On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:55:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Alternately they could check the box on the income
>>tax form authorizing the tax authorities to give their personal
>>information to the elections commission.
>
>We have Motor Voter (federal law) in which one can chose to have voter
>registration information sent by registering for a driver's license or
>any number of other federal welfare programs. I don't like it because I
>don't want the sending of information from one government agency to
>another to mess up my voter registration that's in good standing. But
>the thing I have to remember to do each time I move is change my address
>separately on the voter registry so I get a piece of paper with my new
>address on it. This only works well if both addresses are in the
>jurisdiction of the same voter registrar. Changing the address with
>drivers' service bureau is something I just tell them but they don't
>make the physical update on the license itself till I get it renewed,
>and in the interim, the old address continues to shw in the database,
>which in turn gets submitted to the same database that new voter
>registrations are checked against. They gave me an amazingly hard time
>about voter registration last time I moved since I didn't yet have a
>piece of paper in hand that they'd accept to verify the address. I'm
>allowed to show a bank statement but I absolutely refused to do that.

What I'm talking about is completely voluntary not mandated.

I'm assuming you're OK with that?

(I normally DON'T check that box since I live my life by my middle
name while the tax authorities require my full name. I have told the
story about the last time I checked that box here already!)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:59:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>A higher voter turnout was considered to be a positive social good -
>>hopefully we still do
>
>I don't. Learning about the issues, especially in smaller local units of
>government takes actual work that most voters are unwilling to do. In
>higher profile races, voters tend to vote on emotion rather than making
>hard choices. Too many politicians in my state get elected who have or
>are likely to commit felonies, and it's just a super-welcoming hunting
>ground for federal prosecutors making a name for themselves opposing
>public corruption. But voters just don't care.

I'm suggesting to you that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with
me though probably would have been appalled by much of what passes
for "political reporting" or commentary (e.g. opinion masquerading as
news) these days.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:30:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Laws against ballot harvesting are required due to the nature of
>mail-in ballots. With in-person voting, the voter identifies himself to
>the election judge. The ballot then remains within the jurisdiction of
>election judges. With vote-by-mail, you at least want the ballot to be
>in the voter's control from the time the blank ballot is delivered till
>it's mailed or dropped off at an official site. With ballot harvesting,
>the ballot is given to someone untrusted by the voter, and that's a good
>reason to make the practice illegal in addition to making illegal
>unauthorized changes to the ballot or failing to return the ballot.

Canadian political parties have had PRECISELY this problem in
electoral districts where there is a predominance of one ethnic
community with a lot of recently naturalized people who are not fluent
in English. In quite a few cases it has been known to lead to
nomination of specific candidates that would not have had a chance of
winning the nomination any other way (and some of those candidates
have been major embarassments to their party involving verbal diarrhea
around microphones....)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:30:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>My state doesn't require voter ID for in-person voting, unless there's
>some sort of issue. If there is an issue requiring ID, then the voter
>can vote provisionally to clear up the ID issue within a certain amount
>of time after the polls close.

Canada is fairly liberal in terms of what sort of ID they require for
voting - but they DO require ID. A recent utility bill showing the
person's name with their address will do the trick as will anything
showing name and address.

They tend to be more trusting on citizenship as long as the person is
fluent. (For instance my sister-in-law came from the UK when she was
aged 12 and still has her accent but has no difficulty)

They also mail out a card to each voter telling them where their
designated polling station is located (and during COVID they moved a
LOT of stations since elementary schools tend to be the usual locaiton
but in 2021 they moved to a lot of church halls and shopping malls as
the school board didn't want the kids exposed to too many people
unknown to school auhorities - last time I voted it was a Saturday so
that was a non-issue for the school. I normally take either my
passport, driver's licence or the poll card to the polls for ID and
have never had any problem. Last time even though I had both they
didn't even ask. Guess I must look honest!

>>Having served as a scrutineer I know I saw some voters turn up on
>>election day that I heavily wondered about but didn't challenge.
>
>Is that a poll watcher?

A poll scrutineer is a party designed rep who is expected to stay at
the polling station during voting and is able to challenge a voter
they think is ineligible for various reasons (i.e. 'you've already
voted today!' or not being who they are represented to be - this is
something parties tell their scrutineers they're NOT supposed to do
unless they are stone cold certain and are expected to call in if they
do do so). They are also expected to assist with handcounting ballots
at the close of voting (under strict rules) and to stay until the
count is done if they stay past the close of voting. (When I did it I
stayed the day except for a couple of restroom breaks)

They are unpaid and are quite different from polling staff (my son has
done several elections and got around $200 each day - in the last
election with his experience he got hired as a poll captain in charge
of a station - about 10-15 poll workers - and was paid more)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:43:04 -0500, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <tm8hoj$1g57c$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2022 12:55 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> It's a real problem because it was being done by a person in authority.
>> >
>> >> In several schools in our district they were registering 11th and 12th
>> >> graders to vote - the forms they were given CLEARLY made it clear that
>> >> the voting age was 18 but since the election was 2 years away that
>> >> wasn't an issue.
>> >
>> > The same thing is true in my state, that one can register to vote as
>> > long as one will have turned 18 by the next election. I turned 18 in an
>> > odd-numbered year between elections that were 6 weeks apart with a full
>> > four-week period in which voter registration was closed. I wasn't aware
>> > of the period during which registration was closed and missed the narrow
>> > window I had to register. I therefore missed voting in the first
>> > election I would have been eligible to vote in.
>> >
>> >> Alternately they could check the box on the income
>> >> tax form authorizing the tax authorities to give their personal
>> >> information to the elections commission.
>> >
>> > We have Motor Voter (federal law) in which one can chose to have voter
>> > registration information sent by registering for a driver's license or
>> > any number of other federal welfare programs. I don't like it because I
>> > don't want the sending of information from one government agency to
>> > another to mess up my voter registration that's in good standing. But
>> > the thing I have to remember to do each time I move is change my address
>> > separately on the voter registry so I get a piece of paper with my new
>> > address on it. This only works well if both addresses are in the
>> > jurisdiction of the same voter registrar. Changing the address with
>> > drivers' service bureau is something I just tell them but they don't
>> > make the physical update on the license itself till I get it renewed,
>> > and in the interim, the old address continues to shw in the database,
>> > which in turn gets submitted to the same database that new voter
>> > registrations are checked against. They gave me an amazingly hard time
>> > about voter registration last time I moved since I didn't yet have a
>> > piece of paper in hand that they'd accept to verify the address. I'm
>> > allowed to show a bank statement but I absolutely refused to do that.
>>
>> They won't accept a current lease, or a utility bill?
>
>
>They've always accepted a utility bill, at least from me. I must have
>that kind of face.

