ACORN

[eppie]

Ok the story is now also in the dutch press.

ACORN does let voters register (nothing illegal) but apparantly also registers non existing people.

So my question is; if every person in the US has a social security number that is written on his/her official photo-ID, why don't they just skip the whole registering to vote thing? Voting is a ground right of every person in a democracy so registration should not be necesarry.
Everybody that is normally registered at his town hall receives a card in the mail that asks him/her to come and vote. You take this card with you, and show your ID, then the man/woman at the voting office gives the person a ballot and he can vote. Also this person fills in the social security number of the person coming in to vote in the computer which is connected to the database with all americans that are eligible to vote. If the number has already been used (when somebody came in with a forged ID and forged voting card) it is time to undertake action. Right?

People that recently moved or don't have a permanent address should go to town hall to get a voting card when they are able to show a valid ID.
People that don't have a valid ID, or don't have a social security number, cannot get a voting card and so cannot vote.

What am I forgetting here?


My point is that if you can just register any name on any address (like ACORN is accused of doing) it seems that there is something wrong with the system.....if it would be so easy, 'everybody would' vote multiple times you would think.

[Jester]

That's what you get with the New York Post.

Doing their best to out-trash the washington times since 1993!

A tall order, that.

-Jester

[NicksLP]

I heard about this ACORN thing over a month ago, and it's just part of the RNC strategy to pander to the ignorant masses of America.

I'm sorry, but McCain is a racist prick and Palin is a dirty little... secessionist. The fact that these two are getting away with blatantly pandering to racists and ignorant ass holes alike is completely wrong and they should be held accountable. Calling Obama a terrorist? Wtf? That is so messed up it sickens me.

McCain will destroy middle America, leaving only the Rich and the Poor. He has no plans he can outline, where Obama speaks facts, McCain panders to the KKK.

George Bush has doubled our deficit since he has been in office, what makes you think McCain will be any different? It's time for us (true, non-racist) American's to revamp our political system before we fall even further into the Abyss. I was Pro-McCain right up until I realized he was a racist money whore from the mid-west.

Color shouldn't even be an ISSUE in this race, shouldn't even be an AFTER THOUGHT, yet it is.

The true terrorism lies with ignorant greedy racist Americans who are destroying our beloved country. And for the record I am against Obama's far left agenda just as much as I am against McCain's far right agenda. However there needs to be some sense of Centrism and the only candidate that has shown that so far is Obama. In the last debate I believe the democratic candidate shined and he has swung my vote.

[kandrathe]

I heard about this ACORN thing over a month ago, and it's just part of the RNC strategy to pander to the ignorant masses of America.

I'm sorry, but McCain is a racist prick and Palin is a dirty little... secessionist. The fact that these two are getting away with blatantly pandering to racists and ignorant ass holes alike is completely wrong and they should be held accountable. Calling Obama a terrorist? Wtf? That is so messed up it sickens me.

McCain will destroy middle America, leaving only the Rich and the Poor. He has no plans he can outline, where Obama speaks facts, McCain panders to the KKK.

George Bush has doubled our deficit since he has been in office, what makes you think McCain will be any different? It's time for us (true, non-racist) American's to revamp our political system before we fall even further into the Abyss. I was Pro-McCain right up until I realized he was a racist money whore from the mid-west.

Color shouldn't even be an ISSUE in this race, shouldn't even be an AFTER THOUGHT, yet it is.

The true terrorism lies with ignorant greedy racist Americans who are destroying our beloved country. And for the record I am against Obama's far left agenda just as much as I am against McCain's far right agenda. However there needs to be some sense of Centrism and the only candidate that has shown that so far is Obama. In the last debate I believe the democratic candidate shined and he has swung my vote.

There we are. It's US against THEM. THEY are the problem, those dirty, racist, Republican, ignorant, secessionist, A holes. The only problem with America is all the Republicans. If we could just ship them back to Europe, things would be great.

Discourse is dead.

[kandrathe]

I agree. What is so hard about having a valid ID? I'm not sure why "Voter Registration" needs to be different than establishing a valid ID. There is resistance to a national ID card, and SS# was only ever meant to be used for SS benefits. SS# is misused as a national ID# now (there are known duplicates).

