Study Finds That Illegal Voters Have Influenced Election Results

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Ziggystardust

Stigma
Well color me surprised.

Firefly218
There's like a million studies from more reputable places that contradict the conclusions of this one

How about just letting POC vote?

Stigma
Originally posted by Firefly218
There's like a million studies from more reputable places that contradict the conclusions of this one

How about just letting POC vote?

http://forums.androidcentral.com/attachments/verizon-galaxy-s-iii/45577d1352536360t-i-hope-jellybean-does-not-come-s3-24005427.jpg

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
There's like a million studies from more reputable places that contradict the conclusions of this one

How about just letting POC vote?

Just to be clear, do you think any illegals at all voted in this latest election?

shiv

Surtur
So are you saying illegals didn't vote at all in this election or what.

shiv
Hey Kal.

I'm not 100% on This

cdtm
Undocumented can legally vote in local elections, actually.

Nothing specifically prohibits it, so it's up to each area. Here in CT, they openly give out photo ID's and encourage voting.

dadudemon

Flyattractor
Just rememeber its OK when Criminal / Illegal Behavior and activities PROMOTE and ENDORSE the Leftist Progressive Agenda.


Sounds like a point for the "Are SJW's mental deficient" thread

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
Undocumented can legally vote in local elections, actually.

Nothing specifically prohibits it, so it's up to each area. Here in CT, they openly give out photo ID's and encourage voting.

So what is the argument in terms of why illegals should be allowed to vote in any election? Surely someone has put forth an argument for why this needs to be done.

Was it just politicians who wanted to tap into that sweet sweet illegal vote who did it? Or what?

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
So what is the argument in terms of why illegals should be allowed to vote in any election? Surely someone has put forth an argument for why this needs to be done.

Was it just politicians who wanted to tap into that sweet sweet illegal vote who did it? Or what?

Well, the rational is that if someone lives in a community, and especially sends their kids to school and such, they have a right to a say in local politics. They're a part of that community, contribute to the local economy.. (When they buy stuff, even if they get paid under the table..) and many do pay taxes.

Of course, that block of voter's is probaby a big motivation for the city/state, too. wink

Legally speaking though (I'm not a lawyer, but I know the laws), the only restriction on the books is at the federal level. An undocumented immigrant can not vote for a federal election by law. Every other election is left to the states.

Surtur
I think only legal citizens should have a say in what happens. I wouldn't illegally go into Mexico and then expect to have a say in anything.

Of course I wouldn't go into Mexico..even legally lol.

Robtard
Originally posted by Firefly218
There's like a million studies from more reputable places that contradict the conclusions of this one

How about just letting POC vote?


Pretty much this, angry white people need to get over their racism already.

Surtur
Friggin white devils.

dadudemon
Someone explain to me why a Point of Contact Vote is the final solution to the voting fraud issues?


I'd prefer a biometric voting system linked to finger-prints, personally. That would help with identifying crime, as well. It would also allow us to disallow ineligible voters (felons still on probation, for example). The votes could be tallied, instantly, and electronically, as well. No need for counting anything.

And people could fake finger prints, as well...but it would not be as easily and readily done as other types of fraud.

jaden101
Originally posted by dadudemon
Someone explain to me why a Point of Contact Vote is the final solution to the voting fraud issues?


I'd prefer a biometric voting system linked to finger-prints, personally. That would help with identifying crime, as well. It would also allow us to disallow ineligible voters (felons still on probation, for example). The votes could be tallied, instantly, and electronically, as well. No need for counting anything.

And people could fake finger prints, as well...but it would not be as easily and readily done as other types of fraud.

The faking of fingerprints wouldn't be an issue. Different states applying arbitrary restrictions on people without their knowledge could be. All you would need to do is flag people to make them unable to vote then after polls close claim mistakes led to people being disallowed from voting who shouldn't have been. Apologise and then do the same at the next election.

Nibedicus
Originally posted by jaden101
The faking of fingerprints wouldn't be an issue. Different states applying arbitrary restrictions on people without their knowledge could be. All you would need to do is flag people to make them unable to vote then after polls close claim mistakes led to people being disallowed from voting who shouldn't have been. Apologise and then do the same at the next election.

But wouldn't the likelihood of such an exclusion policy be rarer as well as more transparent and easily caught rather than illegals being used to influence the elections (w/c may well be already happening)?

It's not a fix-all solution, but I feel that the fingerprinting solution makes sense.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden101
The faking of fingerprints wouldn't be an issue. Different states applying arbitrary restrictions on people without their knowledge could be. All you would need to do is flag people to make them unable to vote then after polls close claim mistakes led to people being disallowed from voting who shouldn't have been. Apologise and then do the same at the next election.


Even $50 thumbprint scanners have stepped up their game such that it can sense that the impedance matches human flesh (to keep people from using pieces of paper with lifted prints).

The number of people who are going to try and trick even a cheap and decent finger print scanner are very few and far between. Also, the additional layer of security while also increasing the speed at which people can vote would be a nice draw. The additional layer of automatically rejecting a voter (which could be done on the backend without the voter knowing) will also prevent voter fraud.

Don't have a finger? Then you can do the in person registration voting stuff like they do for the disabled, already.


Here is a company that is already mass-producing biometric devices for voting:

http://www.m2sys.com/automated-fingerprint-identification-system-afis-voter-registration/

-jf35hBrGpU



Trust me...2 million illegal immigrants trying to vote will not try to scan their fingers into a government database...very few of them are dumb enough to indirectly register themselves as voting fraudsters.

Robtard

dadudemon

snowdragon
Illegal immigrants are used to determine the electoral college so they have had influence for a long time now in elections.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
She should be fully prosecuted to the fullest extent of Voting Fraud laws in Iowa. Then she should have little to no jail time and, instead, be fined out the wazoo. smile

Of course if we're going to speak of voter fraud it needs to be pointed out it wasn't only Trump supporters who did it this election.

I feel like they all indeed should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

jaden101
Originally posted by dadudemon
Even $50 thumbprint scanners have stepped up their game such that it can sense that the impedance matches human flesh (to keep people from using pieces of paper with lifted prints).

The number of people who are going to try and trick even a cheap and decent finger print scanner are very few and far between. Also, the additional layer of security while also increasing the speed at which people can vote would be a nice draw. The additional layer of automatically rejecting a voter (which could be done on the backend without the voter knowing) will also prevent voter fraud.

Don't have a finger? Then you can do the in person registration voting stuff like they do for the disabled, already.


Here is a company that is already mass-producing biometric devices for voting:

http://www.m2sys.com/automated-fingerprint-identification-system-afis-voter-registration/

-jf35hBrGpU



Trust me...2 million illegal immigrants trying to vote will not try to scan their fingers into a government database...very few of them are dumb enough to indirectly register themselves as voting fraudsters.

The issue isn't the ability to reject votes from ineligible voters. The issue would be rejecting votes from people who are eligible by flagging them as ineligible without their knowledge and for false reasons then later claiming mistakes were made after the outcome of the election. The fact that you could devise a system where that eligible person thinks they've voted and has no feedback on whether their vote has been accepted or not is even more open to abuse. You could reject the votes of entire communities.

cdtm
Are we talking false positives? Or tampering?

Because on the latter, why not assume the whole thing's rigged anyways? Why would a fingerprint reader be uniquely subject to tampering vs what we have now?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.