Ditto - though I have used bank statements folded the usual way (i.e.
so the address information and the bank logo was visible but nothing
else) and never been asked to unfold it. Our folks always will take
utility bills though I've no idea on leases. I did use my municipal
tax bill one year - though in each case made sure all those documents
were folded as described. I don't mind them seeing what bank branch I
use as long as they don't want to see my balance.

On 12/1/2022 9:29 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 15:14:34 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2022 2:39 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:50:19 -0500, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But no one's standing over the bussed voters to ensure that they vote
>>>>> for one party over another. They're simply getting them there.
>>>>
>>>> So, a voter could lie about which way he'll vote, just to get the free
>>>> ride? Hey, look, we've invented a new kind of "voter fraud"!...
>>>
>>> Why would they have to lie? As I said previously my grandfather was a
>>> federal candidate 50 years ago and his people didn't expect anything
>>> from their passengers besides "thank you for the ride". If they made
>>> it clear how they DID vote then his staff took note of that but had
>>> instructions NOT to ask.
>>>
>>> A higher voter turnout was considered to be a positive social good -
>>> hopefully we still do
>>
>> Yeah, I'm just being fanciful and sarcastic. Afaics, *all* measures
>> undertaken to ensure the "integrity" of the vote are purely partisan.
>
> I don't agree - how is the box on the income tax form (admittedly I'm
> talking the Canadian T1 tax form rather than the equivalent US 1040
> form) authorizing the tax people to release your information to the
> voter registration people partisan?
>
> I for one would be delighted to have the 95+% voter turnout rate
> enjoyed by Australia though am not willing to impose Australian style
> mandatory voting legislation to get it.
>
> Obviously I would prefer my chosen party win most of the elections but
> either way a very high voter turnout rate says good things about the
> state of society at large. I >want< my fellow citizens to be engaged
> and not just accept uncritically the pap that qualifies for news these
> days.

For practical purposes, a million people are no wiser than a hundred
....and, arguably, are even *less* wise, as each of the hundred is more
likely to recognize the importance of his well researched vote.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:55:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Alternately they could check the box on the income
>>> tax form authorizing the tax authorities to give their personal
>>> information to the elections commission.
>>
>> We have Motor Voter (federal law) in which one can chose to have voter
>> registration information sent by registering for a driver's license or
>> any number of other federal welfare programs. I don't like it because I
>> don't want the sending of information from one government agency to
>> another to mess up my voter registration that's in good standing. But
>> the thing I have to remember to do each time I move is change my address
>> separately on the voter registry so I get a piece of paper with my new
>> address on it. This only works well if both addresses are in the
>> jurisdiction of the same voter registrar. Changing the address with
>> drivers' service bureau is something I just tell them but they don't
>> make the physical update on the license itself till I get it renewed,
>> and in the interim, the old address continues to shw in the database,
>> which in turn gets submitted to the same database that new voter
>> registrations are checked against. They gave me an amazingly hard time
>> about voter registration last time I moved since I didn't yet have a
>> piece of paper in hand that they'd accept to verify the address. I'm
>> allowed to show a bank statement but I absolutely refused to do that.
>
> What I'm talking about is completely voluntary not mandated.
>
> I'm assuming you're OK with that?
>
> (I normally DON'T check that box since I live my life by my middle
> name while the tax authorities require my full name. I have told the
> story about the last time I checked that box here already!)
>

So everybody calls you “horny”?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:55:53 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>Alternately they could check the box on the income
>>>tax form authorizing the tax authorities to give their personal
>>>information to the elections commission.

>>We have Motor Voter (federal law) in which one can chose to have voter
>>registration information sent by registering for a driver's license or
>>any number of other federal welfare programs. I don't like it because I
>>don't want the sending of information from one government agency to
>>another to mess up my voter registration that's in good standing. But
>>the thing I have to remember to do each time I move is change my address
>>separately on the voter registry so I get a piece of paper with my new
>>address on it. This only works well if both addresses are in the
>>jurisdiction of the same voter registrar. Changing the address with
>>drivers' service bureau is something I just tell them but they don't
>>make the physical update on the license itself till I get it renewed,
>>and in the interim, the old address continues to shw in the database,
>>which in turn gets submitted to the same database that new voter
>>registrations are checked against. They gave me an amazingly hard time
>>about voter registration last time I moved since I didn't yet have a
>>piece of paper in hand that they'd accept to verify the address. I'm
>>allowed to show a bank statement but I absolutely refused to do that.

>What I'm talking about is completely voluntary not mandated.

