posted
Again, for a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Honestly, it isn't the people that show up to fake vote that are going to steal elections. It is the machines that count the votes and the people in charge of them that have that power.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a simple low tech solution to solving the problem of people voting more than once. Its been used all over the world for decades. When a person votes, they get ink mark, usually on their left index finger. There are many inks available that will last 3 - 5 days and can't be removed faster with by any readily available process. Election officials just have to check to make sure voters don't have the mark when they request a ballot and that they get the mark when they are given the ballot.
Its simple, its cheap, its easy, its effective. I suppose you'd need an alternative for people who are missing a left index finger, but it's pretty unlikely that anyone would cut off a finger (or any other body part) so they could vote twice.
If you are willing to go a little higher tech, you could use an ink that is only visible under a UV light.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
I have a lot more objections to that plan than expense.
I'm already in a few fingerprint databases (I used to teach, and I was a volunteer for the BHPD years back). Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that one particular 'solution' is bad isn't the same thing as saying that a problem isn't solvable. Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
The irony here is that the hard core anti-government crowd has opposed any kind of national ID system for ages. There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who think the government shouldn't be trusted with a database of biometric data on all its citizens.
I have no idea which fear is more realistic, but I'd be willing to bet that there are more people afraid of having their fingerprints or DNA in a government database then there are people afraid of any kind of election fraud that could be prevented by voter ID laws.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Driver Licenses are not ubiquitous. I don't have one. Nor do I have a state ID.
Kate, I'm curious about how you manage to get along without a government issued ID. I get asked to show mine quite frequently doing normal business stuff like using a credit card. You must either have a passport or not travel since you can't board a plane or a train or even check into most hotels these days without showing an official ID.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Having them all in a database I admit is problematic, because at that point you need incredible security for that database. At that point, we'd again be where kmbboots points out we are now--susceptible to fraud from the administrators of the mechanical system. If your concern is over the electronics, I can definitely understand it.
I can also understand not wanting to force people to identify themselves in order to exercise their right to vote. However, I think there's a point where the state's right to ensure that the person actually has the right to vote (because they are of age, a citizen, etc.) overrides an individual's desire to vote but not to be part of the system while voting. I suggested fingerprinting because it's fast (electronic scanners can do it 20 seconds), cheap, easy, relatively ubiquitous (all police departments and tag agencies, some government agencies), unique for each individual person, and something that will (almost) always be present when the person shows up at the polls.
Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Personally, I think this problem is solvable (using a fingerprint scan compared against a secure registration bank), it's just that solving it is more expensive than practicable.
I have a lot more objections to that plan than expense.
I'm already in a few fingerprint databases (I used to teach, and I was a volunteer for the BHPD years back). Nonetheless, I object strenuously to the notion of having all registered voters required to be fingerprinted and have their fingerprints in a database. Leaving aside the fact that registering fingerprints takes time and requires people to go to specific locations just as much as getting picture ID does.
Yeah I was about to raise this objection but Rivka beat me to it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx: Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
How does fingerprinting do that? It's not like citizens have a different whorl pattern.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does fingerprinting do that? It's not like citizens have a different whorl pattern.
Registration would do that, and fingerprinting would be a part of registering to vote. The fingerprint would be added anonymously to a database of all fingerprints, and that database would serve one function: to tell voting machines that all individuals with fingerprints in the database are allowed to vote. It wouldn't identify who owns the fingerprint used for any individual vote, because that information wouldn't be part of the database in the first place. At most, a system like this could tell you who voted and who didn't, but no more.
Edit -- I think I'm being unclear, so let me try to elaborate. Fingerprinting would, in my imaginary system, be the last step in the process of registering to vote. Rather than just sending in a form, like we do now, I'd require something closer to getting a passport, where you actually go to a specific place. Yes, that means people will have to go to a specific place prior to voting in order to vote, but yes, I think this requirement is not as onerous as what's required to get an expirable photo i.d. because it would only be done when a person registers, rather than every year.
