I am being told by many on the left that there is no massive voter fraud out there (well, not from THEIR side ... only Republicans would do such a thing!!!!!zomg).
But let's look at the facts.
FACT: it is very easy to fake a voter registration. Now, this is state- and county-dependent, but generally speaking, in most places, it's simple. One local WA woman registered her dog to vote, simply by calling the phone company and asking for a bill in her "son's" name, and using that as proof of residency.
FACT: it is very easy to vote once you have a successful faked registration. They do not check whether your registration is illegal once it is in the system. There may be an occasional check for dead people, or felons, or underage voters ... but if you are a fake person, they won't catch you, unless you make it very obvious, like using the name "Mickey Mouse."
Indeed, the aforementioned dog owner, Jane Balogh, was only caught because she wanted to be: she returned the illegal ballot voided, with a paw print instead of a signature. And they did catch her that way ... a year later, after she had returned three ballots that way.
FACT: many people in this world, in this country, are corrupt, and willing to break the law to achieve their own ends.
So if it is easy to register illegally, easy to vote with that illegal registration, and there are many people who would be willing to do all this, how is it rational to say that it doesn't happen?
It's not rational, at all.
Just because people rarely get caught means nothing: that stems from the fact that it is hard to catch it when it happens. You have to make it obvious, either by using paw prints on ballots, or popular names on registrations, or registering en masse with obviously fake and duplicate information like ACORN has.
I am not saying Obama is going to steal the election with this type of voter fraud. I am saying it is foolish to think it is not happening, and probably on both sides. It is a huge, mostly unchecked, gaping, security hole, with little chance of getting caught for exploiting it if you're smart. There's no reason why corrupt people wouldn't take advantage of it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 29, 2008 10:11 AM | Email ThisWhen it is usually the Democrat party that pushes for illegals to vote and same day registrations and park benches as residences and usually Democrats who support the fraud ripe mail-in ballots, yes, I can say it is the D party who supports fraud.
Yeah, yeah, I know and agree that every legal voter should be allowed to vote. But, what I don't understand is why we can't do this in a way that can insure a free election? 30 days registration prior to voting doesn't seem like too onerous a requirement if one is serious about voting. What i suspect is the Ds want to influence the late registrant with cigarettes and coffee. These people probably shouldn't be allowed to vote (I know it is harsh).
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2008 10:48 AMLook in the mirror to find the real reason you're losing.
Posted by: teve on October 29, 2008 11:03 AMAnd screw motor voter.
My personal feeling is that anyone who believes these requirements are onerous, shouldn't be allowed to vote. I don't think that's harsh at all.
Posted by: Paula on October 29, 2008 11:06 AMUm. What is crazy about what I said?
Paula: yes, we should have much more secure *registration.* Anyone remember Terapon Adhahn? Killed and raped Zina Linnik and maybe other young girls? Resident, legal alien? He was registered to vote. Most likely through motor voter.
Unlikely, but of course it can happen. You're wrong to say "absolutely not." Let's say McCain beats expectations, and wins all the states Bush won, except Ohio and Indiana, where it is close. Both states have had serious problems with illegal registrations. We just don't know.
Will it possibley make a difference in our State's race for Gov. ....POSSIBLY!
Yep. It COULD have played a role in 2004. We just don't know.
Are you as big an idiot as you seem?
Posted by: correctnotright on October 29, 2008 11:32 AMWRONG! To many hackers and I can only bet groups like ACORN would try to find a way to hack the system.
ID and a voting booth. It works everytime.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 29, 2008 11:35 AMOnce again - you can't read. I provided proof that it is easy to fake a registration, and easy to vote using that registration. I provided proof that both happen.
who would risk it?
As I already proved: it is easy to do without getting caught. It is not much of a risk if you do it smartly.
And how big a problem is this if you can't come up with a single case?
Um. I gave you a case.
Go back to the short bus.
WRONG! To many hackers ...
AMV, well, hackers is one thing, but worse is that there is no way to check to make sure "Duncan Balogh" is a real citizen voter, and not a dog. There's no database inexistence that can give us this information. So there's no possible way to exclude Duncan from a check using the computer.
This is one reason why people want a national citizen databse. Then such a check WOULD be simpler. But it would also create many problems, most importantly that no one can sanely think that this database won't have many errors in it, even if it is kept hacker-proof.
So I have to agree ... better registration requirements, including some form of proof of citizenship (with exceptions made for people with no paper documentation, to go before a board), and then vote with ID at the polls.
Altogether typical of the left, n'est pas?