>I'm assuming you're OK with that?

If it doesn't screw up the taxpayer's voter registration record, I would
have no objection, but I don't believe it doesn't increase the
likelihood that mistakes will be made.

In the United States, Motor Voter is mandatory unless the person
applying for or renewing the driver's license opts out of voter
registration, which I always do. My objection isn't whether it's
voluntary or mandatory but my distrust of interconnected systems, in
which one error can create additional errors in multiple databases.

>(I normally DON'T check that box since I live my life by my middle
>name while the tax authorities require my full name. I have told the
>story about the last time I checked that box here already!)

Ouch

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 21:30:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>My state doesn't require voter ID for in-person voting, unless there's
>>some sort of issue. If there is an issue requiring ID, then the voter
>>can vote provisionally to clear up the ID issue within a certain amount
>>of time after the polls close.

>Canada is fairly liberal in terms of what sort of ID they require for
>voting - but they DO require ID. A recent utility bill showing the
>person's name with their address will do the trick as will anything
>showing name and address.

>They tend to be more trusting on citizenship as long as the person is
>fluent. (For instance my sister-in-law came from the UK when she was
>aged 12 and still has her accent but has no difficulty)

They don't trust the voter enough not to mandate showing identification
for in-person voting.

>They also mail out a card to each voter telling them where their
>designated polling station is located (and during COVID they moved a
>LOT of stations since elementary schools tend to be the usual locaiton
>but in 2021 they moved to a lot of church halls and shopping malls as
>the school board didn't want the kids exposed to too many people
>unknown to school auhorities - last time I voted it was a Saturday so
>that was a non-issue for the school. I normally take either my
>passport, driver's licence or the poll card to the polls for ID and
>have never had any problem. Last time even though I had both they
>didn't even ask. Guess I must look honest!

My state does that but the purpose is to conduct a canvass. If the mail
isn't deliverable, there is a procedure for striking the person from the
voting rolls. There are lots of errors.

>>>Having served as a scrutineer I know I saw some voters turn up on
>>>election day that I heavily wondered about but didn't challenge.

>>Is that a poll watcher?

>A poll scrutineer is a party designed rep who is expected to stay at
>the polling station during voting and is able to challenge a voter
>they think is ineligible for various reasons (i.e. 'you've already
>voted today!' or not being who they are represented to be - this is
>something parties tell their scrutineers they're NOT supposed to do
>unless they are stone cold certain and are expected to call in if they
>do do so). They are also expected to assist with handcounting ballots
>at the close of voting (under strict rules) and to stay until the
>count is done if they stay past the close of voting. (When I did it I
>stayed the day except for a couple of restroom breaks)

Ok. That's a called poll watcher here. They can be assigned by
candidate, party (unless all elections on the ballot are nonpartisan
which can happen in an odd-numbered year), or proponent or opponent of a
referendum. In olden days in which candidates used to have volunteers
canvassing voters (asking whom they'd vote for), the poll watcher would
strike names from the list of those who voted. Then late in the
afternoon, other volunteers would knock on doors trying to encourage
their partisans to come out and vote before the polls close. In a tight
election, the campaign with the better-operated volunteer system could
change the outcome.

It's almost never done these days with fewer campaign volunteers and the
belief that nagging voters endlessly with automated phone calls and text
messages wins votes.

>They are unpaid and are quite different from polling staff (my son has
>done several elections and got around $200 each day - in the last
>election with his experience he got hired as a poll captain in charge
>of a station - about 10-15 poll workers - and was paid more)

In my state and most states, "paid polling staff" are called election
judges.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:59:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>A higher voter turnout was considered to be a positive social good -
>>>hopefully we still do

>>I don't. Learning about the issues, especially in smaller local units of
>>government takes actual work that most voters are unwilling to do. In
>>higher profile races, voters tend to vote on emotion rather than making
>>hard choices. Too many politicians in my state get elected who have or
>>are likely to commit felonies, and it's just a super-welcoming hunting
>>ground for federal prosecutors making a name for themselves opposing
>>public corruption. But voters just don't care.

>I'm suggesting to you that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with
>me though probably would have been appalled by much of what passes
>for "political reporting" or commentary (e.g. opinion masquerading as
>news) these days.

I have no idea why you would say that, given the nature of voting at the
time. Voter registration in rural areas, which was most of the country,
was limited to those who owned very large estates. Even as the franchise
expanded, voting tended to take place at town meetings, which meant that
votes were public and the elites in town were generally able to
intimidate others into getting their way.

None of this would change till there were secret ballots, which the
Founding Fathers would not have conceived of.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:21:42 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:55:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> What I'm talking about is completely voluntary not mandated.
>>
>> I'm assuming you're OK with that?
>>
>> (I normally DON'T check that box since I live my life by my middle
>> name while the tax authorities require my full name. I have told the
>> story about the last time I checked that box here already!)
>>
>
>So everybody calls you “horny”?

Hahaha - my real name is rare enough anybody who can figure out Google
can figure out quite a bit about my life since I've been involved in
several activities with significant net exposure.

At least if they know my home town which I've never especially tried
to hide here particularly when bantering with Rhino...

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:54:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>It's almost never done these days with fewer campaign volunteers and the
>belief that nagging voters endlessly with automated phone calls and text
>messages wins votes.
>
I am a dues paying member of my local constituency association and if
our folks tried that kind of horsebleep with me I'd be an ex-member in
short order.