[--Pete]

Hi,

So my question is; if every person in the US has a social security number that is written on his/her official photo-ID,

Pretty much everybody has a social security number, but not everybody. Since social security *only* deals with income and benefits, a person with no (declared) income does not need one. Parents do need to get one for children *if* they are declaring those children as dependents but not otherwise. So that part of your premise is wrong.

Also, there is no Federal official photo ID. And the rules vary from state to state. In most states, you do not legally need any ID at all. Most people drive, and so have a driver's license, but many don't drive. So, the second part of your premise is also wrong. As usual, you are starting from a falsehood. Your conclusions are thus logically right -- and actually crap.

Voting is a ground right of every person in a democracy so registration should not be necesarry.

Ignoring the fact that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, we can move on to the other error you make. Voting is *not* a right of *every* person. We eliminate the under aged (18 in most places), we eliminate the felons, we eliminate the non-citizens. That comes out to a fair fraction of the 'persons' living in the USA.

Everybody that is normally registered at his town hall receives a card in the mail that asks him/her to come and vote. You take this card with you, and show your ID, then the man/woman at the voting office gives the person a ballot and he can vote. Also this person fills in the social security number of the person coming in to vote in the computer which is connected to the database with all americans that are eligible to vote. If the number has already been used (when somebody came in with a forged ID and forged voting card) it is time to undertake action. Right?

Wrong. First, there is no such national database. But, more important, your idea is stupid. Mr. X with your ID gets up early and votes. You show up later and are banned because you've 'already voted'. By the time you've proven TO A FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY you are the real you (after all, only a moron would think that an ID that is in question can be used to validate that ID) you've probably missed not only that election, but two more. And even if you can prove your identity rapidly, what can they do about the invalid vote? Nothing, if it is a true secret ballot -- because if there is a way to track who voted how, then the ballot is no longer secret and the potential for reprisals for 'voting wrong' becomes very real.

What am I forgetting here?

Common sense, intelligence, reading ability (most of these points have already been explained to you), logic. Oh, sorry, you said 'forgetting', not 'missing'.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I agree. What is so hard about having a valid ID?

Wouldn't make any difference in this case, see my reply to eppie. But just what do you think a national ID card would buy you? There are two factors to consider: validation and counterfeiting.

Counterfeiting could be combated in some ways, but for most uses, it wouldn't matter. Look at how much effort Engraving and Printing have gone to, and yet bunches of funny money get passed every day. Anti-counterfeiting measures are no better than the person examining the document -- in general pretty damned poor.

Validation? What would you propose be used to prove the identity of a person seeking a card to prove his identity (note the circular reference?)? The validity of an ID card is no better than the validity of the documents used to validate the card. When I got my US passport, almost all the documentation that it was based on could have been picked up on the lower East side in the '50s very cheaply (and I suspect still could be). The only thing that was a bit different was my proof of citizenship. But, had I bought a US birth certificate, then it would have all been easy.

So, other than to satisfy some jack-booted thug's demand for 'your papers', just what is the value of a national ID card?

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
Pretty much everybody has a social security number, but not everybody. Since social security *only* deals with income and benefits, a person with no (declared) income does not need one. Parents do need to get one for children *if* they are declaring those children as dependents but not otherwise. So that part of your premise is wrong.

In all countries I have lived in every legal person should get a number. It is called different in many countries and doesn't have to have anything to do with income or social benefits.

Also, there is no Federal official photo ID. And the rules vary from state to state. In most states, you do not legally need any ID at all. Most people drive, and so have a driver's license, but many don't drive. So, the second part of your premise is also wrong. As usual, you are starting from a falsehood. Your conclusions are thus logically right -- and actually crap.

Pete, I did not conclude anything. I asked a question and assumed some things to make clear what I was thinking about. In most countries I have lived in you need to be able to show an ID. Although I don't fully agree with that and often not carry one, I find it hard to understand how you are supposed to prove that you are who you are without a social number and without an ID.

Ignoring the fact that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, we can move on to the other error you make.