At the registration office, a person would verify that you are not prohibited from voting. Once that person has verified your ability to vote, your finger would be scanned and the print added to the database. Then, at the voting booth, your print would be scanned before you were given a ballot (much like how, now, the volunteers ask for your name and where you live).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such a database would be ridiculously easy to mess with, since there's no way to later verify that a particular print matches a particular record.
And as I said before, having to go and get fingerprinted is just as onerous as having to go and get photo ID. It's not the time that it takes to actually do the fingerprinting that matters. It's the paperwork, lines, getting to the police station (or wherever), etc.
This solution seems considerably WORSE to me than the requirement for photo ID.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such a database would be ridiculously easy to mess with, since there's no way to later verify that a particular print matches a particular record.
That's a problem with the security of the database, which I've already conceded is possible. However, I believe that it would be possible to store the information securely.
quote:And as I said before, having to go and get fingerprinted is just as onerous as having to go and get photo ID. It's not the time that it takes to actually do the fingerprinting that matters. It's the paperwork, lines, getting to the police station (or wherever), etc.
It would only be slightly more onerous than what we do now. There would be no additional paperwork other than the single registration form that you have to fill out anyway. Since this only happens once, the lines would be shorter. Because there are many more places to do it, the lines would be shorter. Because it takes less time, the lines would be shorter. Getting to a place that could do it would be less difficult because there would be more of them (so there's likely to be one nearby). Moreover, because at least some of those places (e.g. police stations) are open at all hours, there would be less difficulty for those who work odd shifts or multiple shifts.
If your objection is that it would take more effort than what we have now, then that's true, because right now it takes virtually no time. But, I think that if someone wants to vote, they should be willing to invest a minimal amount of time (one hour, one time) in order to be able to do so.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for other states, but in mine, you can register to vote by mail or online. No need to go anywhere, stand in any lines, etc.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sphinx, I think you are going in the direction opposite the solution to the non-problem.
I agree, with a caveat. I'd be happy to go to a pre-voter i.d. system, and take the nonexistent voting fraud as part of the system.
However, if we're going to attempt to stop this non-existent voter fraud (because there aren't more important problems for our politicians to work on right now), then this is my solution to it. If we're going to fix a problem that doesn't exist, we should make it the best solution possible.
quote:Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point, but I just don't think you can argue that you should be able to vote, a privilege reserved for citizens, yet simultaneously deny the state the right to determine (just once) that you actually are what you claim to be.
How do you think fingerprints would solve that problem?
I'm a USA citizen because I was born in the US. The evidence that I was born in the US is my birth certificate. My fingerprints aren't on that birth certificate so they there is no way my fingerprints could prove that I'm really the person on my birth certificate.
To make this proposal work, the government would have to start collecting and storing biometric data on everyone born in the US. Once that database exists, it will become permanent and there won't be any real way to keep it being used for other things.
I think the current US government is unlikely to do anything really sinister with that data, but what about 20 years from now or 100 years from now. Ask yourself what Nazi Germany have been able to do with that database and then tell me there is nothing to worry about.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sphinx, What advantage would this system have over putting an ink mark on peoples finger when they vote that would justify the complexity?
As I noted before, a fingerprint is not proof of identity or citizenship. Your proposal would not prevent non-citizens from registering to vote. It would not prevent people from registering to vote under a false name and address. It wouldn't prevent people from registering to vote under multiple names and addresses. Registering to vote isn't a once in a life time thing. People have to register to vote every time they move. It wouldn't be enough to check to see if their fingerprint was already in an anonymous database. Unless the fingerprint was linked to a legal ID name or number, there would be no way to determine whether someone's fingerprint was already in the database because they were trying to register more than once or because they'd moved.
The most your system could possibly do is prevent someone from voting more than once or voting in a given election.
Ink on the finger does that much more simply without requiring any permanent records, high tech scanners, databases or complicated data matching algorithms.