I get enough of those fake Amazon calls wanting me to divulge personal
information due to fake fake calls on the Amazon account I used to
have but don't currently have mostly because while Amazon USED to make
it possible to do 2 factor authentication by email they do it ONLY by
cell phone now and since I don't have one that makes me an ex-customer
(and told them so through their website)

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:54:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>They are unpaid and are quite different from polling staff (my son has
>>done several elections and got around $200 each day - in the last
>>election with his experience he got hired as a poll captain in charge
>>of a station - about 10-15 poll workers - and was paid more)
>
>In my state and most states, "paid polling staff" are called election
>judges.

Election JUDGES?!?!?!?!?

I'm talking about the people who check you against the voters' list on
arrival and watch you put your ballot through the slot. I'm also
talking about the people who check you in and get you to the right
ballot desk and manage the line outside the polling room.

While I respect the work of such people I'd never call them
judges.....(and two of my children have done those jobs in past
elections)

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 17:19:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>I have no idea why you would say that, given the nature of voting at the
>time. Voter registration in rural areas, which was most of the country,
>was limited to those who owned very large estates. Even as the franchise
>expanded, voting tended to take place at town meetings, which meant that
>votes were public and the elites in town were generally able to
>intimidate others into getting their way.
>
>None of this would change till there were secret ballots, which the
>Founding Fathers would not have conceived of.

In the 19th century before Canada had the secret ballot you used to
have to go up on the platform and declare your ballot. After you came
down from the platform it used to be common for your candidate's agent
to come up and offer you a tot of whiskey. (Since both party's did it
unless you were incredibly brand loyal you knew you were getting your
whiskey so were not considered to have 'sold your vote')

That was of course before the days of the secret ballot and media
advertising which is of course much more expensive than whiskey.

In article <gigmohd6p7v2270fuj2n7n5iudrh0jqe41@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat
<lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:54:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>They are unpaid and are quite different from polling staff (my son has
> >>done several elections and got around $200 each day - in the last
> >>election with his experience he got hired as a poll captain in charge
> >>of a station - about 10-15 poll workers - and was paid more)
> >
> >In my state and most states, "paid polling staff" are called election
> >judges.
>
> Election JUDGES?!?!?!?!?

Yes. They're called election judges. I don't know if anyone's ever
been astonished by that before, but I'm sure those overworked and
poorly paid people would be pleased by it.

> I'm talking about the people who check you against the voters' list on
> arrival and watch you put your ballot through the slot. I'm also
> talking about the people who check you in and get you to the right
> ballot desk and manage the line outside the polling room.
>
> While I respect the work of such people I'd never call them
> judges.....(and two of my children have done those jobs in past
> elections)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 16:54:20 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>They are unpaid and are quite different from polling staff (my son has
>>>done several elections and got around $200 each day - in the last
>>>election with his experience he got hired as a poll captain in charge
>>>of a station - about 10-15 poll workers - and was paid more)

>>In my state and most states, "paid polling staff" are called election
>>judges.

>Election JUDGES?!?!?!?!?

That's the term used in the election code of most states, yes; a few
states use other terms. A voter makes application to vote to the
election judge. When I worked as an olden days in olden days, we had
printed lists of registered voters and preprinted applications to vote
for all but those voters who registered after the applications were
printed. An election judge initials the ballot blank and hands it to the
voter. After the voter finishes voting, the election judge checks that
the ballot was initialed (and that it belongs to that precinct if there
are multiple precincts voting at the same polling place) and watches as
the voter casts the ballot into the ballot box.

An election judge is paid by the county or whichever unit of local
government is in charge of the election.

In most states, unpaid volunteers observing voting are called
pollwatchers. Generally, these people are partisan for a candidate or
referendum or for a political party. If the candidate performed a
canvass of the precinct, the poll watcher will have a list of voters to
check off so that by late afternoon, other volunteers will knock on
doors hoping to find their supporters at home to encourage them to go to
the poll to vote.

A poll watcher MUST NOT handle applications to vote, ballots, nor any
equipment. He is allowed to hear the voter's name and address to check
off his list.

>I'm talking about the people who check you against the voters' list on
>arrival and watch you put your ballot through the slot. I'm also
>talking about the people who check you in and get you to the right
>ballot desk and manage the line outside the polling room.

You said "unpaid and are quite different from polling staff". The unpaid
people at a polling site MUST NOT handle any voting equipment or
materials and are the poll watchers. They check voters off from their
own lists but do not check a voter in to receive the ballot. I can't
believe it's any different in Canada.

>While I respect the work of such people I'd never call them
>judges.....(and two of my children have done those jobs in past
>elections)

The paid polling staff you mentioned, the ones who handle the
applications and the ballots, are comparable to election judges in the
United States. You've conflated different groups of people who perform
different duties.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Thu, 1 Dec 2022 17:19:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I have no idea why you would say that, given the nature of voting at the
>>time. Voter registration in rural areas, which was most of the country,
>>was limited to those who owned very large estates. Even as the franchise
>>expanded, voting tended to take place at town meetings, which meant that
>>votes were public and the elites in town were generally able to
>>intimidate others into getting their way.

>>None of this would change till there were secret ballots, which the
>>Founding Fathers would not have conceived of.

>In the 19th century before Canada had the secret ballot you used to
>have to go up on the platform and declare your ballot. After you came
>down from the platform it used to be common for your candidate's agent
>to come up and offer you a tot of whiskey. (Since both party's did it
>unless you were incredibly brand loyal you knew you were getting your
>whiskey so were not considered to have 'sold your vote')

Yeah, right. Receiving a payoff for having voted the way someone else
wanted you to vote wasn't corruption of any kind. People liked to delude
themselves.

>That was of course before the days of the secret ballot and media
>advertising which is of course much more expensive than whiskey.

You cut out your own quote of your idea of what the Founding Fathers
would have thought of today's partisanship and lower voter turnout.

