CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year

[polgara]

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.

Greetings, Grim17. :2wave:

:agree: You have made some valid points! :thumbs: Item 4 on your list could be handled with a letter from a doctor, too, which would eliminate the cost to the public for gas used to visit those who are unable to vote in person. I remember when voting day was just that - the day to vote! When did it become a month or more, or at a person's convenience? :?:

 

[Buzz]

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.

This study says otherwise.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/06/study-law-discouraged-more-those-without-voter-id/

“While the results of this survey do not allow us to conclude that Gallego would have been re-elected in the absence of the voter photo ID law, they do indicate that the law did have a disproportionate impact on his supporters, and therefore may have possibly cost him the election,” the study said.

I think I am going to trust this study before I trust your highly partisan "smell test".

 

[Fearandloathing]

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.

How often do idiotic things like Sheileh Henji's problem occur?

I do not understand the resistance to voter ID. ****, I were in the US I'd vote eight, ten times.

Has anyone ever proven that by asking for ID the turn out will go down? For me, it would make my vote mean something.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

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.

Which is it? So you're on both side of the fence I see. There's too few incidences of voter fraud to disenfranchise voters but one is less than 256, yet that is now your argument.

One, et al?

Priceless...

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.

Now that's a strawman argument.

 

[MrT]

Which is it? So you're on both side of the fence I see. There's too few incidences of voter fraud to disenfranchise voters but one is less than 256, yet that is now your argument.

One, et al? Priceless...

Now that's a strawman argument.

What are you talking about? I never said that voting fraud doesn't exist.

Edit: Oh, I see you edited the post. And no, I am not citing to Sheileh because that is too many instances of voter disenfranchisement. I am citing to Sheileh because she is an example of someone who was legally allowed to vote and had proof of being a resident of the state, but did not have the type of proof required by the law - which is what you implied should be the requirement.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

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

 

[MrT]

How often do idiotic things like Sheileh Henji's problem occur?

I do not understand the resistance to voter ID. ****, I were in the US I'd vote eight, ten times.

Has anyone ever proven that by asking for ID the turn out will go down? For me, it would make my vote mean something.

It is nearly impossible to prove that asking for an ID causes turn out to decrease because, at best, you can either compare the number of voters between two election cycles - in which case you have to worry about a **** ton of potential distinguishing factors - or you ask individuals in a poll whether they were dissuaded from voting because of the change to the law - in which case you have to worry about whether or not they are just lying.

With that said, I don't know if the later type study has been conducted, but I do know that the former has often resulted in significant decreases to the number of votes when comparing across similar voting cycles - like presidential to presidential.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

What are you talking about? I never said that voting fraud doesn't exist.

Edit: Oh, I see you edited the post. And no, I am not citing to Sheileh because that is too many instances of voter disenfranchisement. I am citing to Sheileh because she is an example of someone who was legally allowed to vote and had proof of being a resident of the state, but did not have the type of proof required by the law.

IDs help prevent voter fraud. Disenfranchisement therefore is a personal choice.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

What are you talking about? I never said that voting fraud doesn't exist.

Edit: Oh, I see you edited the post. And no, I am not citing to Sheileh because that is too many instances of voter disenfranchisement. I am citing to Sheileh because she is an example of someone who was legally allowed to vote and had proof of being a resident of the state, but did not have the type of proof required by the law - which is what you implied should be the requirement.

Then she should have had the state ID required for voting. There are multiple IDs acceptable in many states, even a concealed firearms license.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

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.

So I guess you blame democrats?

 

[MrT]

IDs help prevent voter fraud. Disenfranchisement therefore is a personal choice.

Yes, it is a "personal choice" for the legislature to pass a law with a new requirement for voting.

The logic here is absolutely stellar.

 

[MrT]

Then she should have had the state ID required for voting. There are multiple IDs acceptable in many states, even a concealed firearms license.

Blaming the victim I see.

 

[MrT]

So I guess you blame democrats?

You feel free to believe whatever helps you sleep.

