The 2018 US Mid-Term Elections Thread

[ryzno]

Why would an error as minor as date of birth, something that has already been provided as part of the registration process, prevent verification of one's right to vote and thereby prohibit the subsequent counting of one's vote?

Cause said person can't provide the same info they allegedly used to register. What the hell is so hard to grasp of this simple concept? Incorrect info with no proof means you don't exist.

 

[TexRex]

Cause said person can't provide the same info they allegedly used to register.

That's a restating of an interpretation of the events that transpired, not an answer to the question that was asked.

If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?

What the hell is so hard to grasp of this simple concept?

Why can't you give a straight answer?

 

[ryzno]

That's a restating of an interpretation of the events that transpired, not an answer to the question that was asked.

If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?


Why can't you give a straight answer?

What do you want me to say good sir? As far as I'm concerned I've answered you multiple times. Sorry I'm not giving you the answer you want.

 

[TexRex]

What do you want me to say good sir?

I want you to give me a reasoned explanation for why what is clearly a mishap prevents verification of one's right to vote because you clearly disagree with a judge's ruling that such a mishap does not justify revocation of one's rights to vote have their vote counted.*

*Edit.

As far as I'm concerned I've answered you multiple times.

A response does not constitute an answer.

Sorry I'm not giving you the answer you want.

That's just it...I'm not trying to get a specific answer. What I'm seeking is an explanation for why you deem the ruling to be inappropriate.

 

[ryzno]

I want you to give me a reasoned explanation for why what is clearly a mishap prevents verification of one's right to vote because you clearly disagree with a judge's ruling that such a mishap does not justify revocation of one's rights to vote have their vote counted.*

*Edit.


A response does not constitute an answer.


That's just it...I'm not trying to get a specific answer. What I'm seeking is an explanation for why you deem the ruling to be inappropriate.

And I've told you and whoever have read my posts. They didn't go in when given an opportunity to FIX IT. Mail-ins were mailed by some a month or so ago with a 3 day extension past election day to fix their ballot, it shouldn't count.
Again a very simple concept you are trying to turn into the Rockies it seems.
She doesn't have the votes regardless.
I'm done repeating myself.

 

[TexRex]

They didn't go in when given an opportunity to FIX IT. Mail-ins were mailed by some a month or so ago with a 3 day extension past election day to fix their ballot, it shouldn't count.

You do realize that a not insignificant proportion of those who vote absentee do so because of an inability to get to polling locations, don't you? That's actually why the option has historically been offered, despite it having been co-opted by those who are reasonably capable of in-person voting but seemingly would rather not.

That, by the way, is still a restatement of an interpretation of events that transpired and not an answer to the question that I asked.

Again a very simple concept you are trying to turn into the Rockies it seems.

Yeah, no...I get that you're of the belief that the votes shouldn't be counted, but you have yet to establish reasonable justification for that belief.

What's more, when I try to imagine the sort of people likely to make such mistakes, I generally think of the elderly, who often can't reasonably vote in person due to a lack of transportation and/or difficulty waiting in line, and these deficiencies would likely extend to being presented with the need to fix such an error.

She doesn't have the votes regardless.

Then why pitch a fit to begin with?

I'm done repeating myself.

Seeing as you never actually answered the question that I asked, the last thing I want you to do is to repeat yourself.

 

[ryzno]

You do realize that a not insignificant proportion of those who vote absentee do so because of an inability to get to polling locations, don't you? That's actually why the option has historically been offered, despite it having been co-opted by those who are reasonably capable of in-person voting but seemingly would rather not.

That, by the way, is still a restatement of an interpretation of events that transpired and not an answer to the question that I asked.


Yeah, no...I get that you're of the belief that the votes shouldn't be counted, but you have yet to establish reasonable justification for that belief.

What's more, when I try to imagine the sort of people likely to make such mistakes, I generally think of the elderly, who often can't reasonably vote in person due to a lack of transportation and/or difficulty waiting in line, and these deficiencies would likely extend to being presented with the need to fix such an error.


Then why pitch a fit to begin with?


Seeing as you never actually answered the question that I asked, the last thing I want you to do is to repeat yourself.

Then give up instead of mocking with a meme.

 

[TexRex]

Then give up instead of mocking with a meme.

While it certainly saddens me, I'm not the least bit surprised that that's been your slow play.

You're clearly interested not so much in discussion as an outlet through which to regurgitate your preferred narratives uncontested, and in the event that they are contested, rather than form reasoned arguments in support of them, you opt to accost and denigrate others over what you presume to be their source of information and/or provide a string of nonanswers in the hope that they'll grow tired and give up.