The fact is that as the Founding Fathers had no concept of either mass
eligibility for voter registration nor secret ballots, the notion that
they'd condemn this aspect of modern society isn't meaningful.

With an open ballot, that more and more people were eligible to vote was
irrelevant as the elites almost always got their way. The difference was
the secret ballot.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:21:42 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:55:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> What I'm talking about is completely voluntary not mandated.
>>>
>>> I'm assuming you're OK with that?
>>>
>>> (I normally DON'T check that box since I live my life by my middle
>>> name while the tax authorities require my full name. I have told the
>>> story about the last time I checked that box here already!)
>>>
>>
>> So everybody calls you “horny”?
>
> Hahaha - my real name is rare enough anybody who can figure out Google
> can figure out quite a bit about my life since I've been involved in
> several activities with significant net exposure.
>
> At least if they know my home town which I've never especially tried
> to hide here particularly when bantering with Rhino...
>

:)

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 15:31:42 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I'm talking about the people who check you against the voters' list on
>>arrival and watch you put your ballot through the slot. I'm also
>>talking about the people who check you in and get you to the right
>>ballot desk and manage the line outside the polling room.
>
>You said "unpaid and are quite different from polling staff". The unpaid
>people at a polling site MUST NOT handle any voting equipment or
>materials and are the poll watchers. They check voters off from their
>own lists but do not check a voter in to receive the ballot. I can't
>believe it's any different in Canada.

Correct - the first group are the paid employees that do pretty much
everything. That's my son (for several elections) who was a poll
supervisor (e.g. the above peoples' boss) in the second last election.

The other group is what I was who never touched anything until the
close of voting but we were asked to take our places at various tables
as each ballot box was opened for counting. We very much DID handle
ballots but there were no voters around at that time. Generally there
were 5 or 6 of us at each table, and our job was to break the ballots
into multiple piles based on who the ballot was for. The paid poll
worker was expected to break the ballots (which had been sorted by my
people by candidate) into lots of 50 ballots each (can't remember
whether these were put into separate envelopes or stapled)) which in
case of recount made the job much faster.

If a ballot fell off the table we were expected to say so and somebody
else retrieved the errant ballot. There was no suggestion of ballots
disappearing up sleeves etc.

Again - when I did it our crew counted something like 1500 ballots 3
times each and it took us a little over 90 minutes for the results to
be finalized including the official form that went into each bag of
ballots summarizing the results. This included the time it took for
the (paid) poll captain to phone in the results to their office.

All the ballots once sorted were placed back into the ballot boxes and
locked and depending on the level of paid staff, our help was
requested to load the boxes into the poll captain's minivan. (In one
election they were glad for our help, in the other 'thanks but no
thanks')

We never handled ballots except on the round tables (about 5' wide
each) in full view of everybody and any monkey business would have
been quickly caught.

Again that was my personal experience (Admittedly 40 years ago) As
they say "your mileage may vary"

On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 15:40:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Thu, 1 Dec 2022 17:19:11 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>In the 19th century before Canada had the secret ballot you used to
>>have to go up on the platform and declare your ballot. After you came
>>down from the platform it used to be common for your candidate's agent
>>to come up and offer you a tot of whiskey. (Since both party's did it
>>unless you were incredibly brand loyal you knew you were getting your
>>whiskey so were not considered to have 'sold your vote')
>
>Yeah, right. Receiving a payoff for having voted the way someone else
>wanted you to vote wasn't corruption of any kind. People liked to delude
>themselves.

The attitude in those days was 'if I turn out to vote I either get
party A's whiskey or party B's whiskey". Presumably they consulted
each other to ensure there was no quality difference in the hootch!

>>That was of course before the days of the secret ballot and media
>>advertising which is of course much more expensive than whiskey.
>
>You cut out your own quote of your idea of what the Founding Fathers
>would have thought of today's partisanship and lower voter turnout.
>
>The fact is that as the Founding Fathers had no concept of either mass
>eligibility for voter registration nor secret ballots, the notion that
>they'd condemn this aspect of modern society isn't meaningful.
>
>With an open ballot, that more and more people were eligible to vote was
>irrelevant as the elites almost always got their way. The difference was
>the secret ballot.

I'm NOT saying the secret ballot is a bad thing - I'm suggesting the
ballot wasn't always secret. We're talking 150-250 years so that's a
lot of elections.

I very much DO support the secret ballot - what I'm skeptical about is
most kinds of voting machines as well as mail-in ballots that go to
their destination other than via the Post Office since I believe that
method makes voter fraud far easier to pull off.

(For the record, in the two elections I did we were told that all
ballots would be destroyed 7 days after the election if there was no
recount or 7 days after the completion of the recount being certified
either by the chief election officer or a judge the significance of
the 7 days being that was the time limit for applying for recount or
other action. Judicial recounts were more time consuming than a
regular recount since they were performed in front of a judge who saw
every single ballot as it came out of the box)

That is the question of the hour.

Very stupid?

Extremely stupid?

Transcendentally stupid?

Yes.

You think the party's leadership has reached peak dumb and then � for the
first and only time in history � the GOPe exceeds your expectations. You
might think, in the wake of yet another couple of humiliating defeats, the
Establishment would undertake a deep and searching personal inventory, but if
it did that then it would not be the dumbest leadership of the dumbest party
in American politics. And American politics includes the Libertarian Party.

We have three big issues right now where the GOP establishment is at a fork
in the road. One path ahead is consistent with conservative principles, with
the base's inclinations, and with not being brain-dead half-wits. The other
path is what the Republican elite will probably do.