But also a democracy right? I have absolutely no idea what the use of these stupid remarks is. If you just want to whine please say so, then I won't spend time replying.

Voting is *not* a right of *every* person. We eliminate the under aged (18 in most places), we eliminate the felons, we eliminate the non-citizens.

As I also already stated in a few of my posts.
Stop nitpicking if you want to really answer my questions or discuss like a grown-up. If you don't want please specify this on top of your post so I don't have to bother reading it.
But you are going to have a hard time distinguishing a non-citizen and a legal citizen without ID and social number.

That comes out to a fair fraction of the 'persons' living in the USA.
Wrong. First, there is no such national database.

So wouldn't it be time to get one? If you were able to read (well let's say if you are willing to) and get the idea of what people want to say instead of just looking at the words you would understand that I think that a having a database is a good idea. And then you could react if you think it is not a good idea.....then we would have a valid discussion. (also if my idea is really stupid you could tell me that....I can take that....I have more problems with you explaining that the USA is a republic)

But, more important, your idea is stupid. Mr. X with your ID gets up early and votes. You show up later and are banned because you've 'already voted'. By the time you've proven TO A FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY you are the real you (after all, only a moron would think that an ID that is in question can be used to validate that ID) you've probably missed not only that election, but two more. And even if you can prove your identity rapidly, what can they do about the invalid vote? Nothing, if it is a true secret ballot -- because if there is a way to track who voted how, then the ballot is no longer secret and the potential for reprisals for 'voting wrong' becomes very real.

Yes but people mis-using your ID en voting card have to spend some time and money to be able to do that. If you would have to pay to make a real looking voting card and ID frauding that one vote would not be very popular. (I usually don't have to show my passport but there are never problems with people saying they are me). SO the idea is not so stupid as you might think.

Common sense, intelligence, reading ability (most of these points have already been explained to you), logic. Oh, sorry, you said 'forgetting', not 'missing'.

--Pete

I expected that you understood that with my questions I tried to expose a flaw...see above.

I hope you want to put in the effort to discuss the points I raised, because I think they are valid.

[kandrathe]

There are two factors to consider: validation and counterfeiting.

True. I think more to the point is that it is entirely possible for the States or US government to have an airtight identity system with biometrics such as fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. Most people do not want their government to have that kind of information about them.

[eppie]

True. I think more to the point is that it is entirely possible for the States or US government to have an airtight identity system with biometrics such as fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. Most people do not want their government to have that kind of information about them.

Well that is indeed one of the biggest cons against any kind of total registers someone might have. But I don't think all these fancy things like retinal scans are necessary for something like voting.

A number on a voting ballot so that it later can be found again.....and if you know it has been fraudulent just e.g. burn it. And commenting on Pete's remark that voting should be anonymous (which is true of course) I guess fingerprint analysis of the ballots could tell which one is who's vote. This to show that the person who is very afraid of his government knowing all better go voting wearing gloves.

[--Pete]

Hi,

In all countries I have lived in every legal person should get a number. It is called different in many countries and doesn't have to have anything to do with income or social benefits.

See my reply to kandrathe on this issue.

Pete, I did not conclude anything. I asked a question and assumed some things to make clear what I was thinking about.

No. You asked a rhetorical question and used that as a launching point to tell us in the USA why we do it all wrong and why you Europeans (inventors of communism, fascism, and Nazism -- all systems that believe heavily in well documented citizens) do it so damned much better.

In most countries I have lived in you need to be able to show an ID.

Does that make it right? You need a license to drive, and that is OK. You need a license to hunt, and that is not too bad. But should you need a license just to exist?

I find it hard to understand how you are supposed to prove that you are who you are without a social number and without an ID.

And I find it hard to understand why I should have to prove anything when I'm just moving along, minding my own business and asking the rest of the word to do the same.

But also a democracy right?

No. Although this is not pertinent to this topic, there are fundamental differences. The most basic is that in a republic, people are (or should be) aware that they do not know enough about running a country and turn that responsibility over to those that supposedly do. In a democracy, the opinions of the idiots are counted equally with those of the geniuses.