And that isn't even the biggest problem with your proposal. While every fingerprint is unique, computers can't identify every fingerprint unambiguously. We can't even do that with DNA. There is a margin of error. If you had a database of 300 million fingerprints, almost everyone on the planet would have a close match in the database. With current fingerprint scan technology, the false rejection rate is 0.5%. So in a system that had every voters fingerprints matched with a voter ID#, 1 out of every 200 voters would be falsely flagged as trying to cast a fraudulent vote. The false positive rates are much lower (0.001%), so if someone other than you tried to vote using your ID#, they'd only succeed 1 in 100,000 times. But that would only be true if the system were trying to determine if their fingerprint matched one exact fingerprint in the data base. If it was trying determine whether the fingerprint was a close match to any of 100,000 fingerprints in the database, the probably of finding a false match would be greater than 99.99%.
[ March 15, 2012, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a USA citizen because I was born in the US. The evidence that I was born in the US is my birth certificate. My fingerprints aren't on that birth certificate so they there is no way my fingerprints could prove that I'm really the person on my birth certificate.
To make this proposal work, the government would have to start collecting and storing biometric data on everyone born in the US. Once that database exists, it will become permanent and there won't be any real way to keep it being used for other things.
My post above went into more detail on this, but here's the gist: you wouldn't be allowed to put your fingerprint into the system until someone verified that you were the person on your birth certificate. The database would consist only of fingerprints without any other data, and only the fingerprints of those allowed to vote would be allowed into the system. To be clear: there would be no connection between the print in the system and any individual; all the voting machine would do is check if a voter's print is in the system at all and, if so, note that they've voted in the election. If there comes a point where a system of unidentifiable fingerprints could ever be used against individuals, then I'd think we'd have transitioned to a different system.
As to your point about using ink, I'm all for it. What the fingerprint system would do that the ink system doesn't is verify that you are allowed to vote at all; both would prevent you from voting more than once. As such, it would prevent non-citizens from voting, because they would not be allowed to register and registration is the prerequisite for having your finger scanned. I think it would prevent render moot registering under a false name/address, because the individual's fingerprint would already be in the system--the duplicate would be kicked.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:My post above went into more detail on this, but here's the gist: you wouldn't be allowed to put your fingerprint into the system until someone verified that you were the person on your birth certificate.
Who would be qualified to verify that I was the person named on the birth certificate? My parents are the only ones who could actually tell you whether I'm the person named on my birth certificate. No one else actually know. The doctor who delivered me hasn't seen me in decades and certainly couldn't tell whether or not I was the baby he delivered. What if my parents are dead? What if my parents live a thousand miles away? Even if they are alive and available to accompany me to register to vote every time I move, how would they prove they are the persons named as my parents on the birth certificate?
I'm pretty confident that anyone trying to fraudulently register to vote could find some one willing to vouch for them.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it would prevent render moot registering under a false name/address, because the individual's fingerprint would already be in the system--the duplicate would be kicked.
As I mentioned before, this won't work. You have to register to vote every time you move, its not a once in a lifetime process. Even if fingerprint scanners were 100% accurate, it wouldn't work unless there was an ID tag on the fingerprint. Your system could not distinguish between someone registering to vote because they'd moved to a new address and someone registering to vote under a second name.
But as I said before, the real problem with your proposal is that the differences between fingerprints just aren't big enough and the systems for detecting the difference aren't that good. Fingerprint scanners can be used reasonably reliably to tell whether the your fingerprint matches the fingerprint on record for you. They aren't likely to ever be good enough to accurately determine whether or not your fingerprint accurately matches any fingerprint in a huge data base.
[ March 15, 2012, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Just like your Kenyan President
I think its a safe bet to assume that there is a large overlap between birthers and proponents of voter ID.
If they think is was so easy for Obama to fake being born in the US, why do think it would be hard for terrorists who would be subject to much less scrutiny to fake a birth certificate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who would be qualified to verify that I was the person named on the birth certificate?
Who is qualified to do it when you apply for a passport or a driver's license? Make no mistake, this is a system of identification; it differs from current voter i.d. laws only in the degree of negative effect, not in kind.
quote:I'm pretty confident that anyone trying to fraudulently register to vote could find some one willing to vouch for them.
