Democratic candidate for Washington Secretary of State graciously came on to Sound Politics to explain his plan for universal voter registration.
Unfortunately for him, his audience was educated.
We challenged his claims, we refuted them, and we exposed him as favoring legalizing voting for noncitizens. Yes, literally.
His plan is to create a massive new database of all information about residents -- and damn the privacy concerns -- that would mark every resident as "eligible" or "ineligible." But there's no data that necessarily tells us whether someone is ineligible, so it would have to assume, given no contrary evidence, that someone is eligible. Which would include thousands and thousands of noncitizens.
Osgood demonstrated many problems, including either not understanding the technology, or deceptively exaggerating what it can do, such as his claim that data errors in his database could be "eliminated" and that it would lead to "utterly eliminating voter fraud." That is, of course, impossible.
And he had no answer to the concerns of recognized security experts that this was dangerous: it would give a false sense of correctness, while creating a giant privacy threat to all residents, by creating this massive new database of all kinds of documents in one place.
I don't think he has a chance to beat Sam Reed, so I am not worried about it. I find it distressing that the Democrats backed him though. Then again, they backed Fred Walser, and on the scale of terribleness, even Osgood pales compared to Walser.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at November 03, 2008 10:23 PM | Email ThisReed represents everything terrible about elected officials that are unconstrained by their duties to the people who elect them.
What you always fail to mention is that Reed has had EIGHT YEARS to get this system straightened out. Eight fricking years of sitting on his thumbs and doing nothing about the issues that matter.
And frankly, your comparison, of any kind, of Osgood to a criminal like Walser is despicable... as despicable as Reed's performance as Secretary of State.
Pudge, look... I know you're a partisan, I get that. But you've become as blinded in your support of that utter moron Reed as any of the fringe-left nutters here have become blinded in their support of that lying, anti-American racist bigot that they want for president.
And that makes your endorsements about as useful as Joel Connelly's.
And Allen, it's odd that you'd be so concerned about voter fraud when that blithering idiot of a secretary of snivel has made it easy to continue the past pattern of that very thing.
That anyone would reward such a total slimeball as Reed with re-election is simply unfathomable.
Clearly, moronic positions such as this one have shown that my decision to acknowledge the GOP has left me behind was the right one. To re-elect arguably the worst elected official in this state because he has an "R" after his name (and given his continually abysmal performance, there can be no other reason) shows that hatred and stupidity exists on the right just as much as it does on the left.
Posted by: Hinton on November 4, 2008 06:19 AMYour biggest concern, that I've seen expressed, is ineligible people voting.
Jason Osgood wants to make it legal. His plan is to automatically allow noncitizens to vote.
He wants to do the very thing you are most against, and you support him, and you say *I* am blind?
As to the "comparison" to Walser, there was none: I was saying that it should come as no surprise that the Democrats back someone who wants to allow noncitizens to vote, when they are already backing Walser. I explicitly said Osgood is not nearly as bad as Walser. It was an attack on the Democrats, not on Osgood. Again: you've got self-imposed blindness there.
We sure don't need that mess here.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 4, 2008 07:44 AMDo you pretty much try to win all of your arguments by inventing facts? It doesn't really work, you know.
Posted by: demo kid on November 4, 2008 08:20 AMShrug. You don't understand what is clear.
His plan is to mark every person as an eligible or ineligible voter. He says this.
What he does not say is the fact -- not invented, but actual -- that he has NO WAY of knowing whether most people are actually eligible or ineligible voters. He would therefore be required to ASSUME by default that someone is an eligible voter, even if they are not, because that is the only way "universal registration" can work: if you leave it blank, then hundreds of thousands of eligible voters will be left unregistered, and that's hardly "universal registration."
This therefore means that thousands and thousands of ineligible voters will be made eligible voters under his plan.
This is a fact.
If there is an argument against what I said, fine, he or anyone else can present it. Funny that no one has, innit?
Posted by: pudge on November 4, 2008 08:36 AMTalking about yourself again! (kettle calling the pot)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 4, 2008 08:45 AMFurthermore, it isn't being used for political advantage. Republican efforts to "preserve the sanctity of voting" are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts to suppress the votes of folks they don't like. There is no interest amongst Republicans for true voter reform.
@9: Do you ever contribute anything to a discussion? I'm being serious, here. Being a bitter old fart that thinks that calling people Marxists is "debate" has to be the worst example of dialogue in a democratic society.
So much for the party of "adults". You folks are pathetic.