The latter definitely will not happen here and instead I'll restate the question that I asked after actually answering yours:

If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?

The ball is in your court.

Oh, and I believe the word you were looking for is "image". A meme is something else...

While a meme certainly can be an image, not all images are memes.

 

[ryzno]

While it certainly saddens me, I'm not the least bit surprised that that's been your slow play.

You're clearly interested not so much in discussion as an outlet through which to regurgitate your preferred narratives uncontested, and in the event that they are contested, rather than form reasoned arguments in support of them, you opt to accost and denigrate others over what you presume to be their source of information and/or provide a string of nonanswers in the hope that they'll grow tired and give up.

The latter definitely will not happen here and instead I'll restate the question that I asked after actually answering yours:

If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?

The ball is in your court.

Oh, and I believe the word you were looking for is "image". A meme is something else...

View attachment 780048

While a meme certainly can be an image, not all images are memes.

I don't need you to try and inform me how to debate on these or any other forum. I was here before you and have gotten by years without your help till you magically appeared and find it important to correct everything you disagree with for whatever reason. Go find someone else to waste your time pulling teeth.
Have a good night.

 

[TexRex]

I don't need you to try and inform me how to debate on these or any other forum.

You're mistaken. I'm not trying to inform you how to debate, rather I'm pointing out your tactics which are not (and are clearly not intended to be) conducive to discussion.

I was here before you and have gotten by years without your help till you magically appeared and find it important to correct everything you disagree with for whatever reason.

"I was here first." Right, there's a well-reasoned argument.

Go find someone else to waste your time pulling teeth.

I appreciate your consideration, but if a particular path truly is a waste of my time, I decline to walk it.

Have a good night.

Aww, shucks. Thanks!

So...if the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?

 

[ryzno]

So...if the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?

Cause they are too stupid to figure out where to put the correct date or guess what man? They MIGHT NOT BE who they said they are.
I'll use here as an example. You can't be a member here if your birthday doesn't qualify or you typed it incorrectly.
Guess what? You can contact staff here and change/fix it.
They had an opportunity to fix it and didn't. You can continue to ask the same question and I'll continue to give you the same answer.
So pull out your pulling teeth picture, meme, whatever...

 

[Northstar]

Here as an outsider it seems to be more complicated than needed to vote for you guys.

I know we are a pretty easy going bunch down here but we just rock up in Saturday tell the polling booth official your name and address to get your ballot paper and that's it. No ID shown, nothing to fill in then just walk over to the booth tick the relevant boxes fold up the ballot paper and drop it in the box on the way out.

That's how it works in Minnesota, you just sign your name in a book and than you fill out a separate ballot that doesn't ask for any personal info. The only time you need to show ID (or proof of residency if you have a different address from your ID) is if it's your first time voting in that district.

Example MN Ballot

 

[TexRex]

Cause they are too stupid to figure out where to put the correct date or guess what man? They MIGHT NOT BE who they said they are.
I'll use here as an example. You can't be a member here if your birthday doesn't qualify or you typed it incorrectly.
Guess what? You can contact staff here and change/fix it.
They had an opportunity to fix it and didn't. You can continue to ask the same question and I'll continue to give you the same answer.
So pull out your pulling teeth picture, meme, whatever...

The answer you keep providing is indicative of you not reading the question.

"If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?"

The information provided on the ballot can easily be compared to that which is provided on the voter registration record.

You asked me if a ballot should be counted if the voter's right to cast it can't be verified, to which I said "no", and I asked why the mere mismatched dates are sufficient in making verification impossible.

 

[ryzno]

The answer you keep providing is indicative of you not reading the question.

"If the information is on file, which it is, why should an error in which an individual put the present date in place of their date of birth prevent verification of one's right to vote?"

The information provided on the ballot can easily be compared to that which is provided on the voter registration record.

You asked me if a ballot should be counted if the voter's right to cast it can't be verified, to which I said "no", and I asked why the mere mismatched dates are sufficient in making verification impossible.

They don't make it impossible which I've said, somehow they were contacted about an issue AND DIDN'T SHOW UP TO CORRECT IT.
The government shouldn't assume cause everything is "close enough" it's them.
I don't get how we have to get numbers and dates correct on forms every day. But now we should say hey it's close enough and he didn't respond to our questions but hey we'll allow it. That is literally what I gather from your posts.

 

[TexRex]

somehow they were contacted about an issue AND DIDN'T SHOW UP TO CORRECT IT.