 

[Deuce]

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

News flash: virtually all of these supposed zombie votes turn out to be legitimate after investigation. Most common causes of the flagging:

A different person of the same name voting (often the son of the deceased, "Jr." not always being a distinction these databases make)
Deceased mails in absentee ballot and dies before or on election day. (more common than you'd think, a dying person is not going to the polls in person!)
Deceased actually died on election day
Clerical error. (often similar spellings of names. I.E. Jon Smith and John Smith)

But every time possible voter fraud is flagged, people like you assume 100% of the flagged votes are actually fraudulent instead of waiting to see what investigation shows. Fits your agenda better that way.

Actual voter fraud is incredibly rare, because it's time consuming, can land you in jail, and will never benefit the individual actually committing the fraud. There's only so many fake votes a person could possibly cast in a day (you'd have to do them all at separate locations to reduce the risk of getting caught) And in the end, what the hell actually changes if Deuce votes six times instead of one?

Most of the actual voter fraud that ACTUALLY occurs isn't something voter ID even stops: absentee ballots. Often, it's people voting in a state they don't live in anymore, or don't live in full time and aren't actually eligible to vote in. Oddly enough, conservatives aren't crusading to crack down on absentee ballot fraud. Coincidentally, I assume, absentee ballots lean slightly R.

 

[Grim17]

This study says otherwise.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/06/study-law-discouraged-more-those-without-voter-id/



I think I am going to trust this study before I trust your highly partisan "smell test".

Here is what is required according to your article:

"The law requires most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) to show one of a handful of forms of allowable photo identification before their election ballots can be counted. Acceptable forms include a state driver's license or ID card that is not more than 60 days expired at the time of voting, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo."

So what you are saying is, that requiring one of those forms of ID is too much to ask from minorities?

So you're also saying that none of those people:

Buy cigarettes
Buy alcohol
Have a bank account
Have applied for and received food stamps
Have applied for and received welfare
Have applied for and received Medicaid
Have applied for and received Social Security
Have applied for or obtained a legal job
Have applied for and received unemployment
Have rented a house
Own a house.
Have applied for a mortgage
Have bought a car
Have rented a car
Drive a car
Have boarded or traveled by airplane
Are legally married
Have purchased a gun
Have rented a hotel room
Have a hunting or fishing license
Have purchased a cell phone
Have picked up a prescription
Have donated blood
Have applied for and received college grants or financial aid
etc...

Give it a rest... Only laziness can explain why a person in this day and age doesn't have a legal ID.


.

 

[Deuce]

Here is what is required according to your article:

"The law requires most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) to show one of a handful of forms of allowable photo identification before their election ballots can be counted. Acceptable forms include a state driver's license or ID card that is not more than 60 days expired at the time of voting, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo."

So what you are saying is, that requiring one of those forms of ID is too much to ask from minorities?

So you're also saying that none of those people:

Buy cigarettes
Buy alcohol
Have a bank account
Have applied for and received food stamps
Have applied for and received welfare
Have applied for and received Medicaid
Have applied for and received Social Security
Have applied for or obtained a legal job
Have applied for and received unemployment
Have rented a house
Own a house.
Have applied for a mortgage
Have bought a car
Have rented a car
Drive a car
Have boarded or traveled by airplane
Are legally married
Have purchased a gun
Have rented a hotel room
Have a hunting or fishing license
Have purchased a cell phone
Have picked up a prescription
Have donated blood
Have applied for and received college grants or financial aid
etc...

Give it a rest... Only laziness can explain why a person in this day and age doesn't have a legal ID.


.

Poll taxes are illegal. Doesn't matter what your justification is.

 

[SocialD]

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

The point is though.. how do you know when it happens unless you have measures in place to detect it?
I mean if you (I don't mean you specifically of course) don't check because it doesn't happen but because you don't check you don't know if it happens.. its almost like a catch 22
I used an analogy before of that's like saying we don't need to check peoples ID to get into a bar because we haven't found that underage people try to go to the bar.. once again you don't check because you don't believe it happens but because you don't check you don't actually know.

