Want to End Electoral Fraud? Light Up the Infrastructure!

Source: American Thinker.

As a technical matter, a national voter registration database makes sense. Photo-ID would also be needed to validate the database records at the polling place, although an alternative might be to require registration renewal periodically.

As a Constitutional matter, creating, administering and maintaining such a database would have to be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government.

So long as the quality checks are robust and control is decentralized, the proposal sounds like a great idea to me.

33 thoughts on “Want to End Electoral Fraud? Light Up the Infrastructure!

  1. Is this a joke?
    There is no need to eliminate “electoral fraud.” It does not exist in any meaningful way. And, any writer who treats the story of Jesse Morgan as a serious one is demonstrably a liar and/or a fool.

    With that said there are reforms that would be useful to ease and standardize access to the ballot, to improve reporting and control and to diminish the impact of dark money. These reforms are part and parcel of the For the People Act. That Republicans are doing their utmost to defeat it, it goes without saying that their real goal is not improved elections. And that empty laughable blather like this piece are just part of the smoke they are blowing to cover their real agenda.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As things stand now, there is no way to know one way or the other. That’s the problem. For all I know I could still be voting for Democrats in Louisiana.

      Like

      1. No way to know?

        When a theoretical something that is looked for very, very hard but is never found then you can know that it is very, very unlikely to exist.

        But you want to persist with the Big Lie? Okay what is the solution? There is only one. A national ID document that is linked to a detailed up-to-date record in a central database about your life including each and every time you vote. Without such a system there is “no way to know one way or the other” whether you are still voting in Louisiana. Is THAT what you want? What could possibly go wrong?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Another solution would be to have something like the NICS database nationally compiled from the state databases that the States could use to validate their separate databases.

          It should be easy for a national database to be routinely reconciled with state databases to flag duplicate registrations and death certificates and alert the States of a discrepancy.

          Like

          1. “It should be easy for a national database . . .”

            It is not obvious that this would accomplish anything. How is a national database compiled from state databases going to help in any way? It would have to be maintained separately from different sources to detect errors. The devil – as always – is in the details.

            Like

      2. “For all I know I could still be voting for Democrats in Louisiana.”

        The way you “swap votes” with your Louisiana family, yo may be. But just not in the context you are implying.

        And if you are voting in LA, that is an issue with the state database.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “There is no need to eliminate ‘electoral fraud.'”

    Doesn’t matter. The writer doesn’t argue need, only method. And whether the Jessie Morgan story is true or false, it is a good example of the kind of fraud a national voter registration database could help detect.

    Why do you waste our time by changing the subject?

    Like

    1. “It doesn’t matter?”
      The whole proposal is for the purpose of treating something that does not exist. That matters. It shows what mindless drivel is being offered.

      “Jesse Morgan”
      This silly and debunked story is offered as evidence that SOMETHING must be done. It matters a great deal that it is false. Duh!

      If you think I have changed the subject, then you have no idea what you are posting or linking to. My response was ON TOPIC. The topic you highlighted in YOUR headline. Duh!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. …”it is a good example of the kind of fraud “…

        The only instances of ACTAUL voter fraud has been perpetrated by 45 voters. This is a solution in search of a problem. Instead of focusing on solving real problem, like voter access, which should be addressed, not these fanciful stories of massive voter fraud… THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

        Unless of course it is ALL Democratic voters that are considered fraudulent by the GOP. Which is what it appears to be the case.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “The whole proposal is for the purpose of treating something that does not exist.”

        And yet, your opinion about the existence of electoral fraud is not controlling, and the topic is not about proving or disproving your opinion.

        The irony is, a national voter registration database might even prove that electoral fraud is “non-existent,” but you insist that your opinion is more important than proof.

        Like

        1. …”you insist that your opinion is more important than proof.”

          My opinion is based in FACT. Something that seems to be anathema to ANY of your thinking or opinions. It is not only MY opinion, but the MAJORITY of CLEAR thinking individuals who don’t live on websites that promote idiocy.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. My opinion that electoral fraud is not a significant problem is supported by evidence. Your opinion that it IS a problem is NOT supported by ANY evidence. So, it is on you and the authors of this silly piece to prove that electoral fraud exists since you are claiming that it is a problem that needs a solution. The author tried and cited nonsense like the Jesse Morgan nonsense.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. RE: “Your opinion that it IS a problem is NOT supported by ANY evidence.”

          So you say, but irrelevantly. I support a national database containing voter registration records on the merits, regardless of how prevalent electoral fraud might be. You are arguing the wrong case, stupidly.

          Like

          1. …” regardless of how prevalent electoral fraud might be.”…

            This may be the definition of insanity (doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome) BUT, once again. A solution in search of a problem.

            “doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome”

            On a side note, my favorite episode of this was a Civil War buff shipmate who repeatedly watched Ken Burns’ Civil War film and hoping the South would win…at least once.

