CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year

[Casper]

Let me guess... I'm now going to be labeled a deceasaphobe.

:lamo

.

All I can do is go by your words and it sure seems to be the case from here. My guess is someone will be by to discuss it further with you on Halloween.

 

[MrT]

there is 'extremely little evidence' because the only people investigating this type of thing are guys like this investigative journalist and we don't have a voter id to help prevent it. I would bet money that if we had more comprehensive investigations we would find tens of thousands of dead voters alone every election. I would also bet that we would find thousands of people who voted multiple times.

You know that, because voting fraud is a federal crime, that the FBI does investigate these issues.

 

[PirateMk1]

As GC points out, we are talking about 256 votes spread across 8 elections - that's 32 per election.

No one is claiming that voter fraud doesn't happen. We are arguing that the effort to prevent voter fraud which, empirically, amounts to about 0.0000005% of the total votes cast is disproportionate considering that it has the ability to disenfranchise millions of voters.

Disenfranchise them how? You have to have an ID to get almost any sort of service these days.

 

[MrT]

Disenfranchise them how? You have to have an ID to get almost any sort of service these days.

And when you are receiving a service, or basically getting anything in return, you have an incentive to deal with the process necessary to have that required identification.

There is zero value gained from voting other than some potential feeling that you've engaged in a civic duty. It is one of the great conundrums of social behavior trying to figure out why so many people vote considering the cost and effort involved in voting compared to the benefit or likelihood that your vote will actually mean anything.

So anything that further increases that barrier to entry with regards to voting will cause significant portions of the population - and particularly those that are already least likely to vote because of jobs, lack of transportation, or who don't follow changes to the latest voting laws - to become disenfranchised.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How can this be? I was told by many on the left that there is no voter fraud taking place in the US.

It seems this investigation by the local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, has uncovered something of a political unicorn.


CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year « CBS Los Angeles

And those are just the ones they discovered. What about all those that nobody ever notices.

 

[PirateMk1]

And when you are receiving a service, or basically getting anything in return, you have an incentive to deal with the process necessary to have that required identification.

There is zero value gained from voting other than some potential feeling that you've engaged in a civic duty. It is one of the great conundrums of social behavior trying to figure out why so many people vote considering the cost and effort involved in voting compared to the benefit or likelihood that your vote will actually mean anything.

So anything that further increases that barrier to entry with regards to voting will cause significant portions of the population - and particularly those that are already least likely to vote because of jobs, lack of transportation, or who don't follow changes to the latest voting laws - to become disenfranchised.

In other words there is no disenfranchisement. Here is the worlds smallest violin playing "My Heart Bleeds for You." I have utterly no sympathy for them. They obviously have no will to vote. If they cant be bothered to get an ID they don't need to vote.

 

[Roadvirus]

 

[MrT]

In other words there is no disenfranchisement. Here is the worlds smallest violin playing "My Heart Bleeds for You." I have utterly no sympathy for them. They obviously have no will to vote. If they cant be bothered to get an ID they don't need to vote.

How you went from my response to "in other words there is no disenfranchisement" is beyond me.

 

[PirateMk1]

How you went from my response to "in other words there is no disenfranchisement" is beyond me.

Simple, your response boiled down is peopl are too lazy to go get an ID. Hence no disenfranchisement.

 

[MrT]

Simple, your response boiled down is peopl are too lazy to go get an ID. Hence no disenfranchisement.

Ok, then you don't understand the definition of disenfranchisement.

If you previously had the right to vote without using a picture ID, but now you are deprived of that right because the law required you to get the picture ID - then you have been disenfranchised. Even if it is possible to meet the new qualification, that does not change the fact that you have been disenfranchised.

The same would apply if voting now required that you pay $100 or to own land.

 

[Absentglare]

And when you are receiving a service, or basically getting anything in return, you have an incentive to deal with the process necessary to have that required identification.

There is zero value gained from voting other than some potential feeling that you've engaged in a civic duty. It is one of the great conundrums of social behavior trying to figure out why so many people vote considering the cost and effort involved in voting compared to the benefit or likelihood that your vote will actually mean anything.

So anything that further increases that barrier to entry with regards to voting will cause significant portions of the population - and particularly those that are already least likely to vote because of jobs, lack of transportation, or who don't follow changes to the latest voting laws - to become disenfranchised.

Yes, it seems that republicans always try to parade around "freedom" but when it comes to average Americans being empowered- they're happy to artificially increase barriers to entry.