Issue One is Sen. Thom Tillis's inexplicable decision to cavort with the
communists to secure amnesty and ensure the resulting chain migration of
millions of people who will follow behind the illegal aliens he wants to
reward for breaking our laws. Look, Tillis was never going to get confused
with Stephen Hawking, but this is a remarkably dumb move even by GOP
standards. It is terrible policy that directly insults the base after the
party has blown two unblowable elections in a month and helps our enemies �
it's a lose-lose-lose. Perhaps he convened a council of renowned idiots to
come up with an initiative that combines treating the base like Taylor Swift
treats her exes with handing the enemy millions of votes while making a
mockery of the rule of law. Well, the Great Idiot Council did a great job.

The Tillis Plan is actually remarkable in its comprehensive idiocy.
Basically, Tillis allows millions of illegal aliens to become Democrat-voting
citizens � and import their entire families � in return for the Democrats
pinky-swearing that they will sort of enforce the law that is already on the
books a little more than they are doing now, which is none. No wall, of
course. No stepped-up deportations. Nothing but a promise from an
administration that has already refused to keep its promise to enforce the
law. Charlie Brown would see this football pull coming. Wimpy will be at
Tillis's door dunning the Senator for burger money for which he will happily
repay him Tuesday. And then he'll stiff him.

Really � is Tillis stupid? This seems more than normal dumb. It seems
pathological. Does he need a clinical workup? It's charitable to assume the
senator is merely a dumbass � hell, every one of us remembers every other
"amnesty for broken promises" scam, so why doesn't he? The alternative is
that Tillis is in active collusion with our enemies. After all, what would he
be doing differently if he was?

Is whichever Carolina he represents until his ass gets primaried some sort of
hotbed of pro-illegal alien coddling? I doubt it. One wonders where Tillis
got the idea that what the Republican base wants is to throw out the red
carpet to a bunch of illegal aliens and their entire family trees. The base
is going nuts about the border being left open and Tillis thinks the "border
security" fig leaf is going to hide the unit the Democrats will use on us
good and hard.

Who is happy about Tillis's brainstorm outside of the Democrats? Maybe Big
Business, to the limited extent it is distinguishable from the Democrats
these days. And it certainly takes the heat off of Senator John Cornyn, whose
own self-own of supporting gun control � because we sent the Republicans to
Washington to help the Democrats pass gun control, right? � was similarly
baffling. No one in the Republican Party outside of Washington, D.C., wants
amnesty. No one. How many times do we need to say it? And you can label
illegal aliens "undocumented workers," "dreamers," or "actors of love" all
you want. They broke our laws. They get nothing but the boot. They can kiss
our amnesty.

Look, it's pretty clear that Thom Tillis is the Mazie Hirono of the GOP, the
dumbest member of a dumb party. Again, that's being charitable. It's the
best-case scenario. The more cynical among us might suspect that Tillis knows
exactly what a complete betrayal of the already betrayed-out GOP base this is
and simply does not care. But I have faith in Thom Tillis. I think he's just
really stupid.

The other two big stupidity issues currently facing the party are the
Republican National Committee chair race and the House Speaker contest. They
both have the capacity for major idiocy as well. In the RNC Chair race, the
great Harmeet Dhillon has challenged five-time loser Ronna McDaniel � way to
lose that Georgia run-off (again), Ronna!

How many times does Ronna McDaniel have to fail before it dawns on the
establishment that maybe � just maybe � she is not very good at her job? But
hey, maybe the sixth time's the charm!

Ronna is running on a platform of "I'm going to focus on corralling enough
votes from establishment insiders who don't care about winning real elections
to make sure I win mine." She has not asked the GOP base for support �
because the base is an afterthought � and she sure as hell does not have it.
My informal Twitter poll of 5,992 people showed her winning a statistically
astonishing .6% of the vote. Hell, you can't get 99.4% of Americans to agree
that Rage Against the Machine sucks, but that number agrees Ronna does.

The GOP establishment, which does the voting, can 1) choose a talented and
smart lawyer who has fought election battles, knows how to communicate, and
has not lost every election she has presided over, or it can 2) stick with
the five-time loser in the hopes she suddenly stops being terrible at the job
she's been terrible at for years. The smart move is to show the base that the
GOP is ready to improve and to prepare itself for 2024. The dumb move is not
to. The GOP establishment best think carefully. Our patience is exhausted.
GOPe � time to hand Ronna a silver Seiko � gold watches and coffee are for
closers � thank her for her service, and send her off to a nice job at some
think tank where she can't do any more damage.

The other current dumbfest is the Speaker fight in the House. A bunch of
people dislike Kevin McCarthy. I'm not a fan. But who else comes close to
getting 218 votes? And what are the risks if this fight does not resolve?
They are grave. This fight must end � now.

McCarthy needs to compromise with the Freedom Caucus guys. Conversely, the
Freedom Caucus guys, who I sympathize with, need to compromise and get on
board. No one gets everything they want � next time, win so decisively that
you can. But neither side did, so neither side gets to dictate terms. Time to
elect Kevin McCarthy Speaker. And I'm not thrilled to write that. But here's
the problem with a coup � you need a guy to replace the guy you couped and
there is no one else who has the votes. You can't replace someone with no
one. And there's no one else ready, willing, and electable.

Wish there was. There isn't. Eschew emotion and focus on the facts. Facts
famously do not care about your feelings. The danger, and it is a danger, is
that the razor-thin House majority � thanks again, Ronna! � means a dozen or
so "moderate" Republicans can unite with the Democrats to elect a "moderate"
Speaker who, of course, will not be moderate at all. The bottom line is that
this posturing could cost us a majority � it has happened out in the states
in exactly this way. Don't think it could happen here? Well, my friend, you
have a lot more faith in the ability of the GOP not to be stupid than I do.