Stop nitpicking if you want to really answer my questions or discuss like a grown-up.

Stop making stupid statements and I'll stop pointing out your stupid statements. You might start by informing yourself before posting about subjects you know little or nothing about.

So wouldn't it be time to get one? . . . I think that a having a database is a good idea.

Why? As I pointed out, it would not address the voter fraud issue any better than the present system does. It could even be worse. The only function of a national database is to give the federal government more information, thus more control, over the individual than it already has.

I have more problems with you explaining that the USA is a republic)

And the fact that you do not know there is a difference between a republic and a democracy, what that difference is, why it matters, and haven't (after it was pointed out to you) bothered researching it is exactly why we cannot have a rational discussion.

Yes but people mis-using your ID en voting card have to spend some time and money to be able to do that.

So? Do you think the actions of ACORN are free? Even the legal ones? How much effort and cost should the government go to in order to solve what is, at most, a minor problem?

OK, time for an analogy. Suppose a store has a shoplifting problem. Suppose they lose 1000USD a month to shoplifting. If they can reduce that by 90% by spending 500USD a month, they come out ahead. If they spend 2000USD a month on security guards, they've lost more than just letting the shoplifting go. A person of average intelligence understands this, but when it comes to the government, that same person yells that millions be spent to solve a thousand dollar problem. And, yes, I am looking at you.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
See my reply to kandrathe on this issue.
No. You asked a rhetorical question and used that as a launching point to tell us in the USA why we do it all wrong and why you Europeans (inventors of communism, fascism, and Nazism -- all systems that believe heavily in well documented citizens) do it so damned much better.

There we go again.
I asked this because I had no idea there was any voter fraud going on. The first post in this thread suggest some fraud going on before voting has taken place, and I have my doubts.
If you end up with a more than 100 % turn up I would suggest changing the system.....a system where everybody can without problems vote 2, 5, 100 times seems to be far worse than a system where a government knows your social security number and wants to see your ID when you are speeding.

Does that make it right? You need a license to drive, and that is OK. You need a license to hunt, and that is not too bad. But should you need a license just to exist?

And I find it hard to understand why I should have to prove anything when I'm just moving along, minding my own business and asking the rest of the word to do the same.

That is fine with me. But then don't bother voting and don't bother complaining about what your government does.Also don't complain if somebody drives or hunts without a license.

The only function of a national database is to give the federal government more information, thus more control, over the individual than it already has.

That and to see who can vote.
Ps when you fly to Europe do you have to give them your finger prints? Because I have to when I go to the US. And although I get annoyed by that I can imagine they do these things. But for the same reason I would not see the problem with a database of legal people.

And the fact that you do not know there is a difference between a republic and a democracy, what that difference is, why it matters, and haven't (after it was pointed out to you) bothered researching it is exactly why we cannot have a rational discussion.

please

So? Do you think the actions of ACORN are free? Even the legal ones? How much effort and cost should the government go to in order to solve what is, at most, a minor problem?

So the reason that you never end up with a 200% turnup at elections is that apart from ACORN the rest of the US is 100% honest'

[--Pete]

Hi,

There we go again.

Yep.

I give up. You've proven Mark Twain's dictum about arguing with an idiot.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Well that is indeed one of the biggest cons against any kind of total registers someone might have. But I don't think all these fancy things like retinal scans are necessary for something like voting.

A number on a voting ballot so that it later can be found again.....and if you know it has been fraudulent just e.g. burn it. And commenting on Pete's remark that voting should be anonymous (which is true of course) I guess fingerprint analysis of the ballots could tell which one is who's vote. This to show that the person who is very afraid of his government knowing all better go voting wearing gloves.

Therefore, we have the problem of ascertaining that an individual is indeed the person who is supposed to be voting as Mr. Joe Smith, and that Mr. Joe Smith actually does live in the precinct. And, at the same time keep the ballot process anonymous.

[kandrathe]

If you end up with a more than 100 % turn up I would suggest changing the system.....a system where everybody can without problems vote 2, 5, 100 times seems to be far worse than a system where a government knows your social security number and wants to see your ID when you are speeding.