Anyone truly committed to do so can defraud any system on the planet. There will never be a completely foolproof system as long as human beings are involved.
quote:You are have to register to vote every time you move, its not a once in a lifetime process. Even if fingerprint scanners were 100% accurate, it wouldn't work unless there was an ID tag on the fingerprint. Your system could not distinguish between someone registering to vote because they'd move to a new address and someone registering to vote under a second name
The system wouldn't care how many times a particular print is put into the system, only that it was there at least once.
Let me give an example: I turn 18 and register to vote; then I move to a new state at age 25 and re-register to vote; then I move again at 31 and re-register to vote. I would have to go through the registration process three times, once per state, and my fingerprint would go into the system three times. At age 32, I go vote. When the system checks the database, it finds all three prints. It then allows me to vote, because I have at least one print in the database. It would then disqualify all three prints from voting again in that election.
A good point that I hadn't thought of, though, would be how to incorporate state elections. The problem I could see this system having is that, because there's no identifying markers on the print in the database, there's no way to know when someone is still able to vote in a specific federal election but not in a specific state election. There would have to be some sort of internal cross-checking amongst all of state-specific databases, or possibly a marker for state of citizenship attached to an individual fingerprint. I'll have to think about that more, though.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:There would have to be some sort of internal cross-checking amongst all of state-specific databases, or possibly a marker for state of citizenship attached to an individual fingerprint. I'll have to think about that more, though.
The system can't work unless there is a unique ID# on fingerprint in the system and every voter has to provide the ID# and have their fingerprint scanned. The differences between fingerprints aren't big enough to accurately be able to say that someones fingerprint was different from every other fingerprint in a huge data base. It can't be done the way you think it can.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The system can't work unless there is a unique ID# on fingerprint in the system and every voter has to provide the ID# and have their fingerprint scanned. The differences between fingerprints aren't big enough to accurately be able to say that someones fingerprint was different from every other fingerprint in a huge data base. It can't be done the way you think it can.
That may absolutely be true--while I can see it working in theory, I don't know enough about how detailed fingerprint scanners are/could be to know if a mechanical barrier exists. My understanding of the technology is limited to commercial applications (like the biometric locks you can put on your computer) and television shows. If you say they won't work mechanically, then I guess they won't. And there I was, getting all excited to use technology. Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who is qualified to do it when you apply for a passport or a driver's license? Make no mistake, this is a system of identification; it differs from current voter i.d. laws only in the degree of negative effect, not in kind.
No one, at least as far as I can remember.
According to the State Department website, a person seeking a first time passport must present a birth certificate and a government issued photo ID.
To get my first drivers license, my birth certificate was the only ID required. Now you have to show a second form of ID. A social Security card or a school transcipt counts as a second form of ID. Neither on of those contains any biometric data, except age and gender, that would indicate to the clerk at the DMV whether or not I was the person named.
If I could get a birth certificate and a social security card for some one my gender and close enough to my age to be believable, I could go to the DMV and get a state ID card with that name and my photo. I could then take that birth certificate and photo ID and get a passport.
I would never be asked to prove I was the person I claimed to be. Having the birth certificate and one other identifying document (containing no additional biometric data) is considered legal proof that I am the person named in the birth certificate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My understanding of the technology is limited to commercial applications (like the biometric locks you can put on your computer) and television shows. If you say they won't work mechanically, then I guess they won't. And there I was, getting all excited to use technology.
The barrier isn't mechanical, its more fundamental.
There will always be some error in any measurement. That means that if I scan your fingerprint today and I scanned yesterday, I won't get exactly the same image. Improving scanning technology could reduce that error but there will always be some error. So when I compare the image I took today to the one I took yesterday, they won't ever be exactly the same. I have to decide if they are close enough to conclude that you are the same person or not. If I require the images to be too similar, I will often wrongly conclude that you are a different person. If I allow to much difference, I'm more likely to conclude you are the same person when you are not. Things like computer locks have to decide where to draw the line so that they don't lock out the owner too often but still keep out other people often enough. That's not that hard to do if all you have to do is decide whether a fingerprint matches one other fingerprint.