Posted by: demo kid on November 4, 2008 10:19 AMI understand from your posts that you'd want in person voting - I agree.
ID presented at time of voting - I agree.
Registration - ?
Who maintains the registration roles - the Counties, the State? How do they transfer timely information? How are multiple State(s) registrations dealt with?
What keeps our State's voter registration from becoming a "State ID" database - understanding it doesn't contain minors, felons (or does it) and unregistered voters.
He's outlined the use of existing government database that would be used to confirm the eligibility of voters anyway to automatically register voters
False. He did no such thing. Nothing in his proposal in any way discussed how eligibility being confirmed. He only discussed identifying all the people, and said they would be marked as eligibile or not. Again: he never discussed confirming eligiblity. I defy you to show a single thing he said that mentioned any confirmation. Everything he said was about how to identify who lives here, not how to identify whether they were eligible.
There is NO WAY for a database of this kind to confirm eligibility for many people, or, more importantly, there is no way to confirm INeligibility for the vast majority of ineligibles, because that information is not available. So for the system to opt every eligible voter in by default, it would have to assume that if it cannot confirm you are eligible or ineligible -- which would be most people, including me -- that you are therefore eligible.
This seems simple to me and I am not sure why you aren't getting it.
Furthermore, it isn't being used for political advantage.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. Illegal voting is bad. Osgood wants to create even more of it.
Republican efforts to "preserve the sanctity of voting" are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts to suppress the votes of folks they don't like. There is no interest amongst Republicans for true voter reform.
You're a liar. My record on this is clear. Indeed, I have argued against some people in here to defend the right of homeless people to vote without an actual home address, despite that most homeless people vote strongly Democratic, and I have also argued against an absolute requirement for proof of citizenship, as some citizens do not have such proof.
My argument against legitimizing illegal voters cannot rationally be taken as an attempt at suppression of legal voters. Nor can anything else I've ever said on the subject.
Pudge, how about a succinct outline of what you'd have for a voting system.
I have more ideas about what I dislike than what I like. :-)
Registration - ?
I want proof of citizenship, similar to what is used in the U.S. Passport system. I do not want universal registration at all, but certainly if we DO have it, it must be tied into a federal database that can tell us who is actually a citizen. We cannot just assume it.
Who maintains the registration roles - the Counties, the State? How do they transfer timely information? How are multiple State(s) registrations dealt with?
Right now, the State has the authoritative registration list, which is a pretty big problem, because the information does not necessarily transfer back and forth correctly. So we had an example recently where in Snohomish County, some underage voters were in the statewide database, but had been excluded from the county database. They were not going to get ballots, but the state still had them as a legal voter. Asking for trouble there.
I don't necessarily mind this dual system, but it needs to work better. I'd really prefer it if there were one database, but that's probaby not possible.
That the State DB is the central DB helps eliminate dual registrations for the same person, though Osgood may make some good points about how it could be better. There's always room for improvement in such things.
What keeps our State's voter registration from becoming a "State ID" database - understanding it doesn't contain minors, felons (or does it) and unregistered voters.
That's what. :-)
So get over it, stop whining, be a man, present your arguments, because otherwise you become a tin horn whaling in a sea of regretfulness and vindictiveness - your relevance in this arena negated by your inability to present a mature discussion in a professional matter on issues that concern us all. You are a sad shell of the person I knew who once worked in the Legislature. You could be a force for reasoned discussion - but instead you are relegated to making irrational points by metaphorically scratching your fingernails across a chalk board. Even though I strongly disagree with Stephan's comments - at least he is not having a perpetual political temper tantrum! I am not sure if you need to be spanked, given a time out or put up for adoption.
Posted by: MSG MAC in Baghdad on November 4, 2008 11:21 AMThis seems simple to me and I am not sure why you aren't getting it.
You're absurd. You're essentially arguing that every eligible voter should not be included, because the databases that would be used to determine eligibility are inaccurate. Of course, this flies in the face of logic when you consider that getting a government-issued ID would require a check against pretty much the same databases (if even that).
You've done nothing to prove your point here, except to obfuscate the issue. You also haven't argued why universal registration would be bad, aside from some unfounded remarks about its implementation. You have no grounding for your arguments, and I can only conclude that you have a fundamental interest in keeping people away from voting for one reason or another.
So much for an "educated" audience.