Posted by: Hinton on October 29, 2008 11:59 AMSo-the dead can vote or they can't. Wonder what KC Elections opinion would have been had that been a vote for McCain?
Posted by: Camille on October 29, 2008 12:06 PMhttp://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=22216&TM=55367.5
Stupid b*stard could have saved himself a ton of money, time & embarrassment by just admitting what he did 20 months ago.
Instead, typical Progressive...Deny, Deny, Deny.
Of course People Vote Illegally pudge.
And finally a DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST is paying a price.
If King County is saying that, they are ignorant of the law. Just like you are allowed to vote if you are 17, if you turn 18 by election day, you also must be ALIVE on election day, or your vote is illegal.
You do not actually vote until November 4. No ballots should be opened until Nov. 4, SO THAT on Nov. 4, any illegal voters' ballots can be removed.
I do know that in my county, Snohomish there is a person whose job it is to read the papers for the death notices and the obituaries and flag the voters that might be deceased for further research.
This idea that disenfranchisement is worse than illegal voting is nonsense, but nonsense the left and the media has pushed and made to appear reasonable and fair.
Disenfranchise one voter or allow 100 illegal votes? Doesn't anyone understand that those 100 illegal votes disenfranchise 100 voters who cast their ballots legally?
Democrats understand that all too well, and they count on it to win.
Posted by: Reality on October 29, 2008 12:35 PMThe only way the county could do if the data base of voters was updated before the ballot was signature checked.
Exactly. The signature should not be checked until voting day, and the database should be updated regularly.
And if you wants to go back to polling places – the last general election before mail in ballots 70+% of the voters asked for absentee ballots. It look like it would rise even higher, the cost per polling place voter was going through the roof. The voters drove the switch with their chose of absentee balloting.
In the face of evidence of massive voter fraud, should President Bush refuse to recognize the election or surrender the Presidency based on insurrection? Further, should he declare martial law in Washington, D.C., beyond Inauguration, if the matter is not resolved?
Posted by: 5.62 on October 29, 2008 12:50 PMThere was something chilling watching the Iraqis the first time they voted. First, there were empty streets, then one man, then two and pretty soon the streets were crowded. And the purple thumb thing. Again, chilling. It brought tears to the eyes of old swatter.
Posted by: swatter on October 29, 2008 01:40 PMBut who cares?
In almost all cases, it couldn't possibly have an effect on the outcomes as those races are decided by thousands of votes. Unless you're suggesting that multiple thousands of people in each area are committing fraud, but there's no evidence of that kind of organization.
This only becomes a concern in something like the Governor's race four years ago. And in that event, simple human error is actually enough to throw the election in one direction or the other.
We'll never actually know whether Gregoire was the winner or not from a statistical point of view. On the other hand, that is precisely why there are specific rules laid out for when recounts occur, how they are conducted, etc.
You're never going to be able to eliminate error down to 100% accuracy in an election. Even if King Co. were to be 99.99% accurate (and I'm sure we all doubt they're that good), you're still talking about enough ballots to have kept the final tally in the 2004 Governor's election within the margin of error.
Posted by: Mickymse on October 29, 2008 01:41 PMWe know that there is massive "fraud" in signature collection for petition drives - I know this is a bit of a non-sequitor, but I think the methodology for checking validity of signatures should be the same for petitions as it is for voting.
Then, I'd go back to voting in person, with exceptions for military, student and invalids.
At least then, if you're trying to cast more than one vote - you at least have to burn some shoe leather.
Posted by: BA on October 29, 2008 01:43 PMHow many others are out there who have had the same thing happen? Our (my husband and my) biggest concern is that illegal aliens are getting registered this way and they will vote because it is one more false brick in making them harder to catch as an illegal. (FYI, my husband has been here for over 30 years and has a green card)
So you don't even have to fake it, the government makes it easy.
Posted by: Cindy on October 29, 2008 02:14 PMIn Snohomish county they started processing the returned ballots on the 20th of October, as of yesterday I heard they received 99,000 ballots back, 30% of the total sent out.
Correct.
If you waited to do what you want them to do there would be no meaningful results for days.
Yes, that is correct. And it is not an argument against anything I said.
