| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
 Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Just my guess and I have no corroborating data to support it but if I were an illegal alien and I am trying not to be found one of the LAST things I would do is go to a polling place, vote and risk being caught. Just sayin'. |
Well....it depends which state you are in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would guess ANY state. Why would an illegal alien go to the trouble of voting? For what purpose? Would the benefit of being one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of voting be worth the risk? Logically I don't see it. Maybe they do vote but I'd be surprised if any do in any amount of numbers that would be marginal at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| I would guess ANY state. Why would an illegal alien go to the trouble of voting? For what purpose? Would the benefit of being one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of voting be worth the risk? Logically I don't see it. Maybe they do vote but I'd be surprised if any do in any amount of numbers that would be marginal at best. |
You are not showing the proper amount of paranoia. You might want to have that checked. You will know you are at the appropriate dosage when you start seeing commies under the bed. And white elephants....definitely white elephants, not pink elephants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Sorta, kinda related to the topic but I would like to see the rule that once you've been in jail your voting priveleges are gone forever. After your probabtion is done once you get out you're supposed to be a fully resstored member of society and your prior rights and priveleges restored. So, why can't an excon vote? |
Not sure why you support continuing to punish someone even after they have paid their debt to society, but in any event this depends on the state. In some (like Florida), ex-cons lose the vote for life; in others, it is restored upon completion of the sentence; in still others, convicted felons are allowed to vote.
It appears that people in the US are still unaware of exactly how the 2000 election was stolen in Florida. The quick version is that Gov. Jeb Bush hired Choicepoint to make a list of convicted felons in the state. When people came to register, their names were checked against that list. However, problems were many, e.g. if one moved into FL from a state that restores voting rights after finishing a sentence, thos people were prevented from voting in FL. The originating state's law is supposed ot govern in that circumstance. Also, if a middle initial did not match, well, poll workers were told to ignore it; similarly with the date of birth and other pesky details. It was estimated that over 90,000 people were wrongfully denied their right to vote. Estimates are that around 90% of those would have voted Democratic in an election ultimately decided by 547 votes.
Search for the story at www.Gregpalast.com to read more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| I would guess ANY state. Why would an illegal alien go to the trouble of voting? For what purpose? Would the benefit of being one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of voting be worth the risk? Logically I don't see it. Maybe they do vote but I'd be surprised if any do in any amount of numbers that would be marginal at best. |
You are not showing the proper amount of paranoia. You might want to have that checked. You will know you are at the appropriate dosage when you start seeing commies under the bed. And white elephants....definitely white elephants, not pink elephants. |
The real problem is with dead people voting.
In Chicago, the number of dead voters typically exceeds the statewide vote margin in close races. In 1960, the number of dead voters in Chicago was greater than the total vote difference between Kennedy and Nixon. Thanks to Mayor Daley and organized crime connections from his father's days of running illegal alcohol during Prohibition, Jack won the election. The dead voters and multiple voters of the Chicago Democrat machine threw the state to Kennedy and winning IL allowed him to win in the Electoral College. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ Yes. What happened in Florida 2000 was just a new twist on an old story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ^ Yes. What happened in Florida 2000 was just a new twist on an old story. |
What? You mean the NY Times sending their staff to Florida to recount the votes (and it did happen), only to prove that Bush won?
OK, then.
soupsandwich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| soupsandwich wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ^ Yes. What happened in Florida 2000 was just a new twist on an old story. |
What? You mean the NY Times sending their staff to Florida to recount the votes (and it did happen), only to prove that Bush won? |
No, that is not what I mean at all which you would have known if you'd only read my previous post here. Go back and read it; it's only a couple of posts up.