And we wonder why our consolidated marketplace results in so much waste from healthcare to internet service, lol...

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

And when you are receiving a service, or basically getting anything in return, you have an incentive to deal with the process necessary to have that required identification.

There is zero value gained from voting other than some potential feeling that you've engaged in a civic duty. It is one of the great conundrums of social behavior trying to figure out why so many people vote considering the cost and effort involved in voting compared to the benefit or likelihood that your vote will actually mean anything.

So anything that further increases that barrier to entry with regards to voting will cause significant portions of the population - and particularly those that are already least likely to vote because of jobs, lack of transportation, or who don't follow changes to the latest voting laws - to become disenfranchised.

I see you feel the need for the government to completely take care of these poor voter suppressed souls who apparently can't take care of themselves.

In case you didn't know, the soft bigotry of low expectations is also considered a form of racism.

 

[MrT]

I see you feel the need for the government to completely take care of these poor voter suppressed souls who apparently can't take care of themselves.

In case you didn't know, the soft bigotry of low expectations is also considered a form of racism.

I see you feel the need to fabricate my position for me out of whole cloth.

In case you didn't know, that is called a strawman and it is not a logical argument.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Ok, then you don't understand the definition of disenfranchisement.

If you previously had the right to vote without using a picture ID, but now you are deprived of that right because the law required you to get the picture ID - then you have been disenfranchised. Even if it is possible to meet the new qualification, that does not change the fact that you have been disenfranchised.

The same would apply if voting now required that you pay $100 or to own land.

Paying $100 or owning land doesn't prove you're a citizen of the state in which you wish to vote. Having a state issued ID does. Get over it.

 

[Grim17]

Maybe- maybe not.

However, my overall point is that in-person voter fraud, the kind that's addressed by voter ID laws, is the specific form of voter fraud that democrats argue is negligible. This article doesn't go far enough so as to demonstrate that these are examples of in-person voter fraud.

Personally, I think there needs to be a lot more done to prevent voter fraud besides just voter IDs, along with various other changes to the voting laws.


1. Voter IDs need to be mandatory for all registered voters. Every person should have a PIN number for use when voting by mail, to prevent fraudulent submissions.
2. Early voting needs to be no more than 1 day before election day.
3. Absentee ballots should be restricted to people who are at least 100 miles from the nearest polling station in their district, within 2 days prior to election day, and the post mark must substantiate this.
4. Mail-in ballots need to be eliminated, with the exception of people who are medically verified as incapable of traveling outside the home. In those cases the election board must be notified 6 months prior to the next election, and an official must visit the person and verify their identity prior to said election. This only has to be done 1 time in cases of permanent disability, but the person must mail in a request for every election. Also, mail in ballots must be post marked no more than 6 days prior to election day (with the exception of those stationed overseas in the military)
5. Election day should be election days, where people have election day and the day after to cast their vote.
6. Polling stations need to be open from 12AM election day, to !2 Midnight the following day to accommodate everyone, regardless of their work or personal schedule. If there is early voting in that district, then the polls need to remain open until 12 midnight the day after election day (the entire 72 hours) for the same reason, that way everyone has ample opportunity to vote.
6. There should be very heavy, mandatory fines and imprisonment imposed on anyone who engages in, or attempts to engage in voter fraud, including the permanent loss of their voting privileges.


The reason I am against early voting and early mail in ballots (beside the fraud issue) is because, for example, what happens if a few days before an election, a candidate who is the odds on favorite to win the election in a landslide, who has received thousands of votes cast for him by mail, is found to have in his possession hundreds of kiddy porn videos, or he's exposed as a corrupt person not worthy of the public trust? What you have is thousands of votes that can't be changed because people were allowed to vote weeks before the election cycle was over. It's wrong and it should be eliminated.

Basically, I propose those things to prevent voter fraud and ensure the legitimacy of every election, and to also ensure that everyone who wants to cast their legal vote, has ample opportunity to do so, regardless of their schedule, that way nobody can claim they were disenfranchised.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I see you feel the need to fabricate my position for me out of whole cloth.

In case you didn't know, that is called a strawman and it is not a logical argument.

Blaming Republicans for voter disenfranchisement because people have to prove who they are to vote is the straw man.

 

[MrT]

Paying $100 or owning land doesn't prove you're a citizen of the state in which you wish to vote. Having a state issued ID does. Get over it.

