Icon said:

GenericHero said:

Well, time to nut up and demonstrate the flaw. Go vote and see what happens.

If you think you've discovered a massive exploit yet there's no good evidence to point a towards, the most likely explanation is that you are missing information or don't understand the info you already have.

---

I'm ready to receive the missing information or your alternative explanation.

"Current through 2006?"
"But they have to verify the signature before counting a ballot right?"
"Surely this paragraph about provisional ballots getting verified applies!"

Nope nope nope. You obviously can see the potential for fraud, dude. Just accept that you don't have any evidence to refute that. It shouldn't be hard to do the math and figure there's virtually nothing stopping someone, and no way to definitively know who is abusing the loopholes or how much.

If you're so confident that there's no dishonesty or fraud happening, then it shouldn't be a big deal to add photo ID checks. It should be worth it if only to disarm the right's very credible claims that fraud could be happening.

---

GenericHero said:

Icon said:

GenericHero said:

Well, time to nut up and demonstrate the flaw. Go vote and see what happens.

If you think you've discovered a massive exploit yet there's no good evidence to point a towards, the most likely explanation is that you are missing information or don't understand the info you already have.

---

I'm ready to receive the missing information or your alternative explanation.

"Current through 2006?"
"But they have to verify the signature before counting a ballot right?"
"Surely this paragraph about provisional ballots getting verified applies!"

Nope nope nope. You obviously can see the potential for fraud, dude. Just accept that you don't have any evidence to refute that. It shouldn't be hard to do the math and figure there's virtually nothing stopping someone, and no way to definitively know who is abusing the loopholes or how much.

If you're so confident that there's no dishonesty or fraud happening, then it shouldn't be a big deal to add photo ID checks. It should be worth it if only to disarm the right's very credible claims that fraud could be happening.

---

As the one making the claim that there's an issue you have the responsibility to show that there's an issue. All I know is that you may or may not have put fake info into a government website. Your first paragraph is just trust me bro. "There's no way to produce any evidence bro but like if you do the math bro..." As for the second, what are you advocating for? Federal legislation? Don't you believe in states' rights? Also IDs cost money, that's a poll tax.

---

sudly said:

Funny thing is, more republicans dont have a passport, and women who have taken their husbands name will need to jump through loopholes too.

Many people dont vote because it isnt mandatory, a lot of people, probably more republicans will likely be disincentivised to vote.

So the make voting harder act will do just that, but potentially do more harm to the republicans pushing for it..

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Why would it be harder for Republicans?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

sudly said:

Funny thing is, more republicans dont have a passport, and women who have taken their husbands name will need to jump through loopholes too.

Many people dont vote because it isnt mandatory, a lot of people, probably more republicans will likely be disincentivised to vote.

So the make voting harder act will do just that, but potentially do more harm to the republicans pushing for it..

---

I don't understand your rationale for saying this...

Why would it be harder for Republicans?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

sudly said:

Funny thing is, more republicans dont have a passport, and women who have taken their husbands name will need to jump through loopholes too.

Many people dont vote because it isnt mandatory, a lot of people, probably more republicans will likely be disincentivised to vote.

So the make voting harder act will do just that, but potentially do more harm to the republicans pushing for it..

---

I don't understand your rationale for saying this...

Why would it be harder for Republicans?

---

GenesisCorrupted said:

SARAtonin said:

ballsalsa said:

Are you saying that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to vote?

---

Only land owners.

---

So me and all of the people that rent wouldn't have a voice and only the wealthiest people who are able to afford to own property would be able to have control over the country we live in?
You're wrong.

We don't need another oligarchy.

---