And if you wants to go back to polling places
Yes.
the last general election before mail in ballots 70+% of the voters asked for absentee ballots
Most of them should be disallowed from voting by mail. Voting by mail is a scourge on the democratic system. Only those who require it should be allowed to do it. I've gone through this many times, but briefly:
* mail voting makes accidental undervotes more likely
* mail voting makes accidental overvotes more likely
* mail voting makes lost ballots more likely
* mail voting makes fraudulent voting (on behalf of someone else) more likely
* mail voting makes ballot theft (before or after the ballot is filled out) more likely
* mail voting makes illegally INFLUENCING how someone votes EXTREMELY easy, because ballot secrecy at the point of voting can be eliminated
Mail voting is more convenient, but that is the ONLY way in which it is better. It is a far, far, far worse system. It should be eliminated, except for those people who are incapable of going to the polls.
The voters drove the switch with their chose of absentee balloting.
False. Just because most voters took advantage of absentee ballots does not imply they wanted to eliminate poll voting.
That is not up to him. He does not decide whether the election is good or not.
Mickymse: In almost all cases, it couldn't possibly have an effect on the outcomes as those races are decided by thousands of votes
Um. Does 2004 ring a bell? 130-something difference? Come on.
BA: come to think of it, yes, the liberal Democrats in WA seem to care a lot more about checking petition signatures than voter registration signatures. How sad is that?
Cindy: this is unfortunately not surprising at all. :/
It's obvious. They actively work to eliminate petitions with signature verification, and to even make it harder to get proper signatures, and they actively fight AGAINST efforts to make sure voters are who they say they are.
Make it hard to get "proper signatures" - what, they jostle signers when the petition is in their hands? How does someone make it hard to get "proper signatures"?
Finally, fighting against efforts to make sure voters are who they say they are...if that's true, that would be contrary to your first argument that they use the verification process to weed out improper signers. One negates the other.
I expected a more cogent defense of your assertion from you.
I see from the Sec. of State's office that the rejection rate for signatures on petitions is huge - maybe hiring folks to gather signatures on petitions the way Acorn hires folks to gather signatures on registrations doesn't work either.
Posted by: BA on October 29, 2008 03:20 PMThat is true. However, the benefit to an individual of casting one illegal ballot is negligible, and while the chance of getting caught is small, the potential penalty is large. The reward/risk ratio is much higher for crimes like shoplifting. Therefore common sense suggests that virtually no one will intentionally cast an illegal ballot. And if you cast hundreds of illegal ballots, the chance of affecting the outcome is greater but still very small (how many elections are as close as the 2004 WA gubernatorial election?), yet the chance of being caught becomes quite significant.
Given the above reasoning, the burden of proof is on you to show significant actual vote fraud, not just to claim it's conceivable. And you haven't done that. And you can't.
On the other hand, it is easy to find many cases of people who have been illegally prohibited from voting. And the impact of each of those cases is just as bad as the impact of a vote cast illegally.
Posted by: Bruce on October 29, 2008 03:55 PMI am not talking about any governent office.
Make it hard to get "proper signatures"
Yes. They try to change the rules.
Finally, fighting against efforts to make sure voters are who they say they are...if that's true, that would be contrary to your first argument that they use the verification process to weed out improper signers. One negates the other.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The want everyone, including illegal voters, to be registered to vote. And then they do what they can to make sure they can't be counted on petitions.
Posted by: pudge on October 29, 2008 03:57 PMYou're an idiot. WE KNOW IT HAPPENS. It's a fact. Your "common sense" denies fact.
And if you cast hundreds of illegal ballots, the chance of affecting the outcome is greater but still very small
2004.
Given the above reasoning, the burden of proof is on you to show significant actual vote fraud
It's already been shown.
And you haven't done that. And you can't.
I already did.
And the impact of each of those cases is just as bad as the impact of a vote cast illegally.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
What I took pudge's comment to mean was that if we were allowed to apply the same standards and attention to both signatures, the rejection rate would be equally as huge.
The problem stems from the Dems who have been in control have found that the only way to have complete control is to fight the initiative process at it's beginning. We the people have continually forced what we want upon our legislature through this process and they despise it. By ratcheting up the standards and challenges, they limit the ability to qualify initiatives for the ballot. "Oh, too bad. You couldn't get enough? Guess we were right again..."
They cannot attack the initiative process at the ballot counting part because it may invalidate the votes they need for their pet candidate (ie 2004).
And legal challenges are getting dicey. The masses are starting to become smarter and attune to legislation from the bench. They keep challenging the constitutionality of initiatives and the peeps will revolt.
While they may be liars, cheats, swindlers and panderers, on thing they are not is stupid.
And, moron, leave Sam Reed out of this. He is doing his job as he has been told and directed. He is not a partisan hack as you would expect as evidenced by your post. While Stefan may believe he has not conducted his due diligence, his R status is irrelevant in this case.
