HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Aug 05, 2013, 07:53 AM
It's 5 O'clock Somewhere
RumRunner_1492's Avatar
Dayton, OH
Joined Feb 2006
417 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipemajor View Post
A Constitutional Law authority you are not. Not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution but it is the single most right that appears most often in the Constitution's text - five times.

Four separate Amendments - the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th - even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...vilege/262511/
You are right I am not a constitutional scholar but I seem to know more about it and what it means than you do. Any right to vote applies at the state level, not the federal level. The fed simply states that states must apply the right to vote fairly and equally among all of it's citizens, not that they have an actual right to vote. Those are the facts.

Quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee Americans the right to vote. That always comes as a surprise to non-lawyers. But you will search the Constitution in vain for any such guarantee, as the Supreme Court cheerily reminded us in Bush v. Gore.


What the Constitution contains is a series of “thou shalt nots.” Thou shalt not deny the right to vote on account of race or sex. Thou shalt not impose poll taxes. Thou shalt not prevent 18-year-olds from voting. It is difficult to develop a robust case law when you only know what you can’t do.
http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-w...-right-to-vote
http://www.salon.com/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
RumRunner_1492 is offline Find More Posts by RumRunner_1492
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 05, 2013, 09:07 AM
Registered User
United States, TX, Grand Prairie
Joined Nov 2005
5,672 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
...I didn't say anything about 'abridging.' You tried to say something which I pointed out as inaccurate. Now, you are preferring to discuss this, as opposed to discussing the thread subject.
The part of the 15th that you said " they don't say anything about infringement" IS.. IS saying something about abridging

At this point you're avoiding answering the simple question whether you said it or not.

I'll govern myself accordingly

regards
erh7771 is offline Find More Posts by erh7771
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 05, 2013, 09:12 AM
Registered User
Sausalito Marin Cty, California, United States
Joined Aug 2004
890 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by stone_axe View Post
I don't know why everyone is mincing words here.

The right to vote is defined in the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The most recent Supreme Court decision only strikes down one small part of the Voting Rights Act.

The right to vote started as only being for male land owners. This has evolved in to all legal citizens now.

Part of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any sort of poll tax or requirement that any fee be imposed in order to vote. After slavery was repealed many states required a poll tax or fee to vote which suppressed freed slaves from voting. Today almost all Americans support voting to be free from any tax, fee or expense.

That's where the voter ID requirement runs in to some problems. I understand why requiring a state ID seems like a good idea - but it's not.

First, if a state ID costs anything than it can be struck down as unconstitutional because it is a poll tax. The states have to drop this ID fee if they want to make it a requirement to vote.

Second, the current system is surprisingly secure. It is essentially a dual key encryption system that has a third layer of authentication for exceptions and significant geographic separation that limits the ability for a single individual or group of individuals to cast multiple votes. The historical percentage of voter fraud due to multiple voting is what you would expect from a dual key system - hundredths of a percent.

I'll quickly explain how a dual key system works. First you have to register to vote by providing a name, social security number and address. Your identity is then verified by various tax and census information. Once you are verified you are mailed your voting location. That is the first key When you show up to vote at the proper location you have to provide that key back to them. Only one precinct holds that key - and you have to know which precinct that is. Once you verify the first (public) key your ballot then contains a unique number that is derived from the second (private) key from the precinct. That allows for an immediate verification of ballots based upon uniqueness. If someone games the system they run the risk of creating not unique numbers - which is a dead giveaway. Each precinct doesn't know what their private key is and it is pre-calculated into their paper ballot numbers or contained in their voting machines.

If you show up at a precinct that does not have your public key you are allowed to vote and your public key is recorded but you are not assigned a unique dual key ballot number. You can vote multiple times in multiple precincts but only one precinct contains your public key. It is very easy in the modern era to match your public key with your proper precinct and count your vote. It is also very easy to identify people attempting to vote multiple times - which came as quite the surprise to that guy that thought he was smart in the last election and would show how easy it is to vote multiple times. He was arrested and charged with felony voter fraud on only his third attempt and he never showed an ID.

Real election fraud only comes in to play at a much higher level - like legions of dead people voting and statistically unlikely vote counts. But that is figured out after the fact by using that private key to trace it back to the source.

OK, that wasn't a quick explanation. Our election process may seem simple and insecure and easy for individuals to defraud - but it is quite the opposite. It is based on solid finite mathematic principals as set forth by Benjamin Franklin and has stood the test of time.
You act like figuring out who lives in what precinct is hard. When no id is required, all you need is to know the right name, and get there before the real person gets there.

Lets do this the simple way. Me and my buddy live in two precincts, where id is not required. We go to my precinct, I go into vote and sign the register. In doing so, I remember one of the names, on the sheet, that has not signed yet. I vote, go out tell my buddy the name. He goes in, uses that name to vote. We then go to his precinct, and repeat the process. The 2 of us have now voted 4 times.

If you know someone in your own precinct, who you know won't be voting, getting that name to a buddy, with the precinct location is not hard. Finding a precinct that historically has low voter turnout, and getting a list of the names that usually don't show shouldn't be too hard. Get an unscrupulous poll worker to give you a copy of the roll. The way they protect the boxes of votes, that keep getting lost, only to be found for a recount... getting a copy of the roll shouldn't be too hard. Heck, use the phone book, compare addresses to the precinct boundaries and you can generate your own list. All you have to do, is beat the real person to the ballot.

When no id is checked, no one knows that I am me, casting my legal vote, just like know one knows its my buddy, using a different name casting an illegal vote. Getting that name, does not take a degree in rocket science.
wab25 is offline Find More Posts by wab25
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 05, 2013, 09:14 AM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,033 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erh7771 View Post
The part of the 15th that you said " they don't say anything about infringement" IS.. IS saying something about abridging
I didn't deny that it did say something about abridging.


Quote:
Originally Posted by erh7771
At this point you're avoiding answering the simple question whether you said it or not.

I'll govern myself accordingly

regards
I have merely moved to a level with your methods.


But, to be clear, it is irrelevant, because the 'abridging' statement has a list only; and isn't all-encompassing 'don't infringe.' They are not analogous as you attempt to hold them up as.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Think you have rights? J.Douglas Life, The Universe, and Politics 1 Jan 13, 2013 06:54 PM
Poll Do you think the people who voted "No Option" have a legitimate argument? Victory Pete Radios 40 Mar 30, 2012 12:01 PM
Rant So Man "thinks" he's Intellegent. Yeah right!.. jumpinjo Life, The Universe, and Politics 14 Sep 03, 2011 12:05 PM
Discussion Could the Tea Pary Be Right.....Some Think So.... LcJ Life, The Universe, and Politics 77 Jul 27, 2011 09:16 AM
Discussion Should "non citizens" have the right to vote jumpinjo Life, The Universe, and Politics 97 Mar 25, 2010 04:30 AM