When people claim shit like that, ask them to show you their sources.
2026 Election Watch. Races, Tomfoolery, And Other Things
- Thread starter LTParis
- Start date
At that point there is no way in hell they will continue the conversation. Usually expressing pity for my complete ignorance,
That poll show Americans are confused by the propaganda.
| Issue # | Proposal | For | Against |
| 1 | Requiring all voters to show government issued photo ID to vote | 80% | 16% |
| 2 | Automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote | 59% | 40% |
| 3 | Allowing any voter to vote by mail if they want to | 58% | 42% |
How are you going to make issue #1 work if issue #2 or #3? Especially 3. What good is the photo going to do if you're voting by mail?
It's basically another "I want all the things to be as seamless and convenience as possible for me but other people are not to be trusted."
More people lose their or forget their ID's every day than the number of documented cases of illegal voting. Have you ever left your house without your wallet? Left something important behind when you went somewhere?
Had to replace a lost ID? How long did THAT take?
If you lose your wallet, you don't get to vote? Is that good policy? You want assholes hiding their spouses ID's to prevent them from voting? This is how you get that.
I don't like how a lot of people havr reduced the ID provision of the SAVE Act down to just an ID requirement. You can vote with just 1 form of ID for a very small set of IDs (passports, passport cards, RealID cards issued by 5 or 6 jurisdictions which include citizenship status).
For pretty much everyone else, you are required to bring ID plus additional documentation to prove citizenship.
Ask them about JD Vance and his predilection for sofas. If they blow that off, ask about his lies about Haitian immigrants eating dogs. That can be easily be substantiated.
Yea - that's the issue. The question being asked is "do you approve of showing ID to vote" which gets a lot of support. They're not asking "do you approve of showing ID and proof of citizenship to vote" and including the variety of things making that proof really hard to obtain.
And that's precisely how we get to Trump and the repeated violations of national and domestic sovereignty. People ignore the details at their own peril.
For #3 you could require people to show an ID when requesting a mail in ballot - or at least when requesting one for the first time. I think the somewhat in tension beliefs here is they want it to be seamless and convenient but also think at some point in the process you should have to provide some kind of evidence you are who you say you are and live where you claim to live.
Why?
Do you forsee folks showing up in multiple disguises to vote?
I'd be more worried about the folks working there than the folks voting.
Then again I'm at the txt to vote stage. Vote early vote often. Voting isn't going to save us anyway so who cares.
Do you forsee folks showing up in multiple disguises to vote?
I'd be more worried about the folks working there than the folks voting.
Then again I'm at the txt to vote stage. Vote early vote often. Voting isn't going to save us anyway so who cares.
Why? Please link to evidence that suggests that providing an ID solves a voting problem. How many instances of people voting someplace other than where they live actually occur? And is it significant?
I'm aware there's no actual problem; I was offering an explanation of how the polling results could be seen as coherent.
A local Republican candidate swatted her opponent and is now up on felony charges.
https://www.wishtv.com/news/politic...ate-candidate-charged-over-swatting-incident/
https://www.wishtv.com/news/politic...ate-candidate-charged-over-swatting-incident/
The polling is incoherent to begin with. They're asking a basic question about a complex issue that has a yes/no answer with no real follow-up. For example if the question were "Are you in favor of voter ID if that requirements means American citizens will not be able to vote?"
I'd bet you don't get 80% in support of that.
Polls aren't inherently truthful and always need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
Maybe. I think if you polled people on whether they support same-day registration with no proof of identity or residency that would poll terribly, and that's the only set of requirements lax enough to never possibly deny an American citizen the opportunity to vote. And AFAIK no one is advocating for adopting such a system.
It's true there's no massive voter fraud problem because the registration process does a good job of verifying eligibility. But the registration requirements almost certainly prevent some citizens from voting for more or less the same reason voter ID is expected to do so. A person who doesn't have the time/money to navigate the run of the mill bureaucratic process to obtain a state ID very well might also not have the time/money to navigate the special bureaucratic for registering to vote without a state ID.
So your solution is to make the system even worse? Because that's exactly what the SAVE Act does, it disenfranchises voters who currently have no problem following the existing rules. All because of Republican propaganda.
Well if you don't need an ID to vote, you wouldn't need a disguise. Just go to 10 different polling locations to vote 10 times.
The populist progressive, Kat Abughazaleh, lost her election.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/electi...is-9th-congressional-district-primary-results
If its one thing left wing populists are good at, its losing elections
https://chicago.suntimes.com/electi...is-9th-congressional-district-primary-results
If its one thing left wing populists are good at, its losing elections
"26 year old with no prior elected office experience gets 26% of vote in 15-candidate primary, losing by less than 4% to a former state representative, senator, and ayor" apparently means populist progressives are dogshit and should just give up. This is just trolling, right?
The government ALREADY KNOWS whether you're a citizen. It's nonsense and FUD, intended to obfuscate the real purpose, which is to make it harder for CITIZENS to vote.
Confirm that they've admitted they don't have any sources to show you.
edit: It's not about YOU. We're aware YOU already know it's bullshit. The point is to make third parties aware that it's bullshit.
Last edited:
I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek....
That wouldn't work here (Maryland). If you vote anywhere but your "home" precinct, you would have to cast a provisional ballot, and when those were processed ("canvassed") the fact that you had voted in your home precinct would cause those provisional ballots to be invalidated.
There's more checking behind the scenes than meets the eye.
And my point is, that you are asking for an impossibility. You can't rationally argue someone out of a position that wasn't originally built on anything rational. They know what they know and you are wrong. Period. If any of them had actually looked at any facts in the first place we wouldn't be here now. They will never accept your facts as anything but more lies from the extreme left.