You also did not read that full NY Times article you yourself refer to. Bush won if you recount the votes only in the counties the Gore team sought. However, the article goes on to state if you recounted the entire state, GORE WON. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Gerous wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Sorta, kinda related to the topic but I would like to see the rule that once you've been in jail your voting priveleges are gone forever. After your probabtion is done once you get out you're supposed to be a fully resstored member of society and your prior rights and priveleges restored. So, why can't an excon vote? |
Not sure why you support continuing to punish someone even after they have paid their debt to society |
Either I was unclear (which seems to be the case) or you misread my post. I think a person who has served their time and complete their probation should be abe to vote. They should have all their prior rights and priveleges restored. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't see why requiring photo ID of someone who is going to help elect the leadership of the most powerful country on Earth should be an issue. If people really feel strongly enough to vote then they will go through the time and expense to obtain ID. And if someone doesn't have the time and money...then he has more pressing problems on his hands (like how to put food on the table). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| I would guess ANY state. Why would an illegal alien go to the trouble of voting? For what purpose? Would the benefit of being one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of voting be worth the risk? Logically I don't see it. Maybe they do vote but I'd be surprised if any do in any amount of numbers that would be marginal at best. |
To loosen Immigration rules would be one such benefit.
And apparently there are thousands and thousands of illegal aliens registered as voters in the U.S. Apparently there were an estimated 80,000 in Chicago alone as late as 1984. Even eight of the 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote according to this link.
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691
So..surprised yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't see why requiring photo ID of someone who is going to help elect the leadership of the most powerful country on Earth should be an issue. If people really feel strongly enough to vote then they will go through the time and expense to obtain ID. And if someone doesn't have the time and money...then he has more pressing problems on his hands (like how to put food on the table). |
It begs to be asked, what was wrong with the existing method if there were no significant abuses? I can certainly understand if there were widespread abuses. Embarrassingly low percentage of Americans vote. Why enact new laws that 1) does not seem to be needed 2) gives a 'lazy' voter one more reason not to go through the time and effort to vote?
You can make the case that a person shouldn't have be encouraged to vote and participate in the process but I think a greater case can be made to why do we want to make laws that help discourage this further? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't see why requiring photo ID of someone who is going to help elect the leadership of the most powerful country on Earth should be an issue. If people really feel strongly enough to vote then they will go through the time and expense to obtain ID. And if someone doesn't have the time and money...then he has more pressing problems on his hands (like how to put food on the table). |
It begs to be asked, what was wrong with the existing method if there were no significant abuses? I can certainly understand if there were widespread abuses. Embarrassingly low percentage of Americans vote. Why enact new laws that 1) does not seem to be needed 2) gives a 'lazy' voter one more reason not to go through the time and effort to vote?
You can make the case that a person shouldn't have be encouraged to vote and participate in the process but I think a greater case can be made to why do we want to make laws that help discourage this further? |
Referring to the part I bolded see my last post and ontheway's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its interesting. One thing I do know about America is that there is a vast gap between those that are registered voters and those that actually vote. In the last election, 64% of registered voters voted and it was the 2nd highest presidential voting of registered voters for decades. So, I can only assume that the percentage of registered voters in prior elections were a lot lower.
Still, if only 50% of those who are registered to vote actually do vote its significant.
I did a little research. I found its very difficult to know how many illegal voters (illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants who are here legally but obviously can not vote) actually do vote.
Its difficult to know after an election unless there is a re-count. In the 1996 38th Congressional district in Orange county California there were about 84,000 votes at stake in a district that was slightly over 70% latino and it would be reasonable to assume a fair number of illegal immigrants.
In the Dornan v. Sanchez race, Dornan lost his long held seat by 984 votes and said he lost because of illegal immigrants.
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691
a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting. Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Lor�etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes, and Dornan contested the election in the U.S. House of Representatives. His challenge was dismissed after an investigation by the House Com�mittee on Oversight and Government Reform turned up only 624 invalid votes by non-citizens who were present in the U.S. Immigration and Nat�uralization Service (INS) database because they had applied for citizenship, as well as another 124 improper absentee ballots. The investigation, however, could not detect illegal aliens, who were not in the INS records.
Less than 1% of the actual vote.
There are voting irregularities in ALL election, even by legal voters. However, unless an election is close its insignificant.
The 1996 race may be an abberation. I'm no expert but I would think if only so few voted in a heavily latino district with a fellow latino running so an incentive for an illegal to vote and 'only' these many illegal votes turned up, then its not a problem...relatively speaking and addressing the 'spirit' of the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