And your ACORN point... If they are doing the same thing as ACORN, why is ACORN getting a way with it while you herald the rejection rate? Why are both results not the same? Could it be different standards? No...
Posted by: Chris on October 29, 2008 04:11 PMI think the mere fact that people can and do register illegally and can and do vote illegally - regardless of the numbers that do so - undermines the confidence that citizens have in the outcomes of our elections. This is why I feel it's absolutely vital to the future of our country to eliminate voter registration and vote fraud to the greatest extent possible.
You keep talking as though extremely close election contests are rare. They may have once been rare, but more and more often, races are decided by incredibly narrow margins.
If the majority of the electorate holds the idea that vote fraud is prevalent enough to sway the outcomes of these races, it's very divisive. You have roughly half of the population crying foul at every election.
And ultimately I think that is the point of the fraudulent Acorn registrations. The point isn't to actually cast votes in the name of Micky Mouse and Princess Nudelman (although it may well be that some of these "voters" do indeed vote), it's to sow the seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of the outcome.
Posted by: Paula on October 29, 2008 04:55 PMNow, as to the main issue of illegal voters, people have been casting illegal votes for time immemorial. I believe my great grandfather (dead and buried in Chicago in 1904) is still a very active voter.
I would think that an all mail in ballot would help in discovering illegal votes. I am sure there is software that could detect 25 ballots going to one mailing address, and other anomalies, whereas a person could conceivably spend an entire day going from polling place to polling place and cast fraudulent votes.
You keep talking as though extremely close election contests are rare. They may have once been rare, but more and more often, races are decided by incredibly narrow margins.
Right, it's insanity. We JUST HAD an example of this, and who is to say it won't happen again?
You say:
"if we were allowed to apply the same standards and attention to both signatures, the rejection rate would be equally as huge."
Someone who signs a petition must be a registered voter; their name anyway (signature matched???) is vetted by the State. The rejection rate for non-registered and duplicates is often 15% or more.
The voter's ballots are vetted by the Counties, are you saying the Counties are failing to properly reject around 15% of the voters as being either unregistered or duplicates as well? Really?
You're saying Sam Reed is just doing his job as he has been told and directed - which is of course following state law since he reports to no one but the voters.
Calling me a "moron" because you're making up a new hierarchy of State Government and then say his status as a Republican is irrelevant in this case is absurd - I was responding to Pudge saying "liberal Democrats in WA seem to care a lot more about checking petition signatures than voter registration signatures" and the individual in this state responsible to check petition signatures is not a "liberal Democrat" (at least by party preference) so in fact it is relevant to the point Pudge asserted.
As for your last paragraph - I can't decipher your sentences - so I can't respond.
Posted by: BA on October 29, 2008 05:28 PMEach and every envelope is matched to the signature to a registered voter before it is opened.
It you want to know about voter registration fraud, first ACORN turned in those bad registration but they flagged them because they knew something was wrong – The could NOT not turn them in because the law requires them to turn in all the filled out forms, Not like some Republicans that were convicted of tearing up registration forms of people who sere registering as democrats and also registering some as republican who made no preference (this was in state with party registration). It’s seems that the local campaigns pay a bounty for republican registrations. If you pay people to gather registration or gather signatures you are going to get some who don’t want to do the work but want to get paid. In acorns case they told the registrars that they thought they were bad to make sure that they were did check them out.
People vote in various ways. The growth of absentee balloting came about because people wanted it.
And it should not have been allowed. It should only be available to people who require it in order to vote.
The constitution has no mention of how one votes.
I am not saying this is a constitutional issue, so that's irrelevant.
In the beginning there wasn’t even a secret ballot.
And with mail voting, there no longer is, either. There are two reasons for a secret ballot. The one most people think of, which is the LESS important one, is just because people are bashful or whatever. Simple and obvious social reasons. But there is a much more important reason for a secret ballot: so no one can blackmail or bribe or otherwise unduly influence your vote. Voter intimidation was a huge problem at the time. But if people don't know how you vote, they can't guarantee you are voting how they are trying to influence you to vote, so they are less likely to bother trying. Hence the secret ballot.
With mail voting, or any form of voting at home, this is gone, and the primary benefit of the secret ballot disintegrates, and widespread voter intimidation and bribery is possible once again. This populist reform has ceased to exist in Washington State. And because the voting happens at home and not in public, it is almost impossible to CATCH people who are violating the law thusly.
I am not exaggerating when I say the secret ballot is dead in Washington State. Thanks for nothing.
