Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (8347)	1/27/2017 4:53:10 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 356340

Practically every civilized country requires some kind of definitive voter identification. And they keep track of everyone from time of birth or when they enter the country. This is a big reason why when they move they must register their new address which then goes to a central database. That is about the only way this can work.

To: i-node who wrote (8347)	1/27/2017 5:27:08 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356340

Really? You think an investigation in some governors race in NC is a representative sample? Representative? No. But indicative, very much so. NC has become famous for suppressing votes from unfavorable segments of the population and for twisting government every which way to assure R supremacy. They have the backgrounds and motivation to isolate voter fraud on a dime and they tried mightily to do so. But it just wasn't there. That's not saying it's not someplace else. But that highly motivated and experienced people couldn't find it in a purple state on high alert strongly suggests that voter fraud isn't massive and ubiquitous. I don't have a problem with yet another study although I have no expectation that it would put anything to rest. This issue is in the mode where no amount of truth would penetrate fixed minds. What I was taking issue was your proposal to destroy an anthill with a nuke. I do understand what it takes to design an impenetrable system. What I am questioning is the need to do something as drastic as you propose when the current system is workable. The opportunities for fraud are limited if you have an up-to-date voter registration list and reliable people checking off incoming voters. Perhaps we could be more diligent about that. If Cleveland is perceived to be iffy, we could install outsider voting monitors like they do in iffy countries. Let's do that rather than reinvent everything. But we should not ignore it until it becomes a Constitutional crisis. That's my argument. Why am I wrong? Because there's no evidence that there's a problem. And if there were, the current system could be fixed more cheaply than a massive new system with its own unique identifiers, its own unhackable database, and its own cards, kept and stored by voters who somehow have to remember where they put them a few years ago when they last used them. That gives the monstrosity that is PPACA serious competition for that label! :)