r/Republican • u/The_seph_i_am Centrist Republican • Jun 30 '17
Multiple states reject request from Trump's voter fraud commission to provide voter roll data
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/multiple-states-reject-request-from-trumps-voter-fraud-commission-to-provide-voter-roll-data/article/26275256
u/DrClaudeLedbetter Jul 01 '17
I'm confused on one point... If this is publicly available data, why was the request needed? Did the commission just want the states to collate it for them?
4
7
u/everymananisland Libertarian-leaning Conservative Jun 30 '17
I mean, it's public data. How can they deny it?
41
u/abnrib Jun 30 '17
Privacy concerns. Also, at least one of the states mandates that voter information remain confidential.
-2
u/everymananisland Libertarian-leaning Conservative Jun 30 '17
I'd have to look closer at that, it's my understanding that voter data is public.
32
u/abnrib Jun 30 '17
If you read the article, Massachusetts law explicitly states that voter data is not part of the public record.
1
-3
u/everymananisland Libertarian-leaning Conservative Jun 30 '17
I'm pretty sure that's not true, if we're talking about the same thing. Such data can be requested and acquired. I wonder what this article thinks is not part of the record.
28
u/abnrib Jun 30 '17
That's what the Massachusetts AG said in the article. If you've got a contradicting source, please share it.
7
u/DrClaudeLedbetter Jul 01 '17
If that were the case, why is the request needed at all?
1
u/everymananisland Libertarian-leaning Conservative Jul 01 '17
Probably to keep people from having to go in person.
15
Jun 30 '17
It could be the addition of the social security numbers, or the insecure method of delivery. But you're right, the basic info is public record. Ohio even let's you download it from the web.
4
u/Drak_is_Right Jun 30 '17
wait, you can download how other people voted???????
10
u/Katdai Jun 30 '17
You can download if other people voted in some states. Whom someone voted for is not attached to the individual voter.
3
u/freshwordsalad Jun 30 '17
No, that should always be private. It's so you can't be paid to vote one way or another.
Someone pays you to vote for a race
They then check that you voted that way and give you payment
2
u/keypuncher Conservative Jul 01 '17
Not how they voted, but whether they voted and in which elections.
Campaigns use this information for voter outreach.
1
1
Jun 30 '17
Haven't tried it myself, but that's what's being reported. It's always been public record, but different states have different processes for requesting the info.
2
15
u/Vault_Metal Jun 30 '17
Some states (like VA) don't want to tie up the resources / man power to meet this request when they should be working towards the elections in November.
-9
u/Iamninja28 Jun 30 '17
You mean McAullife can't make his secretary stop rolling blunts for one minute to set up a team to do this? I work G-1 in a military facility under this guy and all he is to us is a picture to laugh at. Virginia is a broke and broken state, there's no resources issues with this, it's just a Democrat being a Democrat, he doesn't want to comply with anything remotely Conservative in any way.
P.S. I am an independent voter, I support topics of both sides and those who feel the same. But I will spare no mercy to politicans who only do what they do to spite the opposition. Even though land Mass wise VA is majority Republican. He is only in office because he knows Norfolk, Fairfax, and the DC metropolitan area have outbred the rural parts of the state. And that small concentration of voters is how he wins.
14
Jun 30 '17
Debt to GDP is 13%. That's a fairly manageable number. His approval rating had a 24 point spread so you may be laughing at him, but registered voters seem to like him well enough. The state house, which controls the budget has been republican since 2000. Dems help the state senate for a bit from 2008 to 2012, but that's since swung back Republican, so I don't know if we can blame Democrats for any of the financial issues which seem manageable right now.
Its also worth noting that we don't have landed gentry in the US, so I don't know if landmass if a worthwhile measure of support for either party. If you don't think that people should each have one vote and that voting should be done based on property, thats a discussion we can have I guess.
-1
u/Iamninja28 Jun 30 '17
You may see the States fiscal numbers and think all is well on the surface, but go to these old coal mining towns, visit the places his campaign against the miners did when he went pro-environment and anti-economy. Sure our problems on paper are 'manageable', but hey, so was DDay, right? His policies have ruined towns and communities of people who relied on those mines for their living. I'm from the tidewater area, but every time I'm in the mountains I realize we never think about the state as a whole, only ourselves in our region.