When the citizens asked for looser rules for absentee ballot it was granted.
Yep. And it should not have been. The citizens didn't understand why it was a terrible idea, they only thought of the convenience. And their elected representatives failed them.
In Snohomish county mail in ballot was rejected by a Republican majority council, they got voted out and all mail balloting was approved.
Yes, because, frankly, the Republicans cared a hell of a lot more about the integrity of the election system than the Democrats.
There is simply no doubt that mail voting is terrible for the integrity of the democratic process. It opens up some huge security and reliability holes that do not have to exist. This is not an acceptable price to pay for the sake of convenience.
Each and every envelope is matched to the signature to a registered voter before it is opened.
I am well aware of how it works. And I think Carolyn Weikel has done a terrific job with the system we have, even though that system is badly flawed. (And she is well aware of my concerns, and even shares some of them.)
"And it should not have been allowed. It should only be available to people who require it in order to vote."
The people spoke, Pudge. Who the hell are you to say it should not have been allowed? Your position is the minority position. Man up and accept it.
National ID cards.
It is moronic that in the 21st century, we don't have a way to identify citizens with a national ID. The vast majority of civilized nations have this, and it completely eliminates voter fraud. It would also eliminate a good chunk of the illegal immigration problem (social security cards are pathetically easy to fake), and most other types of fraud (welfare, medicare etc).
Yes, the wingnut types make the arguement that its bad because its like the "number of the beast". Other wingnuts are afraid it will lead to the government knowing more about you than large corporations and credit agencies already do.
The left wing crazies are against it because they don't want non-citizens discriminated against.
Either way. That is THE way to fix the problem. A national ID card, similar to a passport card, that links to your SSN and provides PROOF of citizenship. Unlike the current passport card, this should be free, and all Americans should be required to present one to vote, or to work.
Why is this so hard?
Posted by: Proteus on October 30, 2008 07:36 AMThe people spoke, Pudge. Who the hell are you to say it should not have been allowed?
Someone who knows the issue better than they do.
We do not have a democractic government in this state, we have a republican government in this state. That is what the U.S. Constitution says. And we have a republican government guaranteed because of two reasons: first, to protect the rights of those with minority viewpoints, and second, because the people often don't understand the issues very well.
Both factors come into play here.
Your position is the minority position.
Exactly my point, in re republics. Thanks!
Well, the fix for this is well known, and works in many other western democracies. National ID cards.
No, this is not a fix, it just seems like it to people who don't understand how it works.
It is moronic that in the 21st century, we don't have a way to identify citizens with a national ID.
How would you propose we implement it? There is no list of citizens. It's not a fix at all.
The vast majority of civilized nations have this, and it completely eliminates voter fraud.
The first is because in most nations that have it, they are relatively small nations where their populations travel to other nations a lot, so most people already go to the government to get papers. That is not the case here.
And no, absolutely false, it does not eliminate voter fraud. Or any other kind of fraud.
Yes, the wingnut types make the arguement that its bad because its like the "number of the beast".
Actually, I hear a lot more complaints about this from the left. Granted, this is because I am in the open source world, and in that world, we have a lot of privacy and technology experience, and we know that such a system -- especially in the U.S. where we would be starting a new system from the ground up -- will be filled with errors. People WILL be able to get into the system who are not citizens, and people WILL be excluded who are citizens, and data WILL be lost and corrupted, and some privacy WILL LIKELY be lost ... and all for no significant gain.
Oh and let's add in the fact that it is unconstitutional to force everyone to use one in order to exercise their Constitutional right to vote, unless you are going to be giving it away for free, which means a massive tax increase to pay for it. Yeah, many on the left don't care about this, but it's true anyway.
A National ID won't really fix the problems that can't be easily taken care of at the state level, it will cost too much, it will be flawed.
This is why RealID exists: so that we can have a hybrid state/national ID, to make it more practically feasible, but again, most people on the left (including prominent security expert Bruce Schneier) who know a lot about open source and technology and security are against it (and any other national ID). And not because it is "discriminatory," but because it won't work and will cause many problems.
Either way. That is THE way to fix the problem. ... Why is this so hard?
Because non-wingnut people on both the right and the left, who are far smarter than you -- or even me, on security issues -- tell us it will not fix anything. "... when someone asks me to rate the security of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can't give an answer. It doesn't even belong on a scale." -- Bruce Schneier.
Do you have any evidence for that? I see no reason to believe that. (When I pointed out that few elections are as close as the 2004 WA gubernatorial election, pudge thoughtfully responded, "2004".)