Freedom Caucus, pick your battles. This is not one of them. Kevin McCarthy,
compromise with the Freedom Caucus. Make a deal. All of you � including the
ones I like and am friendly with � get this done.

Don't be stupid, GOP.

Surprise us all.

And somebody please primary that idiot Thom Tillis.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Democrats continue to seek new voting blocs amid their declining support from
working-class voters. Extra to looking for ways to confer voting rights upon
illegal aliens and foreign nationals, some Democrats are seeking ways to add
high-schoolers to their ranks.

The Boston City Council approved a petition last week to allow juvenile
residents to vote in municipal elections. Critics have suggested that the
petition, which may still be killed at the state level, may be less about
suffrage and more about potential partisan gains.

What are the details?
In a 9-4 vote with leftists composing the majority, the Boston City Council
approved a petition on Nov. 30 that would allow 16- and 17-year-old residents
to vote in municipal elections.

The petition was sent to Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu's desk for approval.

The Boston Globe reported that the proposed law would grant local � not
federal or state � voting rights to teenage citizens without felony
convictions.

In addition to getting to vote in local elections, 16- and 17-year-old
registrants will also be pre-registered to vote in state and federal
elections upon turning 18.

The measure will go to the Massachusetts legislature for approval, which is
anything but guaranteed. Previous attempts to give juveniles the vote in the
state have failed in the state House.

Councilor Julia Mejia, a co-sponsor of the petition, told WGBH that "young
people are often the ones who are educating their parents and their peers and
their family members about what is at stake when it comes to elections."

Teens in Boston are incredibly well-informed, and sometimes even
educating the adults in their life, said @juliaforboston. She told
@reillyadam on Talking Politics that they deserve the right to vote.
https://t.co/oRpF3GuWN1\u201d

� Greater Boston (@Greater Boston) 1670016991

Mejia also suggested that teens "are working � oftentimes two jobs � just to
help support their families, paying taxes and on the front lines protesting
and trying to find ways to have their voices heard. And every day we make
decisions on their behalf."

She previously pointed to BLM as an example of what she regarded as positive
politicking on the part of young people, illustrative of their ability to do
more.

According to Mejia, teenagers not old enough to get into R-rated movies
should not be denied a say on public policy.

According to Public School Review, public schools in Boston School District �
full of the city's potential voters � have an average math proficiency score
of 35% and reading proficiency score of 37%. The district's average testing
ranking is 2/10.

Towards a possible Democrat pedocracy
Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, told the Boston
Globe that lowering the voting age "just doesn't make sense."

"You're asking adults to weigh their ballot compared to children. ... Even if
you have some children that are really mature for that age, everyone can
acknowledge that 16-, 17-year-olds are still developing," said Craney.

Craney flipped the progressive rhetoric, suggesting that he is "all for
getting them immersed in the democratic process," but as campaign volunteers
rather than determiners of regional fate.

"I think there is a big, distinct difference [between that and] throwing
ballots in front of them and asking them to make these decisions when they're
minors," Craney added.

Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission and
senior legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and
Judicial Studies, told Just the News, "This is a foolish, cynical move by
Boston and other jurisdictions."

"Under the law, 16- and 17-year-olds are minors. They can't sign contracts or
leases, buy alcohol, join the military, serve on a jury, or engage in a host
of other activities that only legal adults are qualified to engage in because
we as a society have judged that they have not yet developed the experience
and judgment to make such decisions," said Spakovsky. "They aren't even
treated as adults when they commit crimes, except under exceptional
circumstances, for the very same reason."

City Councilor Erin Murphy voted in the minority against the measure,
suggesting that kids are more easily influenced than adults and that
involving them at a younger age may compromise their privacy, since
registered voters' records become public.

"I worry that certain kids would be influenced into voting for a certain
candidate instead of really coming up with their own opinion," Murphy told
WBTS.

At a hearing in March, Murphy expounded on this concern, reported WGBH.

"I worry as a parent. I�ve lived through raising three teenagers. They have a
lot to offer. I think they�re full of wisdom and have lots of ideas and
thoughts, but I also think that they�re very impressionable," said Murphy.

Murphy also intimated that the ability to vote at this age may not be so much
a concern of 16- and 17-year-olds but rather of those keen to reap their
votes.

"I have never heard from any 16- or 17-year-old directly. ... I am hearing
from voting rights advocates who are adults, but I'm never hearing directly
from children who say they want it," she added.

To benefit from naivety
The Deccan Herald reported that in the November 2022 election, youth voter
turnout was huge, with 63% of the national youth vote choice for the U.S.
House of Representatives going to Democrats.

Tufts' Center for Information and Research on Civic Leaning and Engagement
recently broke down youth vote choice by sex and LGBT identification in the
2022 midterms: 71% of women and 53% of men ages 18-29 voted for a Democratic
candidate.

Edison Research National Election Pool exit poll data showed that while
youths were disproportionately inclined to vote Democrat, voters ages 30-44
were near-evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and older voters
favored Republicans.

It is therefore understandable why outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Rep. Nikema Williams (Ga.), and other federal
Democrats have endeavored to find or introduce legal ways to register
teenagers under the age of 18 to vote.

--
Let's go Brandon!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 03:48:04 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> [Stacey Abrams] hasn't incited the violent overthrow of any level of
>> government. That puts her head and shoulders above Trump just to
>> start. (And even if she had such immoral inclinations, I've seen no
>> sign that she's maniacally deluded enough to think that that tinpot
>> insurrection could have succeeded, as Trump was deluded in thinking.)
>
> No she hasn't but has twice denounced election 'fraud' and what she
> calls voter suppression.