Posted by: demo kid on November 4, 2008 11:30 AMI stand with Hinton on this issue. If you had read 4 years of Stefan's postings on the issue of illegal voting in King County (and other counties, as well) in the '04 election, I believe you would stand with us also. There is so much more Sam Reed could have done to clean up Washington's third-world election system and instill confidence that this state's elections are beyond reproach. Granted, Reed would have had to confront a Democrat-dominated legislature, but he had public opinion on his side. Instead, he opted for half-hearted, feel-good measures that do very little eliminate the possibility of corruption and monkey business. Reed, through incompetence and lack of fortitude, cost this state 4 years of leadership; the kind of leadership that would have prevented the transportation, economic, education, tribal gaming, public union, taxation and budget deficit disasters of the Gregoire administration. I will NEVER forgive milquetoast Sam Reed for what happened on his watch.
I thank you, Master Sergeant , for helping defend America and her interests. God Bless you.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 4, 2008 11:47 AMYou're essentially arguing that every eligible voter should not be included
False. Nothing I said implied that. I am arguing against THIS system because it WOULD automatically register ineligible voters. It makes not a lick of sense to say that I am therefore arguing that we should have a system that does not include every eligible voter. It means I am against THIS system.
Of course, this flies in the face of logic when you consider that getting a government-issued ID would require a check against pretty much the same databases (if even that).
No. To get a passport you have to supply proof of citizenship. No database is relied upon to prove your eligibility, you must provide documentation yourself. This is what I am asking for here, which Osgood is arguing against. And to get a state ID now, or to register to vote, no proof of citizenship is required at all, and no database checks are done for that purpose.
Further, even to the extent federal databases are used, they would not be used in Osgood's system, he says, as they would roll their own database with state information. That's why I would be excluded if proof of citizenship would be required in order to make a voter eligible: there is no proof of citizenship for me in any WA state database. They would need to access a CA or MA or federal database, which they wouldn't do.
I am sorry you are so ignorant.
You've done nothing to prove your point here
Obviously false. I made my argument and you have done nothing to refute my points, just as Osgood did not. You cannot make this claim until you address the fact that Osgood's system would automatically make illegal voters eligible to vote.
So much for an "educated" audience.
I obviously wasn't referring to YOU.
No, you're arguing against a system that has been described by a white paper, without examining the exact way that it would be put together. Could this be done now? Absolutely not. The infrastructure doesn't exist at this point to allow for something like this to be rolled out for at least a few years. But should this be explored as an alternative? Absolutely.
The point that he's making about maintaining a database of BOTH eligible and ineligible voters also makes sense, to ensure that people aren't falling through the cracks. The problem with your ENTIRE argument is that the flaw that you point out with this system essentially invalidates the CURRENT system as well.
No. To get a passport you have to supply proof of citizenship. No database is relied upon to prove your eligibility, you must provide documentation yourself. This is what I am asking for here, which Osgood is arguing against. And to get a state ID now, or to register to vote, no proof of citizenship is required at all, and no database checks are done for that purpose.
So what you're saying is that you can forge a birth certificate and get a passport? What's the use of sending it in for processing, then? And the state doesn't just hand you an ID without inputting it into a system. The point behind Osgood's essay was that he proposes that we actually combine a number of existing databases together to improve the ability to check on a person's residency and eligibility.
Further, even to the extent federal databases are used, they would not be used in Osgood's system, he says, as they would roll their own database with state information. That's why I would be excluded if proof of citizenship would be required in order to make a voter eligible: there is no proof of citizenship for me in any WA state database. They would need to access a CA or MA or federal database, which they wouldn't do.
Again, you're making an argument based on a minor point. For this to work, then yes, it would need to factor in a broad range of information. Heck, it would also need to make sure that former residents of Washington state wouldn't also be allowed to vote. But there's a difference between finding a way to properly implement it, and dismissing it out of hand for the mistaken believe that it would let ineligible voters vote.
I am sorry you are so ignorant.
Sorry? You're the ignoramus that seems to pat himself on the back when using rebuttals that make no sense.
Obviously false. I made my argument and you have done nothing to refute my points, just as Osgood did not. You cannot make this claim until you address the fact that Osgood's system would automatically make illegal voters eligible to vote.
It's impossible to argue with modern conservatives, because it would appear that they are stuck in a faith-based debating paradigm. I could talk with you all week, and nothing would get through that dense head of yours.
This is a broad concept, proven to work on the ground in certain other countries, and some of the tools exist right now to implement it here in the United States. It's conceptual right now, but it does seem to have a number of advantages. It is a nonpartisan solution to a problem with voter registration that allows for greater access while addressing the need for verification of eligibility. Being a fool and denying an opportunity to improve voting systems in this country is not respecting the institutions of this country.
