On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-4, raykeller wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...itbart+News%29

Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than
Voting-Age Citizens

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election
Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more
registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The letter reads, in part:

NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so
as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting
federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA
to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of
ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the
electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of
elections.

â?¦

As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility
under federal law to coordinate Californiaâ?Ts statewide effort to conduct a
program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate..

Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: â?o[T]here were more total registered
voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the
following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles
(112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo
(111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo
(110%).â? The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as
high as 144%. What not Riverside???


The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does
not remove from the rolls â?opersons who have become ineligible to vote by
reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal
conviction, and to remove non-citizens who have registered to vote
unlawfully.â? It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correctÂ
alleged violations of the law.

...

How many of the ineligible actually voted? I expect that number to be somewhere very close to zero.

On 8/5/2017 3:22 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-4, raykeller wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...itbart+News%29

Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than
Voting-Age Citizens

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election
Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more
registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The letter reads, in part:

NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so
as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting
federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA
to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of
ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the
electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of
elections.

â?¦

As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility
under federal law to coordinate Californiaâ?Ts statewide effort to conduct a
program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.

Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: â?o[T]here were more total registered
voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the
following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles
(112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo
(111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo
(110%).â? The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as
high as 144%. What not Riverside???


The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does
not remove from the rolls â?opersons who have become ineligible to vote by
reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal
conviction, and to remove non-citizens who have registered to vote
unlawfully.â? It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correctÂ
alleged violations of the law.

...

How many of the ineligible actually voted? I expect that number to be somewhere very close to zero.

That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.

On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 12:28:44 PM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/5/2017 3:22 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-4, raykeller wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...itbart+News%29

Judicial Watch Warns California: 11 Counties Have More Voters than
Voting-Age Citizens

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election
Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more
registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with
Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The letter reads, in part:

NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so
as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting
federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA
to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of
ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the
electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of
elections.

â?¦

As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility
under federal law to coordinate Californiaâ?Ts statewide effort to conduct a
program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.

Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: â?o[T]here were more total registered
voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the
following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles
(112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo
(111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo
(110%).â? The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as
high as 144%. What not Riverside???


The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does
not remove from the rolls â?opersons who have become ineligible to vote by
reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal
conviction, and to remove non-citizens who have registered to vote
unlawfully.â? It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correctÂ
alleged violations of the law.

...

How many of the ineligible actually voted? I expect that number to be somewhere very close to zero.

That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.

Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:07:37 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

I can not answer your question. Based on how some readers of RCM are interested in politics, I would guess there are some ineligible voters that voted more than once.

My question is " Do you think it is a good thing that voter rolls are not purged? " Would it not be reasonable to require people registering to vote, to state their previous place of registration, if any? And require the officials to notify the previous place that the person is now registered in a new location. THere may not be a lot of fraud going on, but don't you lock your house when you go somewhere. Sure there is not a lot of theft in your town, but most people consider it prudent to not create opportunity for crime.

Dan

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:07:37 AM UTC-4, rangerssuck wrote:



Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

I can not answer your question. Based on how some readers of RCM are interested in politics, I would guess there are some ineligible voters that voted more than once.

My question is " Do you think it is a good thing that voter rolls are not purged? " Would it not be reasonable to require people registering to vote, to state their previous place of registration, if any? And require the officials to notify the previous place that the person is now registered in a new location. THere may not be a lot of fraud going on, but don't you lock your house when you go somewhere. Sure there is not a lot of theft in your town, but most people consider it prudent to not create opportunity for crime.

Dan

If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/7/2017 11:01 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought.

Truth hurts, no?

Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport?

Oh it's true enough.

Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Yup:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hillar...itizens/35700/

According to Gregg Philips of votefraud.org, three million illegal
aliens voted! This was voters fraud on a massive scale!
We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged

On 8/7/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.



Silence, Renfield!

http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.



€œNumber of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,€�
tweeted Gregg Phillips, who heads up the fraud reporting agency.


