GeorgiaDon

That's true. What I was trying to anticipate and counter was the argument that one fraudulent vote wipes out my legitimate one, which is often raised by those in favor of enhanced barriers to voting. As you say, people like to think of their vote as a "personal unique snowflake" [I quite like that analogy BTW] but there is no reason to assume the one "bad" vote somehow singles out a specific "good" vote and cancels just that one. I think we agree that a very low percentage (less than 0.02% of the total, judging by the number of charges and convictions) of fraudulent votes does much less to offset my legitimate vote, than denying me the right to vote altogether would do. It's galling, but some problems may not be cost effective to tackle, if the inevitable result is worse damage. If a solution to the issue is necessary, it's more likely to be found in more rigorous documentation at the registration end, and possibly some tightening up with regard to drivers licenses. I was able to register to vote without being asked for proof of citizenship, although I did have it with me. My son was registered without his knowledge when he got his drivers license, as a result of the DMV clerk clicking the wrong box on the "motor voter" question. This created a lot of hassle, and eventually cost me over $500 to sort out when it screwed up his application for naturalized citizenship. Also, when I moved from one county to a neighboring county and changed the address on my drivers license I was allowed to keep my old license, so for a while I had perfectly good ID that would have allowed me to vote in two different counties. These seem like problem areas that could be addressed without denying legitimate voters their rights. However, much of the alleged fraud seems to involve absentee ballots, and it's hard to see how that could be tightened up a lot without implementing barriers even worse than photo IDS, such as having to have the ballots notarized. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Last time I checked you don't have to even have to prove you can hit the broad side of a barn door to buy a gun in Georgia. If someone can't prove even that much proficiency they don't deserve to own a gun. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I would argue that a denied vote is worse.I agree. If a million legitimate votes are cast, and one is fraudulent, that fraudulent one negates 1/1,000,000th of my vote. If I am denied the right to vote, 100% of my vote is removed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So no evidence then? Thought not. 17 (out of >700,000 registered voters in the county are suspected of voting in two different jurisdictions. They have not been charged, indeed the article states: “It is important to note that the individuals have not been accused of a crime and are of diverse ages, genders and political affiliations.” The basis for the suspicion is not given, but is likely just that registered voters in two counties share the same name. If I google my own name I find links to several other people, including a prominent jazz musician and a mayor. So this link involves a suspicion that has not been substantiated, even to the level of bringing charges, much less a conviction. Hardly "proof" of voter fraud. An activist group alleges that there are duplicate voter registrations in two adjacent states (Maryland and Virginia). No proof is offered that anyone voted in two states, no one has been charged, no one has been convicted. There are a number of totally innocent ways voter registration can be "duplicated". Voters can share the same name. Voters may register in one state, and later move to and register in a different state. There is no legal requirement to "un-register", and districts are supposed to verify their rolls from time to time, for example purging deceased registrants. This is important not only for voting but because voter registration lists form the basis of potential jury pools. Again, this link describes an allegation (made by an activist group with an interest in finding voter fraud) offered without proof. An allegation has been made that a voter registration organization submitted registrations with incomplete, misleading, or false information. The allegations have not been proven, and there is not evidence or even an allegation that a single improper vote was actually cast. Again, not proof of the existence of voter fraud, much less proof that such fraud occurs in a numbers sufficient to influence elections. A politician, during the campaign, made an allegation that his opponent was getting voters to register in a district they didn't live in. The allegations have not been substantiated. No proof of any inappropriate voting has been forthcoming. Politicians frequently use accusation of inappropriate voter registration to discredit their opponents. Often these accusations single out specific racial or socio-economic groups and are thinly veiled attempts at stirring up us-against-them racial animosities. No proof of a single improper vote to be found here, either. A political candidate apparently recruited about 40 out-of-district friends to vote for her using mail-in ballots, or by registering using her home address or the address of her relatives as their own. The mail-in ballots would not be affected by voter ID laws, as you are not required to mail in your drivers license with your vote. It does seem some people registered using a fraudulent address for their residence, and these might have been caught if they used a driver's license as a photo ID and someone had checked the address on the drivers license against their voter registration address. One man was convicted of voting in two presidential elections and a primary in a state he was no longer a resident in. Photo ID would not have stopped this, as he was registered in both states. The remedy would have to be accurate voter registration lists. Allegedly, six people double voted, voting once by early ballot and again on election day. Voter ID would not have caught this, as they would not have to show ID for the mail-in early ballot. The problem should have been caught by cross referencing a list of early voters so they would not have been allowed to vote on election day, but the company paid to update the list of early voters failed to do so. This company has screwed up previously: "During the August 2012, the