If the only thing required by these voter ID laws was some form of proof that "you are a citizen of the state in which you wish to vote," then I doubt we would have a problem. However, the laws require specific types of identification that go above and beyond that mere threshold.

And that leads to situations like Sheileh Henji who tried to use her military survivor's ID because her driver's license had expired (due to the fact that she didn't drive in her old age) and others.

 

[MrT]

Blaming Republicans for voter disenfranchisement because people have to prove who they are to vote is the straw man.

Heh, I never blamed Republicans. And claiming that I did is, ironically enough, ALSO a strawman.

With that said, some Republicans themselves admitted that the reason for passing these laws is because it helps their situation.

 

[Absentglare]

Personally, I think there needs to be a lot more done to prevent voter fraud besides just voter IDs, along with various other changes to the voting laws.


1. Voter IDs need to be mandatory for all registered voters. Every person should have a PIN number for use when voting by mail, to prevent fraudulent submissions.
2. Early voting needs to be no more than 1 day before election day.
3. Absentee ballots should be restricted to people who are at least 100 miles from the nearest polling station in their district, within 2 days prior to election day, and the post mark must substantiate this.
4. Mail-in ballots need to be eliminated, with the exception of people who are medically verified as incapable of traveling outside the home. In those cases the election board must be notified 6 months prior to the next election, and an official must visit the person and verify their identity prior to said election. This only has to be done 1 time in cases of permanent disability, but the person must mail in a request for every election. Also, mail in ballots must be post marked no more than 6 days prior to election day (with the exception of those stationed overseas in the military)
5. Election day should be election days, where people have election day and the day after to cast their vote.
6. Polling stations need to be open from 12AM election day, to !2 Midnight the following day to accommodate everyone, regardless of their work or personal schedule. If there is early voting in that district, then the polls need to remain open until 12 midnight the day after election day (the entire 72 hours) for the same reason, that way everyone has ample opportunity to vote.
6. There should be very heavy, mandatory fines and imprisonment imposed on anyone who engages in, or attempts to engage in voter fraud, including the permanent loss of their voting privileges.


The reason I am against early voting and early mail in ballots (beside the fraud issue) is because, for example, what happens if a few days before an election, a candidate who is the odds on favorite to win the election in a landslide, who has received thousands of votes cast for him by mail, is found to have in his possession hundreds of kiddy porn videos, or he's exposed as a corrupt person not worthy of the public trust? What you have is thousands of votes that can't be changed because people were allowed to vote weeks before the election cycle was over. It's wrong and it should be eliminated.

Basically, I propose those things to prevent voter fraud and ensure the legitimacy of every election, and to also ensure that everyone who wants to cast their legal vote, has ample opportunity to do so, regardless of their schedule, that way nobody can claim they were disenfranchised.

Well, i can't say i'm terribly fond of (1), i can appreciate the desire to improve voting security, but more rules also cost more money to enforce, so we should responsibly balance the two.

(2) i'd worry about the cost, having to 1day deliver all of them, but i don't have a strong, specific objection.

I don't mind (3,4) so much, i was a little surprised how easy it was to literally mail it in. If we're going to address voter fraud, absentee, mail-in ballots seem to be the low hanging fruit in my mind.

I do have some concern about (5) since there is generally less staff overnight and that could be prone to tampering. I suppose they could count all the votes they get the first day before going to the second.

I like (6) because there are people who find the process of voting to be prohibitively inconvenient. Hard workers and busy employees with families deserve reasonable accommodation.

I suppose i feel that we already have (7), though enforcement is not always very strong. It's not easy to prove who mailed a letter.

 

[Buzz]

Is everyone forgetting about Bush's attorney general John Ashcroft and his promise to crack down on Voter fraud??

Well... after 5 years of investigations they found almost no evidence of any organized effort to swing any federal elections. And what they found was so infrequent that it is almost impossible for any major election to have been affected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=0

So... this new investigation by CBS2 found 215 dead voters in Los Angeles county. That is less than .005% of registered voters(if my math is correct). All this is just more evidence that voter fraud is rare and almost never changes the results of a major election.

Republican efforts to disenfranchise mostly Democratic voters has a much bigger effect on elections. Enough to swing elections.

 

[Grim17]

Disenfranchise them how? You have to have an ID to get almost any sort of service these days.