            Like

  3. …”administering and maintaining such a database would have to be the responsibility of the states”…

    This isn’t new or inventive. In fact, states have been doing this for YEARS. It is MAINTNENANCE of said databases that has been a recent issue. The removal of voters without notification or verification that the voters are no longer eligible (dead, moved out of state) is the actual issue.

    Blanket removals in GOP led states has led to lawsuits for not following fair protocols when determining whether a voter should be removed or not. Not voting for 2 cycles should not be cause for removal, UNLESS the information is verified that the individual is eligible or not.

    Like

    1. RE: “In fact, states have been doing this for YEARS.”

      Is that a fact? Can you provide a link to the web site for the national database?

      The point of the article is that a national database makes fraud detectable, whereas 50 separate databases that don’t share information makes fraud indetectable.

      Like

      1. Your post makes ZERO sense. You are implying that ALL 50 states are somehow running fraudulent databases that can only be “corrected” by a national database.

        State databases are just fine at detecting fraud. See the idiot who tried to vote in 2020 with both his dead wife’s ballot and a plan to use his dead Mother’s ballot.

        The system works. Quit trying to screw with it.

        And by the by, a national database would probably be ruled unconstitutional by the courts as it is states who run their elections. The entire argument about rejecting HR 1 is that it would nationalize elections. Not true, but that is the argument. You are almost making the case for passing The For the People Act.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “State databases are just fine at detecting fraud. ”

          So you say. The writer has expertise you lack and says otherwise.

          I addressed the Constitutional issue in my post.

          Like

          1. Any cases of attempted fraud have bee found out through the state performing it’s duties wrt to the integrity of the elections.

            The writer should stick to the insurance fraud issues and not screw around in an area where he has a whole bunch of “anecdotes” to back his idiotic claims.

            I will say this one more time. This is a solution looking for a problem.

            The GOP problem is they can not win a plurality of votes. Every elections shows MORE votes for Democrats than Republicans. Through the use of gerrymandering and other nefarious “legal” means, they have maintained control they should not have. Using Wisconsin as an example, 54% of ALL votes in the state went for Democrat candidates, yet 67% of the seats in question went to Republicans.

            There is the real problem: Parties picking their voters

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I will say this one more time. This is a solution looking for a problem.”

            I, too, will say this one more time. This is a solution that makes sense, regardless of the problem. You say you don’t care about electoral fraud detection. I find that remarkable.

            Like

          3. ” You say you don’t care about electoral fraud detection”

            What I find remarkable is you suggesting I don’t care about election fraud. Don’t put words in my mouth.

            What I did say is that the fraud that DOES occur is caught by the system and your constant ranting and raving about a problem that is so miniscule in scope and detected AS IS, is idiotic on its face and just a continuation of the T****ian LIE about rampant, massive fraud.

            The real fraud that is occurring is through the GOP legislatures passing laws in the name of election integrity that have little to nothing to do with election integrity.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. …”50 separate databases that don’t share information makes fraud indetectable.”

        If you have moved from one state to another and not notified your old local registrar, that is on you. BUT in order for someone to perpetrate fraud and vote in your old locale, they would have to prove they are you. They would have to have some sort of ID that shows they are you and then vote in your stead. And then, if they want their own vote to count, also go vote in their precinct. And if they are assigned to your old precinct, good luck with that.

        Your fanciful ideas of trying to find non-existent fraud would be laughable if it weren’t 1) unconstitutional and 2) unnecessary.

        Like

        1. RE: “BUT in order for someone to perpetrate fraud and vote in your old locale, they would have to prove they are you.”

          Maybe so, but a national database would make that kind of fraud easier to discover after the fact. Do you not want that?

          Like

  4. Democrats don’t want voting integrity. Like Paul, they claim fraud doesn’t exist but it has been proven numerous times with no way of knowing how many other times. Just like speeding or drug dealing, it doesn’t exist if you don’t police it. Democrats don’t want policing for obvious reasons.

    Like

      1. No he doesn’t, Just like the AT piece that Todd started the thread on. Everything the “fraud police” have is anecdotal. “I saw this” or I swear they did that”. “Here’s video of ballots in suitcases being broken out late at night.”. All explained as the normal course of running a free and fair election BY THE RULES established by the states as dictated by the Constitution.

        These idiots scream about state’s rights on a regular basis. They talk about how HR1 is a federalization of election rules in the states, NOW they want a freaking national database because they believe THAT is the answer to a question that has already been answered: There has been ZERO fraud to the level necessary to change the outcome of ANY election.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. LOL!

          That was an opinion piece written before the election. It is not evidence. Whatever irregularities may have been feared, they did not materialize – Trump’s lawsuits in Pennsylvania were rejected by both state courts and by the Supreme Court.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Opinions are NOT cites to prove what you want to see. No more than the AT article that uses anecdotes as proof. Stories tend to be more fiction than non-fiction.

          Try again, grasshopper.

          Liked by 1 person

        1. “How does that even matter?”

          I am so sorry that your meds have dropped out of circulation because that is the most delusional post you have made. And THAT is saying A LOT!

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s