 

[Fearandloathing]

It is nearly impossible to prove that asking for an ID causes turn out to decrease because, at best, you can either compare the number of voters between two election cycles - in which case you have to worry about a **** ton of potential distinguishing factors - or you ask individuals in a poll whether they were dissuaded from voting because of the change to the law - in which case you have to worry about whether or not they are just lying.

With that said, I don't know if the later type study has been conducted, but I do know that the former has often resulted in significant decreases to the number of votes when comparing across similar voting cycles - like presidential to presidential.

Well, you know that it is something that can be measured, it's what polls were invented for.

I have yet to hear a valid argument for not requiring ID.

 

[Grim17]

Poll taxes are illegal. Doesn't matter what your justification is.

You are hilarious.

Tell me something... Why do you feel it's asking too much for minorities to obtain a legal ID?

 

[MrT]

Well, you know that it is something that can be measured, it's what polls were invented for.

I have yet to hear a valid argument for not requiring ID.

Like I said, we can review the numbers of voters before and after election law changes. There are also studies on this topic which you can review here.

The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.

If we look at the voter turnout for California (the state mentioned in the OP) from 2012, that means you could expect to see a decrease of about 252,000 voters - if they implemented a law like that seen in Texas.

When you compare the instances of voter fraud cited in OP - 256 [which stretches across EIGHT ELECTIONS] - and then compare that to the decrease in voter population caused by these types of laws, you should be able to see a valid argument for why the "solution" does a great deal more harm than the "problem."

 

[MrT]

The point is though.. how do you know when it happens unless you have measures in place to detect it?
I mean if you (I don't mean you specifically of course) don't check because it doesn't happen but because you don't check you don't know if it happens.. its almost like a catch 22
I used an analogy before of that's like saying we don't need to check peoples ID to get into a bar because we haven't found that underage people try to go to the bar.. once again you don't check because you don't believe it happens but because you don't check you don't actually know.

But here's the thing - people have been concerned about voter fraud for quite some time. There is some fairly extensive research into how often it occurs. Here is a Washington Post article that details the findings of 7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling.

It is not a matter of us not knowing about when it happens (although of course there are probably a few instances that escape our detection). It is simply a matter of a fear that gets overblown in order to accomplish a purely ideological goal.

 

[What if...?]

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

And I remember a time when conservatives responded to any suggestion of universal ID with "your papers, please" derision. We used to pride ourselves on being a paperless democracy.

Its something I've found interesting. How those attitudes have changed so much in my lifetime.

 

[Deuce]

You are hilarious.

Tell me something... Why do you feel it's asking too much for minorities to obtain a legal ID?

Because poll taxes are illegal.

 

[Buzz]

Here is what is required according to your article:

"The law requires most citizens (some, like people with disabilities, can be exempt) to show one of a handful of forms of allowable photo identification before their election ballots can be counted. Acceptable forms include a state driver's license or ID card that is not more than 60 days expired at the time of voting, a concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, a military ID card or a U.S citizenship certificate with a photo."

So what you are saying is, that requiring one of those forms of ID is too much to ask from minorities?

So you're also saying that none of those people:

Buy cigarettes
Buy alcohol
Have a bank account
Have applied for and received food stamps
etc...

I said no such thing. I was responding to your inaccurate statement that voter ID laws don't cause disenfranchisement. But you don't really care about that... do you?? You just like that it is another way for Republicans to skew election results. If it was conservatives being disenfranchised you would be complaining just like you all do about the relatively rare voter fraud.

Give it a rest... Only laziness can explain why a person in this day and age doesn't have a legal ID.

I know lots of people who might not have an ID for many reasons other than laziness.

 

[Moot]

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

It remains unclear how the dead voters voted but 86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats,

Does that mean it's unclear if they voted in person or by mail.....or unclear which party they voted for? Interesting that none of the dead were registered Independents.