Of course, maybe the Republican strategy of voter repression works better for you. Are you just against democracy? C'mon, you can admit it.
So much for an "educated" audience.
I obviously wasn't referring to YOU.
The quotation marks? Sarcasm. You don't prove anything here. You just rant. You're better, in that sometimes you actually try instead of just calling folks "communists", but you're still pretty awful at it in the end.
Posted by: demo kid on November 4, 2008 01:41 PMNo, you're arguing against a system that has been described by a white paper, without examining the exact way that it would be put together.
You're not thinking or reading. I am asserting it IS NOT POSSIBLE. I've demonstrated it. And it WILL NOT be possible, unless done nationally first, and Osgood has specifically said this would NOT be a national system, but done in-state.
The point that he's making about maintaining a database of BOTH eligible and ineligible voters also makes sense, to ensure that people aren't falling through the cracks. The problem with your ENTIRE argument is that the flaw that you point out with this system essentially invalidates the CURRENT system as well.
False, and obviously so. Once again, you prove do not understand the facts.
My stated concern here is completely unrelated to the current system: the current system does not take every resident and make them a legal voter, unless there's some data that shows they are ineligible (which is only a small portion of ineligible voters). The current system does nothing like this. The current system DOES allow people to LIE and claim to be eligible when they are not, but Osgood's system does that FOR THEM.
The point behind Osgood's essay was that he proposes that we actually combine a number of existing databases together to improve the ability to check on a person's residency and eligibility.
Again you are falsely putting words into his mouth. Why must you tell such obvious lies to back up your position?
Again, you're making an argument based on a minor point.
See, you think making thousands upon thousands of noncitizens eligibile to vote is a "minor point." I don't.
For this to work, then yes, it would need to factor in a broad range of information.
No. There is no amount of information it COULD access to know for certain who is and is not eligible. It IS NOT POSSIBLE. For many people there IS no data in a database that says they are a citizen, even if they are, so they would have to be -- in Osgood's system -- assumed to be eligible voters, which NECESSARILY means ANYONE without data showing they are, or are not, a citizen would also be assumed to be an eligible voter.
Heck, it would also need to make sure that former residents of Washington state wouldn't also be allowed to vote.
Yes, which is also not possible.
... dismissing it out of hand for the mistaken believe that it would let ineligible voters vote.
Except I've shown it's not mistaken at all, and you've done nothing to show I am wrong.
I could talk with you all week, and nothing would get through that dense head of yours.
Try making an actual argument against what I've said, and maybe we'll find out. You've not yet done so.
This is very simple. You're having a hard time, so I will break it down for you.
When a resident cannot be verified as either eligible or ineligible in this system, it cannot mark the person as ineligible, and it cannot refuse to mark the person, because then it is not universal and automatic, so it MUST mark them as eligible, which NECESSARILY means that it will mark ineligibles as eligible.
This logic you've not attempted to assail, because it unassailable.
Osgood's plan is to make noncitizens eligible to vote.
You're absurd. You're taking a minor point about implementation and spinning it for partisan gain. Again, this is a concept and not a working model, and you're shooting it down as a nonstarter because of your own biased opinion as to how it works.
When you say, for example:
The current system DOES allow people to LIE and claim to be eligible when they are not, but Osgood's system does that FOR THEM.
THAT'S a blatant lie. He isn't proposing that this be done now, nor that it should be done with the system as it exists. He's proposing a solution that should be developed over time where databases are connected to provide the necessary information. Furthermore, he's proposing that MORE information be leveraged into the system to ensure that everyone who is voting IS eligible.
Could it have flaws? Sure... but the current system of voter registration is seriously flawed and open for partisan manipulation as it is. This eliminates a very big problem in that respect in a nonpartisan way. But of course you would object to that.
Voter suppression works great for Republicans, but it is a poor example of democracy. Admit that you just don't want some people to vote, and we can move on from there.
Posted by: demo kid on November 4, 2008 02:20 PMThanks for wielding the clue stick. My arm was getting tired.
I value openly discussing ideas. This is what democracy looks like. And it helps me to be more clear, strengthen my argument, etc. Of course, it's hard to have a discussion with someone claiming that up is down.
That I don't (yet) communicate or explain universal voter registration is a hit against me, not the idea. This system already exists and is in use by other Western democracies. Those countries do not have the "voter fraud vs purged voters" debate.
Where I wrote "eliminates data quality errors", which is true, I should have probably written "increases certainty", which is more to the point. (pudge chooses to get caught up by semantics. It's a typical plebe geek trait, so don't judge him too harshly.)