firm's computer systems automatically gave many voters Republican ballots they had not requested". Interestingly, other voters who should have been allowed to vote were refused. So there were a few cases of double voting, but nothing that could have been stopped by showing a photo ID on election day. A political candidate is accused of recruiting 15-20 people to cast fraudulent absentee ballots. Again we have the issue of absentee ballots, which would not be addressed by voter ID laws. An illegal alien created a false identity, obtained a driver's license, registered to vote, and actually voted (allegedly). So how, exactly, would checking her ID at the ballot box have prevented any of that? This is the most interesting of the links. Of 147 case in which it was alleged that non-citizens had voted, 70 involved people who in fact were US citizens. [note: I have experienced this in my own family; often it happens because DMV does not update it's records when you become a naturalized citizen, and you have to wait until your license is renewed (which may mean several years) before they change your record to "citizen".] 77 cases were suspicious, and charges were brought against 10 people. 68 cases involved felons whose voting rights had not been restored, and 16 were charged. However, 20 whose voting rights had been restored were refused their right to vote at the ballot box. So in a state in which over a million votes are typically cast, an extensive and expensive investigation revealed 117 suspicious votes (0.012% of the total), resulting in charges being filed against 26 people. On the other hand, quite a number of people were identified who were improperly denied their right to vote. Some interesting questions are raised. Which is worse: a false vote, or a denied vote? Is a problem that affects about 1/10th of one percent of the vote, and so is unlikely to change the outcome of any election, worth disenfranchising other legitimate voters? Are you willing to sacrifice your vote in order to ensure the votes that are cast are 100% legitimate? Three women are accused of making copies of absentee voter documents and using them to submit false absentee ballots. Voter ID laws would not address this issue. Eight people have been charged (but not yet convicted) of voter fraud. The alleged fraudulent schemes included voting by absentee ballot and in person, and using a business address to vote in a district that was not the voters residence. The problems here seem to involve absentee voting (which does not require an Id under any proposed law), and lax enforcement at the voter registration office, allowing someone to register using their business address instead of their residence. Neither problem would be solved with ID laws. A politician is charged with engineering the submission of 49 false absentee ballots, which contributed in him winning a city council seat. Apart from the fact that the politician has not been convicted, it seems the evidence for fraud is strong. However, voter photo ID laws would not prevent this, as no proposed law addresses photo IDs for absentee voting. A politician who lost an election alleged voter fraud. Their complaint was thrown out by a court, and they have appealed to the state supreme court. No proof of wrongdoing, just a sore loser politician. So of all your links, only a couple report proven instances of voter fraud; most are just unproven allegations. In the one serious large scale investigation, less that 0.012% of votes were found to be suspicious, and only 26 people were charged out of a million voters. More people were found to have been illegally denied their right to vote. Most of the alleged or proven cases involved absentee voting. This problem would not be solved by requiring photo ID at the ballot box. I don't know how it could be solved, without also disenfranchising lots of legitimate absentee voters. This would, of course, include many in the military. I'm sure you would not approve of a "fix" that negated to voting rights of military personnel. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Ok, so I have got you down for 1. Im ok with federal crimes being committed as long as its not too often. I'll put you down as OK with disenfranchising 1,000 people to prevent 1 fraudulent vote. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hope you're not freezing up in the mountains. It was pretty chilly here last night. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The evil plot is even more sinister than that! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Here is an interesting case from a few years back (2006) here in Georgia. A state trooper ticketed a woman for "violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles". The offending bumper sticker said "I'm Tired Of All The BUSHIT". The problem was, the state supreme court had throw out the law as unconstitutional over a decade before. Another problem was that despite the court ruling the law was still listed as valid in the Georgia Law Enforcement Handbook, which is used to train law enforcement officers. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

They sell suits, too? I did not know Obama did HALOs. Cool. Obama is a skydiver. I learn stuff here every day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hell, they'd probably be kicked out of the country. They were all British nationals, after all. Well, I'm sure they all had their H1B or J visa paperwork in perfect order. And it goes without saying they had their passport and all paperwork to prove legal status on their person at all times. I just hope they never tried to vote. Or purchase a firearm. Damned foreigners. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What's a Forbes sight? I've heard of nearsighted and farsighted, but not Forbes sighted. OK, I pick this one:"Switzerland rejects single-payer, will keep its own version of Obamacare". Note that none of the articles in your Google list said anything close to "Swiss reject government subsidized health care, adopt Republican fantasy of health care only for the wealthy". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And some people just never grow up. I'm not a liberal. The opinion I was expressing came straight from the Founding Fathers. If you've decided that they were too liberal for you, then you need to find another country, America isn't for you. I strongly suspect if the founding fathers were alive today they would be considered far too liberal to be welcomed in either the Republican or the Tea Party. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Really?You seem to be laboring under the delusion that facts matter to Ron. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The actual quote is more revealing than the sound bite. Here's what Carter said: "I could have wiped Iran off the map with the weapons that we had, but in the process a lot of innocent people would have been killed, probably including the hostages and so I stood up against all that, er, all that advice, and then eventually my prayers were answered and every hostage came home safe and free. And so I think I made the right decision in retrospect, but it was not easy at the time." Somehow, putting a period after "map" changes the meaning quite a bit: "I could have wiped Iran off the map." Of course, such politically motivated editing is par for the course these days. It's a cheap shot, though, as it's trivially easy to crop and rearrange the words anyone speaks to alter the meaning. It goes without saying that the US could have crushed Iran, militarily. Just imagine what would have happened had Bush Jr. Cheney/Rumsfeld been in office at the time. Would that have been the best course of action? Would that have rescued the hostages? What would the world look like today if that had happened? What if Russia had backed Iran against an American invasion? I for one am glad when political leaders are aware that military invasion is not the default response to every crisis. I'm well aware some people who frequent Speaker's Corner never saw a war, or an excuse for war, or a lie in support of a war they didn't love. Given a choice between a diplomatic solution to a problem and 20,000 dead US soldiers/2,000,000 dead foreigners they'll take the dead troops every time, because it's "the American way, dammit". I do think Carter is wrong about getting re-elected. The problem was, he insisted on speaking truthfully (at least as far as he understood what was true), which at the time (OPEC oil embargo, hostage crisis, etc) was pretty universally depressing. Even worse, all this was the latest in a long string of bad news, notably the Nixon fiasco. His opponent, Teflon Ronnie Reagan, was a master storyteller who never let reality intrude on the "message", and the message he was selling (America is the greatest at everything/God made America as the pinnacle of creation) resonated strongly with an American public sick of depressing news. Carter was vastly smarter than Reagan in many ways, but Reagan was a genius in the skills that matter politically: charisma, the "kindly grandfather" thing, the "one for the Gipper" thing, and mostly knowing what people wanted to hear and giving them that, often with nasty policies wrapped up in the middle where people would swallow them because he came across as a "nice man". Carter could have walked on water and raised the dead and he would have lost to Reagan. People complain about politicians being liars, but when it comes to politics often being truthful is toxic. The reality you wish was true is more compelling than the reality you know is true, as Reagan knew and Carter did not, and every politician since has either known that or experienced the consequences. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

After all these years, that dumb peanut farmer still doesn't get it. He lost because he couldn't lead a country, But then he couldn't lead a starving fly to warm pile of fresh cow paddy. Thanks to that "dumb peanut farmer" millions of people no longer live under the threat of river blindness, Guinea worm, trachoma, schistosomiasis, and lymphatic filariasis. Carter may not have been a great president, but I think a strong case can be made that he is the best "ex-president" this country has ever produced. At any rate, I don't know you (Boomerdog) personally, so I may be off base here, but I would bet money that you can't come close to matching Carter's record of accomplishment. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's where you went wrong . As soon as you see the combination of several paragraphs and math, you just dismiss it as liberal/reactionary tripe Wendy P. Now we know why ISIS banned teaching math. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You think they don't already do this, in addition to surveillance of US citizens? With that sense of humor, you'd be a prime candidate for a TSA job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That'd be pretty funny. But I think Chuck Norris would be the man for the job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So Illinois is now a shall-issue state, yet requires gun training and shooting classes? Seems reasonable to me, as long as the classes are actually offered so the requirement can be met in a timely and convenient manner. Georgia is a shall-issue state that requires nothing (no training, no demonstration of knowledge of the law, no demonstration of any level of proficiency with firearms) other than a clean background check for a permit to be issued. The conclusion that any decline in crime must be due to the change to shall-issue status is just a correlation/causation confirmation bias type argument. What were crime rates doing for the last 5 or 10 years before the change? What happened to crime rates in socioeconomically similar states that did not change their concealed carry policy? If crime was declining anyway, before the change, it's not valid to claim any decrease since the change must be due to more people carrying. On the other hand if crime rates were level or increasing, and suddenly dropped in the one state that changed its policy, you might have a reasonable argument. Georgia has very loose gun laws and has recently loosened them further to allow people to carry in businesses and churches [unless those businesses and churches post prominent signs stating otherwise], government buildings [unless they install metal detectors and armed security, an expense many smaller municipalities can't afford], even airports [the public areas, not past security]. Georgia is also a pretty active death penalty state. You might think Georgia has a very low crime rate, if you believe that high carrying rates influence crime. However, you would be wrong: Georgia has the 11th highest murder rate in the country. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