But peoples fingerprints aren't all that different so if you look at a million people, there will be quite a few whose fingerprints are pretty close to yours. If we decide that we have to have a nearly perfect match to conclude your fingerprint is one of a million in the data base, we will have a big problem with false negatives. We will decide people aren't in the data base quite often when they really are. If we allow for a less accurate match, almost everyone will be close enough to some fingerprint in the data base to pass. And the statistics are against us. The chances of finding someone who really isn't in the database are always going to be much lower than the chances of disqualifying a legitimate voter.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone truly committed to do so can defraud any system on the planet. There will never be a completely foolproof system as long as human beings are involved.
Yes, but that misses the point. This really high tech system you propose wouldn't be any harder to defraud than a lot of things that would be much much simpler and less burdensome.
It certainly wouldn't be any harder to defraud than simply requiring people to show an ID at the poll because anyone with an ID could get into the data base. It would however require a lot more expensive technology and make it a lot harder for people to register to vote at all. Even if there weren't the fundamental accuracy problems I've tried to explain, it would still be a huge investment of time and money that would provide no real advantage. Its would certainly end up disenfranchise alot more voters who for reasons of time, or money or just paranoia didn't choose to get their fingerprints scanned or who were mistakenly identified as not in the data base.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To get my first drivers license, my birth certificate was the only ID required. Now you have to show a second form of ID. A social Security card or a school transcipt counts as a second form of ID. Neither on of those contains any biometric data, except age and gender, that would indicate to the clerk at the DMV whether or not I was the person named.
Which was my point--the government has already established the level of scrutiny required to prove that you are who you say you are. The system I was proposing would merely incorporate those existing measurements.
quote:But peoples fingerprints aren't all that different so if you look at a million people, there will be quite a few whose fingerprints are pretty close to yours. If we decide that we have to have a nearly perfect match to conclude your fingerprint is one of a million in the data base, we will have a big problem with false negatives. We will decide people aren't in the data base quite often when they really are. If we allow for a less accurate match, almost everyone will be close enough to some fingerprint in the data base to pass. And the statistics are against us. The chances of finding someone who really isn't in the database are always going to be much lower than the chances of disqualifying a legitimate voter.
Honestly, I agree with you, though I think the problem would actually be that the system would think you were voting in the wrong place, not that you couldn't vote at all. Shows what I really know about fingerprints.
quote:Yes, but that misses the point. This really high tech system you propose wouldn't be any harder to defraud than a lot of things that would be much much simpler and less burdensome.
It certainly wouldn't be any harder to defraud than simply requiring people to show an ID at the poll but it would require a lot more expensive technology and make it a lot harder for people to register to vote at all. Even if there weren't the fundamental accuracy problems I've tried to explain, it would still be a huge investment of time and money that would provide no real advantage.
Saying that a new system has the same problem as the old system isn't a disqualifier if the new system brings benefits that the old one didn't. The fingerprint system would have the benefit of preventing non-citizens from voting, which systems like the ink test you were talking about do not and which voter i.d. laws do less well, but suffers, like all i.d. tests, from the potential for fraud.
Finally, yes, it would make it some harder (I think 'a lot' is an overstatement) to register to vote, considering it takes more effort for me to buy milk than to register to vote. However, as I was talking about earlier, I think that the added effort is worth it. While it would be more work to register, it would be vastly less work to actually vote as compared to a voter i.d. system. The way I was describing the system was intended to convey that you'd go through the exact same steps to register to vote with the fingerprint system as you'd go through to get the photo i.d. you need to vote. There would be no differences between the two on that level. However, a fingerprint is not expirable--you'd only register once, but you must renew your photo i.d. every 5/10 years. The longer a person lives, the more often they have to renew, and the more effort they would have saved under a registration system.