We use demographic databases in healthcare to uniquely identify patients, so that we have near absolute certainty that the patient in front of us is the person we think it is. The goal is to prevent mistakes. The consequences for being wrong are pretty high. That's why our customers pay us the big bucks.
The goal here is to uniquely identify persons with a very high degree of certainty. It doesn't matter if they call me "Jay Osgood" or "Jason Osgood", so long as I get the right medications. Cleaning up the data quality is just a side benefit.
We still have to manually correct some demographic records. That wouldn't be necessary if we aggregated more data from more sources. Alas, routinely using systems like Seisent is still too expensive for hospitals in the U.S.
The other issue that pudge takes great pains to misunderstand is the role universal voter registration has in determining a voter's eligibility, meaning their citizenship. How to do this is already well defined, like when you get a passport, as you pointed out.
Frankly, I assumed the bureaucracy would continue to determine eligibility and note the result in the database. Moving forward, I'll have to state that assumption explicitly, to appease the more pedantic audience members.
It's hard to listen to pudge. He just doesn't make sense most of the time. Like the strawman example of the citizen without paperwork. Well. If they don't have paperwork, then I guess they're not registered to vote either. Because if they were registered to vote, then there'd be some paperwork. (Circular logic and the other logical fallacies hurt my head.)
But every now and then pudge sneaks a valid point into his torrent of rage. So it pays for me to peel back the layers of venom to uncover his core criticisms, to weigh the valid ones vs the spurious cosmic rays.
Again, thanks for engaging pudge. Just know that these exercises are necessary. Four years ago, no one took our criticisms of the voting machines seriously. Look where we're at today. It just takes time for ideas to gel.
Cheers, Jason
Posted by: Jason Osgood on November 4, 2008 02:26 PMYou're taking a minor point
False.
Again, this is a concept and not a working model
Irrelevant, because his concept CANNOT work except for how I have described it. He is running for office on this plan, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to criticize it based on his own statements about it.
your own biased opinion as to how it works.
Of how it MUST work, which neither you nor he has even attempted to rebut except to say "nuh uh!"
THAT'S a blatant lie.
Um. No, it's not, it's fact.
He isn't proposing that this be done now
Irrelevant. His system as designed CANNOT EVER work except as I have described it. Feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise.
You still refuse to address the point: When a resident cannot be verified as either eligible or ineligible in this system, it cannot mark the person as ineligible, and it cannot refuse to mark the person, because then it is not universal and automatic, so it MUST mark them as eligible, which NECESSARILY means that it will mark ineligibles as eligible.
Thanks for wielding the clue stick. My arm was getting tired.
Um. You never addressed my points.
I value openly discussing ideas.
Um. You refuse to address the concerns with your plan.
Of course, it's hard to have a discussion with someone claiming that up is down.
Then show me where I am wrong. You refuse to try.
Where I wrote "eliminates data quality errors", which is true
Um. I proved with your own words that it is false.
pudge chooses to get caught up by semantics.
Um. You still say that it is correct that the system would "eliminate data quality errors." It's false. It may possibly *reduce* errors (but since you don't even know what a Soundex algorithm does, I am not sure how you could know that), but it is false to say it would eliminate them. Yet you keep saying it would. This is not mere semantics: you continue to say false things.
The other issue that pudge takes great pains to misunderstand is the role universal voter registration has in determining a voter's eligibility, meaning their citizenship. How to do this is already well defined, like when you get a passport, as you pointed out.
No, *I* pointed that out. The difference, of course, is that we do not have "universal" passports. A person has to take certain actions to prove they are eligible for a passport. Your stated proposal for your "universal" system would NOT rely on the citizen doing ANYTHING. If it did, it would not be universal. That's what that means.
A universal system, like those you talk about in other nations, relies on a national system where there is a database of citizens. You don't have such a thing, and you won't have such a thing.
Frankly, I assumed the bureaucracy would continue to determine eligibility and note the result in the database.
So you lied when you called it "universal voter registration," because it would require people to prove their eligibility. It's not universal at all. It only covers people who are already known to the state to be citizens (almost surely simply because of birth record). Everyone else, including myself, is not registered without taking specific action on their own to prove their eligibility.
Unless, of course, you will, as I said earlier, assume noncitizens are eligible to vote.
Like the strawman example of the citizen without paperwork. Well. If they don't have paperwork, then I guess they're not registered to vote either. Because if they were registered to vote, then there'd be some paperwork.