Any very close election decided by illegal votes is a very bad thing. However, given that there are very few very close elections, AND there is no evidence of enough illegal votes to decide even such a close election, AND there is a tradeoff between measures to prevent every possible illegal vote and measures to have more citizens participate in elections, it is hard to get excited about illegal voting.
Unless, of course, your agenda is to discourage certain citizens from legally participating, in which case, like pudge, you call this argument irrelevant and you call people who make it idiots.
Posted by: Bruce on October 30, 2008 08:54 AMThe people spoke, Pudge. Who the hell are you to say it should not have been allowed?
"Someone who knows the issue better than they do."
How do you know what someone else knows, Pudge? The answer is, you don't.
Everybody is equal under the law, Pudge. The Constitution says so. To deny this and to claim some more privileged status under the law is an elitist position.
That is why conservatism is dying out, Pudge, like the dodo bird. Because it is, at its roots, an argument for privilege. Under the law, Pudge, that wino on the street corner is your equal and mine, and you and your sniveling lot can't accept it.
Pudge, I have some questions for you:
- Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?
- If not, what sort of disagreement do you find non-idiotic?
- What sort of comments do you consider appropriate on this thread? Just comments that agree with you and amplify on what you said?
- What is your goal in calling someone an idiot? To convince anyone of anything? To get them to stop posting comments? To get them to stop reading this board? To make yourself feel good? To make yourself look mature and intelligent?
Posted by: Bruce on October 30, 2008 09:08 AMWho should vote?
That is to be decided by the legislature, and enforced by the proper authorities.
Not the courts.
The biggest need : honest judges.
Posted by: ljm on October 30, 2008 09:11 AMIvan, you're being terribly unfair to the dodo bird, which was made extinct by the stupidity of others.
Posted by: Bruce on October 30, 2008 09:14 AMHow do you know what someone else knows, Pudge? The answer is, you don't.
False. People who knew how bad mail voting was, would be against it.
To deny this and to claim some more privileged status under the law is an elitist position.
To claim I ever did either of those things is to be a damned liar.
Which is, of course, what you are. As usual.
(When I pointed out that few elections are as close as the 2004 WA gubernatorial election, pudge thoughtfully responded, "2004".)
Because I was pointing out what non-idiots understand: that one election is the only example we need.
Any very close election decided by illegal votes is a very bad thing. ... it is hard to get excited about illegal voting.
Your second phrase disagrees with your first. And no, the invervening words do not create agreement. It does not exist.
Unless, of course, your agenda is to discourage certain citizens from legally participating
You're a liar.
- Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?
Of course not. No evidence to suggest this exists. I was saying you were an idiot in response to your claim that "common sense" suggests something we know, as a matter of fact, is false.
- If not, what sort of disagreement do you find non-idiotic?
The type that does not ignore facts. That's a good place to start.
- What sort of comments do you consider appropriate on this thread?
The type that does not ignore facts. That's a good place to start.
Posted by: pudge on October 30, 2008 09:25 AMI encourage you to keep speaking out, Pudge. I encourage you to be the face of the Republican Party. I encourage you to put forward all the intellectual and moral force of the conservative movement by calling everyone but you and your lot "liars."
People in this state PREFER mail voting, Pudge. Are they entitled to prefer mail voting, for whatever reason they prefer it, or are they not? Answer the question.
Do you deny you lied? If so, then show me exactly where I ever implied that anyone should have a "more privileged status under the law" or that I ever "denied" that "Everybody is equal under the law."
It's very simple. Back up your claim. I contend that I never stated or implied those things. The burden of proof is on you to back up your assertions. Prove you're not a liar.
(Of course, everyone here knows the punchline: you can't do it.)
People in this state PREFER mail voting, Pudge. Are they entitled to prefer mail voting, for whatever reason they prefer it, or are they not? Answer the question.
I will answer the question ... after you either admit you were lying, or prove your assertion. I have no problem giving you a straightforward answer to that very simple question, but I do have a problem giving you anything while you continue to lie about me.
Actually, the first nation with national ID cards that comes to mind is China, the opposite of your description in every way.
I will not call you a liar or an idiot for this... just wrong.
I will not call you a liar or an idiot for this... just wrong.
Um. No, in fact, I was not wrong. You are wrong -- and an idiot -- to believe that "most" means "all."
Fortunately, on this issue pudge is on the wrong side of a strong national trend. He has Tim Eyman's intolerance but, fortunately, lacks Eyman's political judgment.