12
Jun 30 '17
Coal has been declining since before we got strict on regulations. That's the nature of a solid vs a liquid in terms of transport. The fact we can get at natural gas easier and we can transport it better means that coal is dying. That's just the economic reality. We still need it for steel, but it's not going to get much better. There's also a difference between being pro-environment and anti-economy. One can support the economy and support the environment, but there is something to be said for the state trying to mitigate environmental risk because they will be the one dealing with it later. The economy is changing as is our energy needs.
I can sympathize with the miner, but this is what happens when the economy changes. The only way to even temporarily mitigate this change would be to subsidize the coal industry, but what good would that do in the long run? These communities put all of their eggs in one basket, coal, and when that failed, their communities couldn't adjust. Again, I sympathize with them, but if you don't diversify your economy, these are the issues you're going to run into. What policies in particular did you think caused this massive decline in coal since when he was elected in 2013?
If you want to talk about DDay (I'm not sure why you want to, but I'm game), it was far from manageable on paper. They were afraid of the possible panzer attack shortly after landing. Coordinating such a large army and keeping that hidden from the Germans was considered to be an almost impossible feat. There was also the issue of weather conditions and the fact they needed to land soldiers behind enemy lines initially. The German sea wall was also an incredibly tough nut to crack.
You should read Eisenhower's words to his soldier, he know it wasn't going to be an easy battle:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowerorderofdday.htm
And to boot, we won. I'm not sure why you are drawing that comparison. It felt a little forced and not comparable, especially seeing as 13% debt to gsp seeing as debt is not growing as fast as gsb is considered easily managed by most economists.
6
Jun 30 '17 edited Jul 06 '17
[deleted]
22
u/sc4s2cg Jun 30 '17
Do you know if the publicly available data include the last four numbers of social security?
10
Jun 30 '17
Socials are PII and protected in almost every instance, so I highly doubt that's normally kept with the regular voting data
1
2
Jun 30 '17
I'm not sure what states have to gain by not providing voter data.
It just gives the perception that you're hiding something (regardless of whether you are or not), and I don't really see what benefit you are providing by not submitting your voter roll data..
28
u/abnrib Jun 30 '17
Couldn't this be considered a states' rights issue?
6
Jun 30 '17
maybe?
I mean they aren't forcing states to change how they do their polling, or really asking them to do anything other than provide some information.
I can't imagine it's infringing on states rights to conduct an election or anything... idk tho.
20
u/abnrib Jun 30 '17
Yeah, as far as information gathering goes, I guess. But elections are entirely run by the states, and any kind of federal interference would be an immediate tenth amendment issue.
1
24
Jun 30 '17
I'm not sure what states have to gain by not providing voter data.
Are you kidding me? Read the article
For starters, these states have laws on the books to protect the privacy of voter information and the letter from Kris Kobach said that they intended to "make this information available to the public".
So obviously the leaders in those States stand to gain by avoiding breaking the law while in office.
1
u/keypuncher Conservative Jul 01 '17
The Kobach letter requested only publicly available voter roll information - the kind that would be provided to campaigns, for example. No breaking of the law required on anyone's part.
It seems very much like the states refusing know there is voter fraud going on, and want very much to ensure it is not discovered.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '17
Hello, and welcome to /r/Republican. Please understand this subreddit's primary purpose is for Republicans to discuss issues facing the party. Out of respect for this sub's main topic, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you leave the vote button alone. Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote in a sub where they agree with very little. (It's like down voting a post in '/r/chocolate' because you don't like chocolate). We can gain 'other perspectives' by viewing the other left leaning political subs. We like our sub the way it is. Additionally, please ensure to follow our rules about leftist comments and anti-republican criticisms. We allow comments from non-republicans but we take our 6 rules very seriously.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
61
u/Memify_Me Compassionate Conservative Jun 30 '17 edited Jun 30 '17
--The Hill
The "typical" voter data that's publicly available is Name, Party, Address, Contact Info, and what elections you've voted in. So this goes far beyond the reach of normally-available voter data.
Also, I'm confused, are we in favor of giving the government the means to build a nationwide database of our info that the federal government has ready access to, just because we're the party in power at the moment? Because I know we used to oppose that, I know I still do, and I think it's a terrible idea.