As compared to a voter i.d. system, a fingerprint system would have the following pros/cons: Pros: less effort for voter (scaling with age), better able to prevent non-citizens from voting Cons: more expensive, potential for misidentification No change: susceptible to fraud
Final verdict: You guys are right, the idea probably wouldn't work. Not bad, though, for a random idea found in my cereal this morning.
quote:Its would certainly end up disenfranchise alot more voters who for reasons of time, or money or just paranoia didn't choose to get their fingerprints scanned or who were mistakenly identified as not in the data base.
The time/money concerns would be equal to or less than those of a regular voter i.d. system, at least to the voter.
Paranoia is definitely something I didn't think of; to be honest, the stereotypical 'Ah cain't trust the gummint!' mentality is just foreign to me. I can understand a healthy skepticism, but anything more I just can't wrap my head around. I definitely wasn't thinking about that when I proposed the idea.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Lets say we have a form of ID that is used to allow one to vote. It can be fingerprints, retinal patterns, DNA, etc.
We say that you can not use that in any other way. Would that stick? Social Security was enacted, and cards were produced, with a law that specifically prohibits using that card as a form of Identification for anything other than Social Security. When ever anyone asks to see your SS card, they are breaking the law, even if its to verify a check or get a credit card. So legally saying you can't do something does not prevent it from happening.
Worse, if my id is questionable you can either disallow me to vote until my ID is verified, which would take longer than the voting period, so that rafts of people can be removed from voting if other people mass question their id, or you can allow me to vote, but hold my vote aside until my ID is verified. However, since you have to hold my vote and my id together until verified, someone could easily determine who and what I voted for. Secret ballots are no longer secret.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After claiming Wisconsin is broke, Walker miraculously finds $100 million for Milwaukee's poorest areas just 4 weeks before the recall election against Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee.
posted
I'm amused by the continuing Prosser drama, BTW. Having realized that the only way he can be legally censured for choking a fellow Supreme Court justice would be for the other justices to vote to do it, he's making the argument that a majority of the justices were witnesses to the event and thus must recuse themselves, thus denying quorum.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm amused by the continuing Prosser drama, BTW. Having realized that the only way he can be legally censured for choking a fellow Supreme Court justice would be for the other justices to vote to do it, he's making the argument that a majority of the justices were witnesses to the event and thus must recuse themselves, thus denying quorum.
posted
Hobbes, I've been meaning to ask you this forever: Do you type up "Hobbes " after every post manually, or do you have some sort of automation/macro set up?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... voting day today. I just got back from casting my ballot. This is the first time I've been able to do it in person since I voted at 18. I forgot how good it feels; I hope everyone else here gets a chance before the day is through!
posted
Yep. Voted! Also, Hobbes: many stores in the area are giving discounts for people flaunting "I Voted" stickers. Take advantage of 'em and feel the solidarity. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My polling place didn't give away any "I Voted" stickers. That's OK. I'm going to go catch a few minutes of the Venus transit and just enjoy the evening. I'll probably wait to look for election results until the morning.
I was pleased that just about everyone at work either had already voted or were going right after work. Of course almost everyone was voting for Walker but still...
posted
Even more than you might think (based on the last few debacles that happened before I got here). Their website didn't list polling places in Waukesha and when I called the clerk's office they hung up on me. Three times. (I basically had to guess where to go).
[Edit: I just realized that's not what you were referring to but oh well. In all fairness the project everyone with me is working on is basically Walker's pet project so I'm sure some of them feel they either owe him for their jobs or worry they'll scale down if he goes.]
posted
AP has also called it for the Republican Lieutenant Governor (Kleefisch). I haven't found results for the downballot candidates yet.
<edit>I've seen two of the four downballot Senate races called for the Republicans, including Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald. The other is Jerry Petrowski's defeat of Donna Seidel for a seat vacated by a Republican who had been recalled. How many did the Dems need to get control of the Senate?</edit>
<edit>This site says the Dems only needed a single win. But it also says that AP has called three of the four races for the Republicans, meaning the majority hinges on the Wanggaard seat.</edit>
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That's OK. I'm going to go catch a few minutes of the Venus transit and just enjoy the evening. I'll probably wait to look for election results until the morning.