Voter suppression I've head before, and some of it is just plain common
sense. Why are the long lines to vote always in majority-minority
districts? Why do voter roll purges of valid voters disproportionately
disenfranchise minority voters? In a state where elections could turn
on less than a percent of the vote, even small attempts at suppression
could be a determining factor. More than that, though. People who are
eligible to vote and registered to vote deserve to have their say even
if it doesn't change the election outcome. One-person-one-vote is the
atomic building block of free and fair elections.

Another sharp distinction between Abrams and Trump is that she didn't go
into semi-exile to piss and moan, but redoubled her efforts to get out
the vote in the next election. Trump just does his tired rallies to the
same MAGA base as before, which isn't going to help him with his lower
vote problem. He doesn't care about getting more votes the next time,
because he doesn't care about winning by the rules.

> To me I think it's the height of idiocy that states are allowed to set
> their own rules for a federal election but then I'm a Canadian and
> you're an American and there are historical reasons for each
> countries' election practices.

I agree that there should be some minimum standards nationwide, but it's
actually not a bad thing that it's so difficult to try to "hack" the
whole nation during an election.

> Despite the fact that I'm a long standing 'reality TV buff' (to the
> point of seeking out and watching foreign Survivors and Big Brothers)
> I still can't believe I watched 3 seasons of the Apprentice since
> while I'd heard of him before that show (I also used to watch pro
> wrestling but gave it up over how the WWF/WWE folks abused their
> female "managers") it wasn't in good terms.

I'll repeat what TV critic Aaron Barnhart said back when _The Apprentice_
was still new. "What's second prize? Two jobs with Donald Trump?"

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 04:13:28 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> Not so ironic. It's the heirs to the Dixiecrats (some of whom are
>> still alive) that are using Republican state legislatures, funded and
>> aimed by such guiding lights as ALEC, who have been waiting to pounce
>> on the overturning of _Roe_ to enshrine abortion prohibitions in
>> state law.
>
> No no no - the Dixiecrats WEREN'T Republicans - they were definitely
> Democrats who rejected the racial equality provisions introduced by
> Democrat presidents like Truman, JFK and LBJ. There's no way you can
> link them to the GOP.

They linked themselves to the GOP. They did so publicly and sometimes
with much ado. C'mon, you can't have missed the great migration of the
Dixiecrats (both elected officials and their constituencies) to the
Republican Party. This isn't ancient history. Some of them are still
alive today.

Take Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as the prototype, the
exemplar of the breed. He even ran for president on the Dixiecrat Party
ticket in the 1948 election. But in 1964, after the civil rights
agitation of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Thurmond changed his
affiliation to the Republican Party and campaigned for Republican Barry
Goldwater for president in 1964.

Now, it didn't happen all at once, but five Southern states went for
Goldwater. The so-called "southern strategy" appealed to the
Dixiecrats, and by Reagan's election as president in 1980, a lot of
Southerners had changed their party affiliation to the GOP, and you
didn't see Eisenhower-style moderate Republicans anymore. The
ideological heirs, and sometimes the actual literal heirs to the
Dixiecrats were the modern Republican Party. Trump saw that better
than the neo-cons, who deluded themselves into thinking that it was
their party.

The "party of Lincoln" became the party of Lincoln's assassins.

> If you want to damn Nixon for anything he should be damned far more
> for his "Southern Strategy" than his relatively small part in
> Watergate which while terrible wasn't as terrible as the Southern
> Strategy which hurt his party more than it helped it and especially in
> the way it legitimized people like Wallace and Farbus and their ilk.

What I damn Nixon for more than anything else is double-dealing with the
South Vietnamese behind the back of the U.S. government in order to get
elected. He was an amoral criminal through and through, putting himself
above the good of the country.

> 1968 was one of the closest US elections in history (while 1972 was
> one of the greatest landslides) and while it's possible NOT making
> Nixon's devil's deal with that crew RMN wouldn't have won in 68, it
> set the GOP on a very bad path.

It often paid off for them, though.

-Micky

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> writes:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:24:14 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> In article <cvWgL.43469$c6W2.39935@fx41.iad>,
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>> On 11/27/2022 10:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>> In article <hs78ohhu9bdjb6oth0kf77m9kggjd1i4nl@4ax.com>,
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> Which was perfectly reasonable for [Abrams] to do since the
>>>>> changes made in our (that is Georgia) voting rules were done
>>>>> solely to help elect Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it bad to change voting rules to help elect Republicans but
>>>> it's not only okay, but desirable, to change rules to help elect
>>>> Democrats?
>>>
>>> Trying to keep people from voting is antithetical to a democracy.
>>
>> Well, when the California legislature changed the state's voting laws
>> to legalize ballot harvesting-- something that's illegal pretty much
>> everywhere else because it's like rolling out the red carpet for
>> voter fraud-- and said right out loud that the reason for the change
>> was to help Democrat voter turnout, I must have missed the howls of
>> outrage from the likes of Stacey Abrams and the boxes of talking
>> heads on CNN and MSNBC bemoaning this partisan attack on the
>> democratic process, and the think-pieces in the New York Times
>> speculating that this marks the beginning of the fall of the
>> republic.
>
> If they were actually engaged in voter fraud then they should be
> arrested and put in jail.

So much attention devoted to something that still hasn't been proven to
happen. California is not hell-bent on stifling Republican voting. It
used to be gerrymandered, but they voted in favor of independent
redistricting a while back. Has a red state done the same? (Serious
question.)

-Micky