1. 17 Intelligence Agencies. 2. 75 Billion Dollar Budget 3. Multi-billion dollar satellite programs, aircraft, weapons, electronic sensors, intelligence analysis, spies, computers, and software. 4. 200,000 Intelligence Community Employees + Contractors 5. A Director of National Intelligence (DNI) You might be asking a bit much, Don. As you are no doubt aware, those resources/people are in large part being used to run and analyze surveillance programs. If such surveillance was outlawed, many of those people would be out of a job. Don You're kidding, right?Well, OK, maybe they'll be put in a basement cubicle and allowed to post to dropzone.com all day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

1. 17 Intelligence Agencies. 2. 75 Billion Dollar Budget 3. Multi-billion dollar satellite programs, aircraft, weapons, electronic sensors, intelligence analysis, spies, computers, and software. 4. 200,000 Intelligence Community Employees + Contractors 5. A Director of National Intelligence (DNI) You might be asking a bit much, Don. As you are no doubt aware, those resources/people are in large part being used to run and analyze surveillance programs. If such surveillance was outlawed, many of those people would be out of a job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's disturbing, but not surprising that law enforcement would take this attitude when (1) we [the US] pass laws allowing this level of surveillance, and (2) we demand that "the government" keep us absolutely safe from any crime or terrorist activity. As a society, we need to make it clear that (1) we do not want this level of intrusion into our privacy, and (2) we are willing to accept some increased risk as a result. It isn't reasonable to expect law enforcement to detect in advance and prevent every terrorist plot (an unreasonable expectation) without allowing them access to unreasonable tools. Law enforcement still can get information about specific people, they just have to have probable cause to get a warrant. The argument that encryption prevents them from doing their job is a stealth argument that it's too much bother to get a warrant (i.e. to respect our constitutional rights). I am concerned about hackers stealing my information and taking the product of my labors for themselves. To that end, I welcome anything that improves security of my data. I'm surprised the FBI can't see that side of things. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you understand the difference between "deserved to be killed" and "the cops had no other choice"? I realize that most people will use the two interchangeably. The issue that I have with that is that language shapes our thoughts, just as our thoughts are reflected in our language. Much of our ability to reason abstractly lies in our ability to codify abstract concepts in language. So "short-cuts" in language (using simple terms to stand in for more complex ideas) tends to lead to "short-cuts" in thought. I agree that there are bad guys, and I agree that sometimes police have no choice but to use deadly force to protect themselves or others. "Deserved to die" is somewhat different. Does the patient suffering from paranoid delusions "deserve" to die, even if his delusions result in him acting in a threatening manner? Does the guy who reacts to cops bursting into his house by mistake (they went to the wrong address) on a no-knock warrant "deserve" to die? Does the guy walking around Walmart with an airsoft pellet gun he just picked up off the store shelf "deserve" to die, even if the police find their officers acted properly? I'm sure, though, that "he got what he deserved" is a lot easier for many people than the more complicated "the police were left with no other alternative". The first is cut and dried. The second requires thought about the circumstances, the alternatives available at the time, the training of the police, and their state of mind at the instant a decision had to be made. Monday morning quarterbacking won't bring back the dead but it could result in a change in training or procedures that prevent future unnecessary deaths. "He deserved what he got" holds no such potential, ensuring that future confrontations will have the same outcome. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

"deserved to be killed" is a judgement only courts can make. If you're OK with allowing the police to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die, you have a very different vision of America than I do. The question is "how many of those police shootings resulted from situations in which police had no reasonable alternative course of action"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Then why bother to try to arrest people at all? Why not just shoot them all? An ounce of prevention and all that. Seriously, if you think it justified to shoot people who are reaching for their wallet, after you just told them to do just that, then you really do advocate all out war between the police and the citizenry. Champu's comment that the driver was out of the car, with both hands visible, totally behaving normally and not moving until told to get his license, is spot on. At that point, instead of telling the guy "give me your license" the officer could have asked "where is your license". "Give me your license" can reasonably be expected to elicit a response, either reaching into a pocket or into the car, that could be seen as threatening (if you are inclined to see it that way). Asking "where is your license" will elicit an answer ("in my pocket" or "in my car") and the officer will then know what to expect when he says "get it out and give it to me". It really isn't rocket science. I'm one of those who posted that, on the rare occasion where I have to interact with the police, I say exactly what I am about to do ("I need to get my registration from the glove box"), wait for the OK (or ask "Will that be OK?"), then move slowly while making sure the officer has a clear view of what I am doing. I am doing this because I do not trust the judgement of the officer, and want to do anything I can to minimize any chance of misunderstanding. I've also found that putting the officer at ease seems to improve the chance I'll get off with a warning to "slow down" rather than a ticket. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)