I've been unable to find anything that backs this up, despite finding a great deal of information on the matter at hand. Can you offer anything to which I can refer?

The government shouldn't assume cause everything is "close enough" it's them.

I agree, and so did the judge who ruled on this matter.

Although U.S. District Judge Steve Jones agreed with the Georgia Democratic Party and Stacey Abrams’ campaign on this issue, he ruled against them on two others. He will not require counties to accept absentee ballots with incorrect residence addresses or to accept provisional ballots cast by people who attempted to vote in a different county than where they are registered to vote.

But now we should say hey it's close enough and he didn't respond to our questions but hey we'll allow it. That is literally what I gather from your posts.

I can't fathom how you manage to make that leap. You presented an argument that contradicts a judge's ruling and all I asked of you is to support that argument.

That said, when the information is already on file, I don't understand why it's supposedly so difficult to realize what occurred was an honest mistake and not indicative of criminal intent.

 

[ryzno]

That said, when the information is already on file, I don't understand why it's supposedly so difficult to realize what occurred was an honest mistake and not indicative of criminal intent.

Cause that is not their job to assume it was a mistake. Their job is to VERIFY the ballot. We have verifiers in our dispatch center. Guess what they do?
I'll tell ya, if my trucks GPS says for whatever reason my speed was 1 1/2 miles an hour at a stop, they don't know if I stopped. So they call me and ask me the color of the door and then call the customer to make sure I picked up or dropped off whatever.
Do you know what that word in all caps means? If not and/or you still think they should let it slide we are done with this conversation.

 

[TexRex]

Cause that is not their job to assume it was a mistake. Their job is to VERIFY the ballot.

Precisely what does that job entail, then?

Do you know what that word in all caps means?

To determine something is accurate or to show that something has been determined to be accurate.

Now can you VERIFY for me (that would be the latter definition) that voters who made such a mistake were presented with the opportunity to correct it?

 

[ryzno]

Precisely what does that job entail, then?


To determine something is accurate or to show that something has been determined to be accurate.

Now can you VERIFY for me (that would be the latter definition) that voters who made such a mistake were presented with the opportunity to correct it?

That's not my job and even if it was I'm sure I couldn't disclose it to you. I can't provide anything more than the countless links provided by myself and PZ which claim they did.
Don't forget there were more errors than dates. Incorrect addresses, misspelled names, Jesus Christ on Heaven St...

 

[TexRex]

That's not my job and even if it was I'm sure I couldn't disclose it to you.

In stating that something is not part of a job description you're indicating knowledge of what that job entails. If it's not your job, and you can't provide anything indicative of such knowledge, why should anyone take such a claim seriously?

I can't provide anything more than the countless links provided by myself and PZ which claim they did.

I don't expect "more", but merely something. And you've posted precisely two links here: one from CNN that I deigned to investigate but speaks of hacking allegations by the Democrats from Kemp himself, and another that states candidates can't agree on a new debate schedule after Kemp withdrew from the one that hadd previously been planned.

Moreover, if they are indeed "countless" (they're not...I counted them), why should I be forced to sift through for evidence to support what you're claiming? I looked on my own and found plenty of other information regarding the matter, but as the one claiming this to be the case, you're in a much better position to cite a source (one that can be verified, or at the very least observed) that supports the claim.

Don't forget there were more errors than dates. Incorrect addresses, misspel

I'm really only interested in the date of birth error on which the judge ruled needn't disqualify ballot submissions, a ruling to which you openly object.

 

[ryzno]

I'm really only interested in the date of birth error on which the judge ruled needn't disqualify ballot submissions, a ruling to which you openly object.

Yep and we are done. I don't know what you want to prove and I don't care.
This is an opinion section. I stated my opinion. I don't have to waste my life trying to explain my opinion to you cause you seem to always disagree me regardless. I don't care and am under NO OBLIGATION to meet your satisfaction of posts.
You called me out for how I constantly post in a dismissive style.
Believe it or not me and JP didn't always agree on everything a few years ago, also I don't agree with PZ on everything. Yet we get along. Then there is you.
I don't like you and it seems I never will. You just continue to ask the same question over and over expecting a different answer. Who knows I might be the insane one... Guess what, I'm happy with that if I am.
Welcome back to my ignore list. I knew it was too good to be true when you thanked me for trying to continue the debate but I honestly see it going no where.

You are a flamebaiter. You know I get aggravated when I continue to answer the same question and I continue to give you MY answer.
I'm not going to give into you trying to piss me off and get me to say what I really want to.
So if it makes you feel better you won this. I don't care. But I will never give you the pleasure of seeing BANNED next to my name.
Good day sir.