100% turn out is probably never going to happen. Where I live, turn out is considered high, and we get between 70 and 80% in a Presidential year. Nationwide, 40 to 60% is more the norm. Beyond that, it is people who are registered invalidly voting (as in living in 2 or more precincts) as well as those who are legal residents, but not allowed(non-citizens, felons, children, dead people) to vote that are the problem. If I register with more than one legal residence, how would you know that I voted in more than one place? The statistics would not reveal the error.

[eppie]

If I register with more than one legal residence, how would you know that I voted in more than one place? The statistics would not reveal the error.

Of course, but from the ACORN article it suggests that there is some larger scale fraud going on. And with two parties where tensions are getting high and many people really are convinced their party is the only way to go, with the mud throwing on a scale that is ridiculous I would think that if voting multiple times is so easy, everybody would be doing it. Take the voting card or registration receipt, scan it, change the address 100 times and print it and you are ready to make your round.

Anyway, the stupid vote will probably have a far greater influence on the out coming.
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index....?videoId=187570

[Jester]

Discourse is dead.

When was it ever alive? If "the other side are a bunch of no-good, mud-flinging, society-wrecking arseholes" is the death of discourse, then that's been around since the inventions of sides and others.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

There we are. It's US against THEM. THEY are the problem, those dirty, racist, Republican, ignorant, secessionist, A holes. The only problem with America is all the Republicans. If we could just ship them back to Europe, things would be great.

Discourse is dead.

Say it ain't so uhm...Kand. There ya go again pointin' backwards.

Europe is not the Republican Heartland, Alaska is.

Look I'm just an outsider here, but I'm very tolerant of Europe. Some of my best friends
are Europe.

So bless your heart sir, my hockey moms are fighting in Wall Street so you can
have the freedom to speak in Europe.

I'd just like get back and address how much I want to thank you for the chance to speak directly without
the upstream media filter, and how tolerant I am to my opponent, bless his heart. And whoever
wins this election, I want to say any of them, also, all of them really. They don't see America the same way you and I do.


[bb code error! winking emoticon script overload#97653]

[kandrathe]

When was it ever alive? If "the other side are a bunch of no-good, mud-flinging, society-wrecking arseholes" is the death of discourse, then that's been around since the inventions of sides and others.

Yes. I think at the Lounge we are a bit above labeling someone as a cretin or worse, for supporting one side or the other. I was highlighting the particular brand of bigotry that the poster was spewing. I actually think both Presidential candidates are too flawed to be seriously considered for President, which highlights a problem in the process. Obama is just not seasoned enough, and has really done nothing spectacular in his short career other than get himself promoted to the next highest office. McCain is the caricature of an angry grandfather, and frankly has too much experience. It's the election of the Wannabe vs the HasBeen. So, my biggest problem with Obama is that he is the candidate of "hope" (as in "I hope he can do what he says he can do") and talk is cheap, and political talk is really, really, really, cheap. In fact, political promises are cheaper than fertilizer, just as plentiful and twice as fragrant. Major philosophical differences on liberty aside, Joe Biden is the only one of the four I would consider voting for as President, but unfortunately he was passed over for the new guy. I might just end up voting for Ron Paul since he seems to be the one most in sync with my views and has been unfairly shut out of the process.

[eppie]

I actually think both Presidential candidates are too flawed to be seriously considered for President, which highlights a problem in the process.

Hard to tell I think. You saw in the presidencies of GW Bush that he had a strong team of experienced people behind him. You don't have to agree with his policies, but he got things done. Exactly the things many people find 'experience' necessary for.
I think many of these questions raised now are not very fair to Obama. People talking about he doesn't have experience, he cannot unite the country etc., while now twice an inexperienced (good experience that is) candidate that as hobby had dividing people was chosen.
Finally a person chooses for the candidate who's ideas they can agree with the most right? AT least I do, I couldn't care less if my candidate was a nice guy. I don't need to go and drink a beer with him.

Although I also wouldn't choose for one of these two candidates I think Obama could be good for international relations, because he at least seems to be an intelligent person capable of normal discussions. And I actually think that the US and Europe will become closer again when he is elected.