You have to have a legal ID for the following:

To buy cigarettes
To buy alcohol
To open a bank account
Applying for food stamps
Applying for welfare
Applying for Medicaid
Applying for Social Security
Applying for a job
Applying for unemployment
To rent a house
To buy a house.
Applying for a mortgage
To buy a car
To rent a car
To drive a car
To board and travel by airplane
To get married
To purchase a gun
To rent a hotel room
To get a hunting or fishing license
To purchase a cell phone
To pick up a prescription
To donate blood
To apply for and receive college grants and financial aid
etc...

Hell, I believe many cities/states require adults to carry a legal ID with them at all times.

The disenfranchisement argument used to oppose voter IDs, is nothing but a joke. It just doesn't pass the smell test and is an insult to anyone with an IQ above 10.


.

 

[Fletch]

And when you are receiving a service, or basically getting anything in return, you have an incentive to deal with the process necessary to have that required identification.

There is zero value gained from voting other than some potential feeling that you've engaged in a civic duty. It is one of the great conundrums of social behavior trying to figure out why so many people vote considering the cost and effort involved in voting compared to the benefit or likelihood that your vote will actually mean anything.

So anything that further increases that barrier to entry with regards to voting will cause significant portions of the population - and particularly those that are already least likely to vote because of jobs, lack of transportation, or who don't follow changes to the latest voting laws - to become disenfranchised.

Ah, so people too stupid and lazy to hold down a job, find transportation or follow changes in voting laws have to be the standard for voting guidelines. Not surprising since the lowest common denominator is who generally puffs up democrat numbers on election day. Cant put any obstacles in front of these morons, like requiring a picture ID. Its not like its the 21st Century or anything. Obviously, liberals know they cant win without cheating and dragging their mentally challenged zombie base to the polls every couple of years so they squeal like pigs at any reasonable effort to keep elections fair and honest. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Grim17]

Well, i can't say i'm terribly fond of (1), i can appreciate the desire to improve voting security, but more rules also cost more money to enforce, so we should responsibly balance the two.

(2) i'd worry about the cost, having to 1day deliver all of them, but i don't have a strong, specific objection.

I don't mind (3,4) so much, i was a little surprised how easy it was to literally mail it in. If we're going to address voter fraud, absentee, mail-in ballots seem to be the low hanging fruit in my mind.

I do have some concern about (5) since there is generally less staff overnight and that could be prone to tampering. I suppose they could count all the votes they get the first day before going to the second.

I like (6) because there are people who find the process of voting to be prohibitively inconvenient. Hard workers and busy employees with families deserve reasonable accommodation.

I suppose i feel that we already have (7), though enforcement is not always very strong. It's not easy to prove who mailed a letter.

Most of your concerns seem to be over cost. In my opinion, any extra cost should be the responsibility of the major political parties. When you have presidential candidates raking in 9 figures from political donations, it seems like a no brainer where the funding should come from.

.

 

[Fletch]

You have to have a legal ID for the following:

To buy cigarettes
To buy alcohol
To open a bank account
Applying for food stamps
Applying for welfare
Applying for Medicaid
Applying for Social Security
Applying for a job
Applying for unemployment
To rent a house
To buy a house.
Applying for a mortgage
To buy a car
To rent a car
To drive a car
To board and travel by airplane
To get married
To purchase a gun
To rent a hotel room
To get a hunting or fishing license
To purchase a cell phone
To pick up a prescription
To donate blood
To apply for and receive college grants and financial aid
etc...

Hell, I believe many cities/states require adults to carry a legal ID with them at all times.

The disenfranchisement argument used to oppose voter IDs, is nothing but a joke. It just doesn't pass the smell test and is an insult to anyone with an IQ above 10.


.

Here is the real point. Since so much of modern life requires a photo ID, why do liberals not make every effort to get those people without one a picture ID so they can enjoy the benefits of modern society that others do? Do they only care about the poor on election day? So it seems.

 

[MrT]

Ah, so people too stupid and lazy to hold down a job, find transportation or follow changes in voting laws have to be the standard for voting guidelines. Not surprising since the lowest common denominator is who generally puffs up democrat numbers on election day. Cant put any obstacles in front of these morons, like requiring a picture ID. Its not like its the 21st Century or anything. Obviously, liberals know they cant win without cheating and dragging their mentally challenged zombie base to the polls every couple of years so they squeal like pigs at any reasonable effort to keep elections fair and honest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do me a favor - and go sit on a dick.