 

[TexRex]

I don't know what you want to prove and I don't care.

What I want to prove? I asked you to provide a source [to which I can refer] that supports your assertion that voters who improperly dated absentee ballots were given the opportunity to correct the error.

This is an opinion section. I stated my opinion.

And I asked you to establish a foundation for that opinion. Unfounded opinions ought not be taken seriously and are indicative of those who provide them only being interested in an echo chamber.

I don't have to waste my life trying to explain my opinion to you cause you seem to always disagree me regardless.

Yeeeeaaahh...I agreed with you on this very page, but that I agree with you on one matter is not a basis for my agreeing with you on all matters.

I don't care and am under NO OBLIGATION to meet your satisfaction of posts.

So, yeah...you're looking for an echo chamber.

You called me out for how I constantly post in a dismissive style.

And I believe myself to be more justified than ever before in having done so. Rather than respond appropriately to the repeated request for a source, you opt draw things out to extreme lengths in the apparent hope that the request will be dropped.

Believe it or not me and JP didn't always agree on everything a few years ago, also I don't agree with PZ on everything. Yet we get along. Then there is you.
I don't like you and it seems I never will.

Aww, thanks...

You just continue to ask the same question over and over expecting a different answer.

When I keep getting answers to a question I didn't ask, why shouldn't I expect a different answer?

If one disregards your desire to dodge the question, of course.

Who knows I might be the insane one... Guess what, I'm happy with that if I am.
Welcome back to my ignore list. I knew it was too good to be true when you thanked me for trying to continue the debate but I honestly see it going no where.

You've said that before...

You are a flamebaiter.

Come on now, show your work.

You know I get aggravated when I continue to answer the same question and I continue to give you MY answer.

Imagine my frustration when YOUR answer doesn't address the question that was asked.

I'm not going to give into you trying to piss me off and get me to say what I really want to.

All I'm trying to get you to do is provide an answer to the question that I asked and a source to support the assertion you made.

So if it makes you feel better you won this. I don't care.

I'd only feel better if that's what I was actually seeking.

But I will never give you the pleasure of seeing BANNED next to my name.

You say that as though I'd derive pleasure from seeing that. I'd much rather see a modicum of reasoning from you.

Good day sir.

 

[ryzno]

Oh come on?!
https://newschannel9.com/news/election/stacey-abrams-team-prepares-push-for-new-vote
I recall something similar in another thread. Vote till you get the results you want.
Might give y'all an insight on why I'm so frustrated and want this to simply end.

 

[TexRex]

I have to imagine that Kemp figured he would have a much easier go at the office of Governor. Poor guy.

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh come on?!
https://newschannel9.com/news/election/stacey-abrams-team-prepares-push-for-new-vote
I recall something similar in another thread. Vote till you get the results you want.
Might give y'all an insight on why I'm so frustrated and want this to simply end.

Is there enough evidence of supression though?

 

[TexRex]

Is there enough evidence of supression though?

I suspect the answer to that question is subject to the political leanings of those asked.

 

[PocketZeven]

I suspect the answer to that question is subject to the political leanings of those asked.

Kemp does have a history of mismanaging elections. But its hard to prove it is deliberate or just being incompitent. How do you see it?

 

[TexRex]

Kemp does have a history of mismanaging elections. But its hard to prove it is deliberate or just being incompitent. How do you see it?

I don't find it the least bit surprising that accusations of impropriety have so maligned Kemp's bid for Governor, it's probably why a situation in which a sitting Secretary of State (whose duties include overseeing and elections in that state) remains so even during a run for higher office is unprecedented. The sheer number of accusations is concerning, though, as is the fact that there have been rulings against tactics used by election officials.

 

[ryzno]

Nevermind...

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't find it the least bit surprising that accusations of impropriety have so maligned Kemp's bid for Governor, it's probably why a situation in which a sitting Secretary of State (whose duties include overseeing and elections in that state) remains so even during a run for higher office is unprecedented. The sheer number of accusations is concerning, though, as is the fact that there have been rulings against tactics used by election officials.

It really is hard for me to understand how the president claims fraud, but doesnt order an investigation into fraud in the case of Florida. Isnt the integrity of a democratic election at stake here?

 

[TexRex]

It really is hard for me to understand how the president claims fraud, but doesnt order an investigation into fraud in the case of Florida. Isnt the integrity of a democratic election at stake here?

Georgia.