You know if that law was ever in place, they would not really verify citizenship in white, rural areas or any part of red states.
But if the voter is a person of color, you better have all your papers.
But if the voter is a person of color, you better have all your papers.
Without ID, how would they know you voted in your home precinct? How would they even know who you are?
Sitting here in Washington State, confused about this "polling place' thing. We don't have those. We have ballot drop boxes. You get the ballot mailed to your house, with an info packet. Fill it out at your leisure (plenty of time to read up on candidates and ballot initiatives) and drop it in the mail (no stamp required!) or take it to one of hundreds of drop boxes. It should be like this everywhere.
Largely because you know that there is someone named Benjamin Cumberbatch III living in your home precinct who hasn't voted yet and they have Benjamin Cumberbatch III on their voter rolls marked as not having voted yet. So, presuming that you are Benjamin Cumberbatch III, there won't be any issues with Benjamin Cumberbatch III showing up to vote multiple times. And, presuming that you aren't, well now it will be apparent that someone claiming to be Benjamin Cumberbatch III has showed up to vote multiple times because, for one of those times, Benjamin Cumberbatch III will have been marked as having already voted. So, it's fairly easy to identify the presence or absence of fraudulent votes. Add in that precincts aren't that big and even the investigation of that isn't too hard.
Edit: Oh, and you can also forge Benjamin Cumberbatch III's signature. And, likely, you also need to demonstrate that you can receive Benjamin Cumberbatch III's mail or have his voter card.
Last edited:
And if I claim to be Benjamin Cumberbatch III, vote, and the real Benjamin Cumberbatch III doesn't show up to vote? How will they know I'm not the real Benjamin Cumberbatch III?
Not relevant to in-person voting.
There is only a very limited number of people who could do that before simple random chance means they get caught and we learn how common it is, vanishingly is the answer. With roughly a quarter of voters voting, getting caught is pretty likely, and honestly, that vastly underestimates the percentage of registered voters who vote.
What are you taking about? It's pretty common for you to have to sign the voter rolls before you can file a ballot in-person. And the mailing you a voter pamphlet with you name on it isn't uncommon either. Which is to say: this is pretty much a solved problem.
Given what the winner claims to be, it's either trolling or just painfully ignorant.
I'll go with the latter since the post was too busy whining about the vocal loser to bother checking on the actual winner.
As stated, we can always have national ID. However, if people actually care about that, they would put the money to get people their ID and have extended voting period.
random? Its not random at all. Voter data is incredibly easy to access. It doesn't take a genius to purchase voter data and see who regularly votes and who hasn't voted in the past 10+ years.
Then consider even fewer people vote in elections outside of november. It would be risky in presidential elections, but a lot less so in primaries and municipal elections.
Ah, not a thing here, but guess thats because we require voter ID.
I agree with both conditions. There is no reason for voting to only be 1 single day. 2 to 4 days is totally reasonable (such as sat - tuesday).
Why would someone who hasn't voted in the last 10+ years show up in a voter file? Especially considering that automatic voter registration isn't something most states do.
dozens of studies and investigations shows this entire line of bullshit is false. In person voter fraud is extremely rare and just as importantly not biased one way or the other so it does not affect elections.
Wanna know what isn't false? The purposefully biased way voter ID affects elections, by design.
To fix Nonexitent cheating you are suggesting a fix which literally is actual cheating.
Think about this for more than a millisecond. If one person votes under another person's name, it's not a problem that is going to impact the election. to impact an election, you'd have to have hundreds to thousands of people do this to swing the vote. For a nationwide vote you'd need hundreds of thousands of people.
Do you REALLY think anyone could a) organize something like that AND b) pull it off without anyone noticing?
I live in the district. It's important to understand that it was a 3-person race with Biss & Fine inhabiting the "well established local Democratic politician" lane. Had Fine not run, Biss would have doubled up on Kat pretty easily and this would have been a very different conversation.
Kat was not a great candidate. On top of only moving into the district while the campaign was ongoing (and only moving to Illinois itself shortly before that), she overslept through one candidate forum, flat out skipped several others, and repeatedly showed a lack of understanding of local issues. If you wanted a truly progressive candidate to support, local stalwart Bushra Amiwala would have been a better choice.
What Kat was good at, however, was acquiring exposure via a relentless social media presence. That, plus the fact that her partner is CEO of the company that owns The Onion (and also, more relevantly, used to be a journalist for NBC), got her outsized exposure, including debate slots on MSNBC.
The 9th district, like many Illinois House districts, is quite elongated and as such takes up pieces of many disparate communities, though it leans heavily Democratic. It is centered around Evanston (including Northwestern University) and as such is certainly a good place to go if you want to energize a lot of young and/or strongly progressive voters, especially of the always-online variety.
Still, it also includes communities such as Glenview, Morton Grove, Northfield, & Prospect Heights which poll more on the moderate side of the Democratic Party, to say nothing of the far NW of the district which is actually conservative. Fine, a longtime State Senator with a good track record on local issues and for being responsive to local communities, likely did well in these areas, especially as those voters aren't online political warriors and likely never heard about Fine taking AIPAC money from a PAC funded (in part) by AIPAC.
So, what can we take from this race?
- Taking AIPAC money is a no-no for Democratic candidates now. Even IL Gov JB Pritzker came out this week against AIPAC.
- There's definitely appetite among Democratic voters for progressive candidates who don't mince words and are clear on where they stand.
- There's still a large part of the Democratic electorate who aren't always-online and for whom retail politicking and local bona fides are important.
- You can get somewhere pretty fast if you know how to use social media and have the money and/or connections necessary to amplify your social media footprint.
If r/illinois is to be believed, also that AIPAC's felt comfortable taking the mask off.