"Jonathan Smithers" wrote in message
news:Spshd.554863$8_6.381276@attbi_s04...
Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?

I would start with using the SS numbers, that would eliminate voting in
multiple states, as well as purging the dead from the rolls immediately, as
well as deleting votes cast by people that die before the election, second
would be having to prodice a valid picture ID, either DL, state ID, or voter
registration card with picture.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:11:01 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

It damn sure can be. There are neighborhoods that do not see law
enforcement as protecting, they see it as oppressing. There are
neighborhoods whose elders remember poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and
cracker
cops with dogs.



There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or
even
at polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the
Democrats have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign
offices
this season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent
such antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

Because you have no issue with it, doesn't mean there is no issue. Why
stop with cops? Why not have tanks and soldiers guarding our polling
places like the rest of the third world?

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:14:59 +0000, Jonathan Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?

If we had started, as we had been promised, four years ago, we might have
stood a chance. IMO touch screen, with paper trail, tied to voter
registration rolls, is a doable option. Personally, I am not adverse to
some form of ID needing to be shown. Unfortunately, being a state issue,
one size will not fit all.

Look, 2000 showed us some of the pitfalls of our system. Having GOP
challenges in minority precincts, democrats paying "piece work" to
register voters, photo IDs demanded after the fact, are all business as
usual, part of the failed system. Personally, I believe there is enough
doubt in the system for any loser to question the results of tomorrow's
election. My problem is are we going to have this same question in
*another* four years. Having a legitimate, functioning, election system
is quite possible. Why don't we have one today?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:14:59 +0000, Jonathan Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?

If we had started, as we had been promised, four years ago, we might have
stood a chance. IMO touch screen, with paper trail, tied to voter
registration rolls, is a doable option. Personally, I am not adverse to
some form of ID needing to be shown. Unfortunately, being a state issue,
one size will not fit all.

Voting for federal officials should not be a state issue. What we need
is a single, accurate, verifiable method of voting that is uniform
across the states.

I'm all for a federal ID voting card. Think you can get the ACLU to go
along with it?

Thunder,
You answered your own question, because it is a state issue.

Without legitimate proof of whom is voting, the system is ripe for fraud
from both parties. That is why I am so surprised when democrats say they
feel that asking for ID is intimidation. It is not, and if someone thinks
it is, he needs to be better informed so he will not be intimidated. The
only person who should be intimidated are those who are voting because some
bossman gave him a carton of cigarettes.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:14:59 +0000, Jonathan Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?

If we had started, as we had been promised, four years ago, we might have
stood a chance. IMO touch screen, with paper trail, tied to voter
registration rolls, is a doable option. Personally, I am not adverse to
some form of ID needing to be shown. Unfortunately, being a state issue,
one size will not fit all.

Look, 2000 showed us some of the pitfalls of our system. Having GOP
challenges in minority precincts, democrats paying "piece work" to
register voters, photo IDs demanded after the fact, are all business as
usual, part of the failed system. Personally, I believe there is enough
doubt in the system for any loser to question the results of tomorrow's
election. My problem is are we going to have this same question in
*another* four years. Having a legitimate, functioning, election system
is quite possible. Why don't we have one today?

John,
I am sure Harry is making it up to make him sound tough, similar to his
mucho macho story about breaking a guys legs with a truck, so he could hold
him for the cops. Yeah right.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:52:16 GMT, "Jon Smithe" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2ulakgF297hv3U3@uni- Nothing subtle about it. If we find you
interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

I must live in the wrong neighborhood, I have never seen anyone stopping
anyone from voting. If they did, I or any intelligent person would just
call the cops, no matter who they were trying to stop. Are the majority
of
people in these precincts so dumb they don't realize no one can stop
anyone
from going to the precincts? In these neighborhoods do the people have
such
withered up balls, that they need a bunch of old farts like you to protect
them, or is this just another one of your "Lobster Boat" stories.



You hit that nail on the head!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Karl Denninger wrote:

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the
several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE -
individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES -
via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage
of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.

Meaning Krause, and his ilk, will have a very hard time installing their
socialist utopia if they have to fight the states on an individual basis.
Remove the states from the equation and move to elect the president from
direct popular election and the Democrats can take over the US just like
Hitler took over Germany with a bloodless coupe.




Jesus, Bert...you really are out of your mind. You think direct
elections lead to socialism? You live in Maryland. The people of
Maryland directly elect their chief exec, who, at the moment, is a
Republican. So far, Governor Erlich has not led the state down the path
towards fascism. Are you under the delusion that if a Democrat is
elected next time, the state will head towards socialism?

When was the last time you read the US Constitution? The union is composed
of the several states. Notice the word states, not individuals but states.
The 17th Amendment gave away the States representation at the federal level.

My preference, actually, is not for direct election, but for a
parliamentary system, in which parties run candidates for a national
legislature and the party that wins the majority elects a Prime
Minister. If there is no majority party, then coalitions are formed.

Our form of government is working very well. I don't want a parliamentary
system due to the fact that the head of governemt has to bend to the will of
his coalition as the coalition wants.

But I don't see that happening here. I also see no reason for the
Electoral College. Or for state's rights. I'm an American who happens to
live in Maryland. I've lived in several states. I never felt any
particular allegience to any of these states, but I've always felt
allegience to my country.

Think again. You are an American that has made a choice to live in Maryland.
We know your reasons for moving from Virginia to Maryland. That was a choice
on your part.

Tell me, Bert...what "state's rights" do you enjoy as a resident of
Maryland that are so important to you that you would not move to another
state?

With the passing of the 17th Amendment my state lost its rights to
representation at the federal level.

Sorry your gut was wrong.I bet it feels pretty bad right about now.

--


Keith
__
Procrastinate Now!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.



--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."