Posted by: Bruce on October 30, 2008 02:13 PMHe just implied that most people are too stupid to (a) understand
False. I said they did NOT understand, not that they are too stupid to understand.
Fortunately, on this issue pudge is on the wrong side of a strong national trend.
"Fortunately"? So you think it is a GOOD THING that abusive husbands are now free to force their wives to vote a certain way? That ballots are more likely to get stolen or lost?
Wow.
Posted by: pudge on October 30, 2008 02:36 PMElection day, people go to the polling place nearest where they live. They dip their finger in indelible ink, or some such, and they vote, once. Make it a national holiday if necessary.
I don't care who votes in this way, illegal immigrants, homeless guys, ex-cons, as long as they vote at the polling place nearest where they are living on election day, and as long as they only vote once. If they are incarcerated - no vote. If they don't make it to the polling place - no vote. If their finger is inky - no second vote.
Residents absent from their homeplace on election day or provably unable to get to a polling place, may personally apply in advance for a one-time absentee ballot, proving their residence and location on election day. Must return ballot with postmark no later than election day and received within one week after. Their names and id info will be entered in a statewide database which will be used by both the state and federal govt to check for fraudulent activity.
That's it.
Posted by: Mom on October 30, 2008 03:22 PMI do not support a system explicitly or implicitly allowing noncitizen voting.
However, it would likely be an improvement over what we've got.
Posted by: pudge on October 30, 2008 03:28 PMA vast and growing majority of Washington voters are voting by mail. Whatever their reasons are for that, it APPEARS that they are not buying what you and Stefan are selling. Do you care to dispute that? I thought not.
Correct. It is, rather, a statement of fact. You are a liar.
I already said I would not answer you until you either backed up your assertion, or admitted it was a lie.
Do you care to dispute that?
I'll answer that question, too, again, after you either back up your assertion about me, or admit it is a lie.
I agree with that.
There are about 50 nations that require national ID cards, only about 60% of them have populations exceeding 10 million citizens and only about 30% have populations exceeding 40 million citizens.
Irrelevant fact to make the argument perhaps on Pudge's part, but not wrong.
Posted by: BA on October 30, 2008 05:29 PMWhat I have is you refusing to even try to back up your accusation against me, that even Bruce said was false.
pudge: Do you deny you lied? If so, then show me exactly where I ever implied that anyone should have a "more privileged status under the law" or that I ever "denied" that "Everybody is equal under the law."
So...
@48:
ivan: The people spoke, Pudge. Who the hell are you to say it should not have been allowed?
pudge: Someone who knows the issue better than they do.
*^*^*
When you said that, pudge, who wrote in a way that some could construe as you implying that because you believe yourself to be more knowledgeable, you get to decide what is and isn't a valid law. That would elevate you personally above the electorate. That is definitionally abrogating to yourself a "more privileged status under the law."
Ivan pointed out, rightly, that there's no verifiable way for you to know whether you're more knowledgeable than the general population or not. It may well be that they're at least as informed as you are -- even, perhaps, better informed than you are -- and have simply come up with different decision than you have.
If I were to follow a common pattern in your writing, I could now say, "You're a liar."
But I'm not going to do that. Mostly because I'm old-fashioned enough to agree with this definition of "lie" -- "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
This is probably where your repetitive use of "liar" tends to alienate people, pudge. Because you constantly imply they're trying to deceive others, when in fact they merely disagree with you -- either in interpretation, or in knowing things you do not, or in thinking more rigorously than you appear to in your writing.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on October 31, 2008 12:24 AM
you get to decide what is and isn't a valid law
I never said the law was invalid. I only said the law is a bad one, and I get to give my opinion on that, as EVERYONE does.
That would elevate you personally above the electorate. That is definitionally abrogating to yourself a "more privileged status under the law."
Giving my opinion does that? How? Please describe how giving my opinion in any way gives me any sort of priveleged legal status.
Again: you are even worse at this than ivan. He knew he would look stupid saying what you did. You didn't have that basic sense.
You did not use that exact word, no. But it's implicit in Ivan's question: "Who the hell are you to say it should not have been allowed?" "Should not be allowed" and "invalid" are synonyms, last I checked.
"Please describe how giving my opinion in any way gives me any sort of priveleged legal status."
Because you weren't merely giving your opinion. You were justifying your positition that the law "should not be allowed."
It all depends on what the meaning of the word, "be" is. :)
"You are even worse at this than ivan."
On pudgeworld, perhaps. But things are not necessarily good or bad because you say so.
"He knew he would look stupid saying what you did."
Did he? How do you know?
