfairly prevented from participating in will still stand, and their disenfranchisement will still have happened.

so yeah, you want laws to fight voter fraud, prove they are fair for everyone BEFORE they're implemented. otherwise lick my balls.

[Kaemon]

Drem is right, it's a stupid argument while we still use Electoral voting. We really need to move towards the popular vote and then talk about Valid ID for voting.

[Arlos]

Eh, the Electoral College has absolutely nothing to do with any races other than the President. Voter suppression laws masquerading as "voter ID" laws effect ALL voting, whether it be for local, state, etc. The Electoral College is functionally irrelevant to this discussion.

Oh, and Lyion: There are numerous consequences to the "voter id" laws you like. For example, lots of people being unable to get the requisite documents necessary. See: Example in the Jon Oliver piece about one state only having the office that hands out the IDs open on the 5th Wednesday of a given month, which only happens 3 times in 2016. Suuuure "everyone" can get ID in a state where it's only POSSIBLE to get a non-driver's license ID 3 days out of a year. Right. In any case, if you want those laws, it is incumbent upon you to prove that fraud is occurring in such high volumes that potentially disenfranchising millions of people who could otherwise vote legally is worth it in order to stop such rampant fraud. You also have to justify the spending of tens of millions (or more) on enforcing the laws, and everything else associated with the law. It's just that *NO ONE* looking at the issue has come up with *ANY* evidence that fraud is happening on anything more than a microscopic scale. You keep quoting that "one precinct had 110% of the voters vote!" without providing any basis for this claim, like, say, a news story stating this happened. To date, no one, anywhere, has *ANY* proof that fraud is happening. As a result, enacting laws that could disenfranchise legal voters (and that cost the taxpayers a shitload of money) are far more harmful than beneficial.

I still also find it ludicrous that you would claim that the only reason people might be against such laws is because they want to commit fraud or are OK with fraud occurring. This is bullshit, plain and simple. Absolutely and totally untrue.

[Drem]

So if fraud isn't happening, how do you explain Arizona primaries or what's going on in New York right now with Democrats suddenly being unregistered and unable to vote?

I bring this up because my buddy in Los Angeles just posted that he is somehow unregistered to vote all of a sudden

[brinstar]

he thinks voter fraud is happening and election fraud isn't

when the reality is actually the opposite

[Harrison]

Like I said, it sounds right on paper, until you look at real-world data.

It sounds like voter fraud is super effective, easy, and also easy to stop by voter-ID laws. Until you look at real world data.

Once you throw out your bias and look at it objectively, election fraud is rampant, and voter fraud is irrelevant.

[Arlos]

So if fraud isn't happening, how do you explain Arizona primaries or what's going on in New York right now with Democrats suddenly being unregistered and unable to vote?

I bring this up because my buddy in Los Angeles just posted that he is somehow unregistered to vote all of a sudden

That's election fraud, not voter fraud.

The only thing voter ID laws prevent is, say, someone like me going to your polling place, claiming I am you, and voting instead of you. That's all those laws stop. That's it. They prevent no other kinds of fraud. And the kind they DO prevent isn't happening. At all. I notice Lyion has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever backing up his assertions. So, I think we can conclude he doesn't have any, and is just talking out of his hindquarters.

[Harrison]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/ ... -voter-id/

This is ridiculous.

[brinstar]

you can thank the SCOTUS for all this, they ruled 5-4 to light the voting rights act on fire

we've got more disenfranchisement and election fuckery than third-world nations

wish we could get some UN oversight

[Harrison]

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... g-or-peop/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I just had to post this after the mythology novels written in here earlier about voter fraud.

[brinstar]

a week or two ago nevada had their county conventions, where precinct delegates elected way back in the february caucus were supposed to show up and cast their pledged votes for their preferred candidate. both candidates had some of their precinct delegates blow off the conventions, but enough of the HRC delegates skipped it that, as a result, the bernie campaign should be able to swing 2 more state delegates his way at the state convention, going from a 20-15 split to an 18-17 split. if enough HRC pledges skip the state convention, bernie might swipe even more than that.

meanwhile some similar shit just went down in missouri - enough precinct-level delegates pledged for HRC skipped out on the county conventions that bernie was able to swipe more district-level delegates than he was projected to. if all of those district-level delegates attend the state convention, proportioning rules will result in him winning missouri with 37 delegates to her 34 (rather than 35 to her 36).

so you can make your own conclusions on what that says about caucuses and the overall nomination process, but one thing's for sure: it's indisputable that the passion and commitment fueling the sanders campaign is relentless and unrivaled

[Arlos]

BAHAHA. This is awesome. I just found out that Ted Cruz was the Texas Solicitor General that fought in court to keep Texas' ban on dildos and vibrators in place. And I quote:

Cruz waged a legal campaign against dildos, artificial vaginas, and vibrators in 2007, arguing that U.S. residents have no right “to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”

To uphold the state’s interest in “protecting public morals,” the government must do what it can to discourage “autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation,” Cruz’s office argued.

Small government unless you want to jack off in the privacy of your own bedroom, I guess....

Full article on it here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... legal.html

[brinstar]

^^^ yeah i might have some sharp critiques of the democratic party at times but fuck the GOP wholesale forever

further update re: delegates, there was a "reporting error" in colorado that incorrectly placed what should've been a bernie delegate in the hillary column. the state party - and the hillary campaign - knew about this error for FIVE FUCKING WEEKS before the denver post figured it out and blew the lid off

if the post hadn't dug in who knows if they ever would've come clean


(edit to include link)

[Drem]

All these super delegates going against their constituencies is incredible to me. The whole system's broke

[brinstar]

All these super delegates going against their constituencies is incredible to me. The whole system's broke

sanders won washington by 45 points

washington has 17 supers

10 of them are in the tank for hillary and 7 are undeclared, not ONE has declared for sanders

incredible is right