The lawsuit itself appears to be real, not fake.
The allegations may not be true.
It’s subtle, but there’s a difference
The lawsuit itself appears to be real, not fake.
The allegations may not be true.
It’s subtle, but there’s a difference
We’ve probably already seen the major stuff from the house committees investigation. If this does anything, it will only make it a little more fresh
Regarding flight: where to? Of similar “democracies” Europe and Canada have similarly troubling trends. Scandinavia? Australia? SE Asia? Are they any better, really?
Just because I was curious: I counted 23 R, 22 D, 1 I. That might be off by one or two but I was surprised (well maybe not really) how evenly split it was
I’m in his district, I’ll see what I can do
Hmm my brain initially read this as “I kink shame all republicans” and…it kinda works?
Can you please elaborate?
So are you saying that in these cases, where voter fraud was detected and people were charged for it, they took “no risk”? Maybe what you’re really trying to say is that regardless of what the risk of there needs to be zero chance of ineligible voters accidentally voting?
I mean, I think i get your viewpoint. There are people who “slip through the cracks” and do vote when they aren’t eligible, and they shouldn’t. I don’t deny that and I think it would be foolish to deny that any ineligible voter has ever voted.
But at the same time you seem to have a fatalistic view of the systems that are supposed to enforce those rules. Like most laws, deterrence is in the consequences of being caught and convicted. But it seems that’s not enough? And government systems don’t work, so we can’t use those to try to enforce voter eligibility. But how do we vote? Are you really just advocating for voter ID? (which, fwiw, I agree with as I indicated previously) but you also have cast doubt on how well that works. So what would work, in your view?
Is the risk of detection, prosecution, and jail or deportation not enough? I don’t see how you consider that “no risk.”
As a MN resident I was curious so I looked at MN practices
Step 1: Department of Public Safety (or other agency) Application. During the regular course of certain DPS interactions—applying for, replacing, renewing, or changing the address on a driver’s license or state ID card—clients generally supply the information election officials need to register them to vote, including Name, Address (mailing and residential), Date of Birth, Citizenship Status, and Signature Image. The Secretary of State shall determine if other state, tribal, or local government agencies also collect sufficient information to identify eligible citizens for potential automatic voter registration, and may work with them to allow participation in the program. Step 2: Citizenship Filtering. Only clients who provide a document that demonstrates that they are a citizen (which is generally required by the DPS) will be included in AVR. As part of this step, demonstrated non-citizens or people whose citizenship status is unknown are excluded from the AVR workflow. Other agencies may verify citizenship instead through a database check.
See Step 2? I’m not gonna go state by state, but maybe you should before assuming they all register everyone to vote regardless of eligibility.
And yeah, in MN I don’t show my ID at the polls. I think they should change that. But I also won’t be able to vote if they don’t have my name on the list at my polling place, or if someone has already voted under my name. It’s hard for an ineligible voter to vote, and if they do, there’s a high chance of detection.
Do you think there’s a systematic effort to have ineligible voters vote on behalf of registered voters in places that don’t check ID, with a database of registered-but-definitely-not-voting people, and their associated polling place? If so, have you seen any evidence of it?
Is this really a line of reasoning people use? They’ve committed one crime so of course they’ll commit all the crimes?
What’s a reasonable approach to this?
Standardize portion size, and disallow any change in packaging volume/weight? How can this be reasonably defined?
Ban price increases, presumably on a weight basis?
They did fail, but then succeeded in impeachment. For no actual reason.
I get so frustrated when an article introduces a new term, says what somebody thinks about it, then goes off on some tangent before finally describing the issue at hand two thirds of the way through the article.
Signature matching is supposedly a way to prevent fraud, in which a voter’s signature on a ballot, or in this case petition, is confirmed to correspond with a signature from the same voter registered in the state’s database. But it has been criticized widely as a method of voter suppression.
Many lemmy users outside the US dislike communities that are “US by default.” This is Politics, not USPolitics, but its generally about just the US.
That one and “FAFO” in its various incarnations can take a break for a bit, IMO
I don’t really get the point of this type of comment. Used in bad faith, it clearly is meant to detail the conversation and sideline the point of the article that was posted. In good faith, maybe venting? What am I missing?
Yeah.
I fear that my original comment might be misconstrued so I just want to make it (probably annoyingly) explicit:
FWIW I fully believe Trump did this and worse, but that’s just me