"You didn't have that basic sense."
To paraphrase a wise man, "Your "basic sense" denies fact." Which is to say, you're speculating again, and presenting it as established.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on October 31, 2008 12:51 AM"Should not be allowed" and "invalid" are synonyms, last I checked.
Then you need to check more carefully next time. Saying the county council should not have passed a law is not the same as saying that law is invalid. I am saying it is a bad law, not an invalid one.
you weren't merely giving your opinion. You were justifying your positition that the law "should not be allowed."
Wow. So you are saying that if I give reasons for my opinion, that I am trying to ... give myself priveleged legal status.
That doesn't even BEGIN to make sense.
You REALLY suck at this.
pudge: Then you need to check more carefully next time.
Indeed? Have you checked? What's the distinction?
"Saying the county council should not have passed a law is not the same as saying that law is invalid."
No, it isn't. But that's not what you said, as has been quoted to you before.
"I am saying it is a bad law, not an invalid one."
You are now. You haven't in the past, as has been quoted to you before. I'm glad to see you've changed your mind.
"So you are saying that if I give reasons for my opinion, that I am trying to ... give myself priveleged legal status."
No, I'm saying that if you're giving your opinion, it would be clearer writing if you actually said it was your opinion. Instead, you phrased it as if you were making an observation of natural fact.
You asked, "...show me exactly where I ever implied..." I've shown you. You've now changed your position, from writing as if this is how things are, to how things ought to be. If you're saying it was never your intent to be read that way... Well, one may hope that provides an example to you of why speculating to other people's intent can be fraught with uncertainty.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on October 31, 2008 01:30 AMBut that's not what you said, as has been quoted to you before.
Um. Actually, you're wrong, it is what I said.
Instead, you phrased it as if you were making an observation of natural fact.
Wow, you're an idiot. How could you possibly think that a statement about what laws should or should not have been passed is a statement of fact? People offer up such opinions every day.
You asked, "...show me exactly where I ever implied..." I've shown you.
No, in fact, you did not. You attempted to, yes. But you miserably failed.
You've now changed your position
No, in fact, I did not, as is plain to any reader with half a brain. I said the absentee ballotting should not have been allowed. There is no possible way to read that and think I implied that I have a privileged legal status to force this on people. Only our elected leaders have that status, and they failed the people when they chose poorly.
If you're saying it was never your intent to be read that way...
No, I am saying only an idiot could have read it that way.
I am saying you're an idiot.
pudge: No, I am saying only an idiot could have read it that way.
Blaming your readers for the faults of your writing and the sloppiness of your logic is hardly convincing.
But you do get this month's Palin-Cleese That's Not An Argument Award.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on October 31, 2008 08:01 AMNope. I never did that. I blamed YOU and YOU ALONE for the faults of your READING. And I even pointed those faults out to you, and demnostrated beyond reasonable doubt how what you said about my writing is unreasonable.
You really, really, suck at this.
Posted by: pudge on October 31, 2008 08:05 AMpudge issues a challenge to be presented with an example of his writing a certain way.
He's provided an example, in a verbatim quote.
He denies he ever said this -- which is particularly silly, given that it's a verbatim quote, which anyone can find with Ctrl+F. So that's untruth.
Along the way, he flip-flops, and asserts he said something else entirely.
He's given an escape hatch: Perhaps he didn't mean what he said?
No, he never said the thing in first plaxce (despite a verbatim quote), and besides, "only an idiot" would read him thinking he uses precision in his language and sincerity. Only the new story should be considered operative. So that's deception.
He's given another escape hatch: Perhaps he didn't intend to say what he did?
Nope, he said what he intended.
He's given a third escape hatch: Perhaps it was the fault of his writing skills, and not that of his readers? No, no, he has the skills required, "beyond reasonable doubt."
So: Untruth. Deception. Intent.
pudge -- You're a liar.
More than that: Unlike most times when one cannot be certain a speaker fulfills each condition what constitutes a lie, when a condition of lying has been presented to you, you've been positively boastful about fulfilling it. To hear you tell it, I'm an "idiot" to give you the benefit of the doubt, and a path to provide a different explanation.
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on November 1, 2008 01:56 AMpudge issues a challenge to be presented with an example of his writing a certain way.
False. I asked for an example that I said a certain thing.
He's provided an example, in a verbatim quote.
False. It was not an example of what I asked for.
He denies he ever said this
False. I never denied I said it. I denied it meant what you said it did.
You really, really, really suck at this. I don't think you got a single thing correct in that whole post.