Um.
Wow, Osgood.
With every post you prove more that you are incapable of holding the job of Secretary of State.
My point was about citizens who cannot prove with paperwork that they are citizens.
In Washington State, you do not have to prove you are a citizen to register to vote. You apparently don't know this. How can you not know this? Or if you DO know this, then how can you not follow the logic that being registered to vote, since it does not require proof of citizenship, is itself not proof of citizenship?
Pathetic.
They think America can't do what is done on a regular basis in most of the rest of the civilized world.
Because clearly, modern civilized nations like Canada and Europe are able to have universal registration w/o fraud or the BS they throw up as a smoke screen.
Soundpolitics & the rest of the tinhat brigade clearly thinks America is dumber and less able than Europe. Bush has proved that's true for Republican gov't, but Democrats have proved they can, and do, know how to run gov't effectively for the people.
And the election returns coming in at a paltry pace shows Washingtonians prefer incompetence to run their voting system over someone who recoqnizes what century we're living ing.
Posted by: chicagoexpat on November 5, 2008 12:55 PMThey think America can't do what is done on a regular basis in most of the rest of the civilized world.
Because clearly, modern civilized nations like Canada and Europe are able to have universal registration w/o fraud or the BS the tin hat brigade throw up as a smoke screen.
Soundpolitics & the rest of the tinhat brigade clearly thinks America is dumber and less able than Europe. Bush has proved that's true for Republican gov't, but Democrats have proved they can, and do, know how to run gov't effectively for the people.
And the election returns coming in at a paltry pace shows Washingtonians prefer incompetence to run their voting system over someone who recoqnizes what century we're living ing.
Posted by: chicagoexpat on November 5, 2008 12:55 PMThey think America can't do what is done on a regular basis in most of the rest of the civilized world.
Because clearly, modern civilized nations in places like Canada and Europe are able to have universal voter registration w/o fraud or the BS the tin hat brigade throw up as a smoke screen.
Claiming we can't do what others are clearly able to pull off means they think America is dumber and less able than Europe.
While Bush has proved that's true for Republican gov't, Democrats have proved they can, and do, know how to run gov't effectively for the people. Just look at the deficit reduction done under Clinton, and the deficits run up by Reagan, Bush, & Shrub.
And the election returns coming in at a paltry pace shows Washingtonians prefer incompetence to run their voting system over someone who recoqnizes what century we're living ing.
Posted by: chicagoexpat on November 5, 2008 12:58 PMWhy does Soundpolitics hate America so much?
Have you stopped beating your mother?
They think America can't do what is done on a regular basis in most of the rest of the civilized world.
Why are you so ignorant about the facts?
Because clearly, modern civilized nations in places like Canada and Europe are able to have universal voter registration w/o fraud
False. You really don't understand how this all works.
If you would like to address my points, feel free. But you're just spouting ignorant nonsense.
Maybe find one of those "smart" Democratic friends of yours, to help you out.
Fact: most of the civilized world does do universal registration without fraud & w/o the problems that US systems have. I don't know what "fact" you're claiming that makes that a false statement.
Fact: You and others think Americans can't do what these effete snobs overseas (and next door) can and have done for many decades.
Conclusion from facts:
The logical conclusion is that if you think we can't do what they can, it must be because the USA is worse/dumber/more incompetent than they are. I agree that Bush has shown Republicans are far worse at doing even simple things in gov't, but the Democrats have proved the opposite.
I think France is the exception -- they have a system of personal registration more like the USA's than any other European country -- so now the tin foil hat brigade wants to stand with France?
Posted by: chicagoexpat on November 6, 2008 10:09 AMThere's ignorant nonsense on this site but it doesn't come from me.
Well, yes, it does. You ignore the facts about why this can't be done as Osgood has said it should be.
Fact: most of the civilized world does do universal registration without fraud
Incorrect. Simply false.
I don't know what "fact" you're claiming that makes that a false statement.
Start with the fact that most of the civilized world does NOT have universal registration, and move on to the fact that every nation DOES have fraud.
Fact: You and others think Americans can't do what these effete snobs overseas (and next door) can and have done for many decades.
False.
Conclusion from facts:
You provided no facts.
Hope this helps!
Almost as clueless as you are about politics here.
Day is night and black is white if you say so, huh?
Posted by: chicagoexpat on November 6, 2008 09:57 PMIf you have an argument agains anything I said, present it. If you don't, we'll assume it's because you don't have one.
Posted by: pudge on November 6, 2008 10:02 PM