Its safe to assume that virtually all of the votes cast by these 3
million illegals wouldve been for Hillary Clinton, meaning that Trump
wouldve won in a landslide against Hillary in the popular vote as well.
States where this fraud went on wouldve been in locations allowing
people to vote with no identification, including California, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:41:35 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.



Silence, Renfield!

http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged

No, they're lying, as you certainly know. They said they checked a
"database of over 180 million voters." There is no such database.
Trump's toadie Kobach is trying to come up with one and is coming up
empty.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.

There is no such database. They're full of ****; you're full of ****;
and Trump is full of ****.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/7/2017 12:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:41:35 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.



Silence, Renfield!

http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged

No, they're lying,

No, they are NOT!

On 8/7/2017 12:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.

There is no such database. They're full of ****; you're full of ****;
and Trump is full of ****.



And Crazy Eddy melts down again gang!

Yee haw!

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.



€œNumber of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,€�
tweeted Gregg Phillips, who heads up the fraud reporting agency.


Its safe to assume that virtually all of the votes cast by these 3
million illegals wouldve been for Hillary Clinton, meaning that Trump
wouldve won in a landslide against Hillary in the popular vote as well.
States where this fraud went on wouldve been in locations allowing
people to vote with no identification, including California, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

By your own standards, this is not believable until it reported by a journalist of the caliber of Bob Woodward. So far, it has not.

On 8/7/2017 2:10 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.



€œNumber of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,€�
tweeted Gregg Phillips, who heads up the fraud reporting agency.


Its safe to assume that virtually all of the votes cast by these 3
million illegals wouldve been for Hillary Clinton, meaning that Trump
wouldve won in a landslide against Hillary in the popular vote as well.
States where this fraud went on wouldve been in locations allowing
people to vote with no identification, including California, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

By your own standards, this is not believable until it reported by a journalist of the caliber of Bob Woodward. So far, it has not.



This is also not an example of "fact-checking", so your comment is a non
sequitur.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:40:54 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:01 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought.

Truth hurts, no?

Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport?

Oh it's true enough.

Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Yup:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hillar...itizens/35700/

According to Gregg Philips of votefraud.org, three million illegal
aliens voted! This was voters fraud on a massive scale!
We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged


"We have verified more than three million votes cast..."?

"We have verified that Seaview is stupid"!

See? Right here on the Web, PROOF! Actual proof, posted right on the
Web, and equally as valid as your proof.

The only question remaining is whether you are intelligent enough to
go out of doors without a leash?
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.



“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,”
tweeted Gregg Phillips, who heads up the fraud reporting agency.


It’s safe to assume that virtually all of the votes cast by these 3
million illegals would’ve been for Hillary Clinton, meaning that Trump
would’ve won in a landslide against Hillary in the popular vote as well.
States where this fraud went on would’ve been in locations allowing
people to vote with no identification, including California, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

Rather then take you at face value, I actually checked the Vermont
voter identification rules and to register to vote in that state you
will be required to provide the following:

Valid photo ID (driver's license or passport)
Current utility bill
Current bank statement
Another government document

New Jersey:

As of January 1, 2006, all registrants are required to provide
identification information as follows. If a registrant has a driver's
license or an MVC non-driver identification, those numbers must be
provided.

Maine:

To be eligible to vote in Maine, you must meet the following
requirements:

18 years old
United States Citizen
Resident of the municipality in which you want to vote

So I guess your statement "allowing people to vote with no
identification" is not correct. The only remaining problem is whether
you are a liar? Or just stupid?
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:53:51 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.

There is no such database. They're full of ****; you're full of ****;
and Trump is full of ****.



And Crazy Eddy melts down again gang!

Yee haw!

Thus spoke Seaview, the proven liar :-(
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:06:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

So do you lock your house up when you go somewhere? From your answer on purging the voter rolls, your answer ought to be that there is little theft in your area and it is not worth the effort because only a small fraction of the local residents are thief's.

Dan

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:06:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

So do you lock your house up when you go somewhere? From your answer on purging the voter rolls, your answer ought to be that there is little theft in your area and it is not worth the effort because only a small fraction of the local residents are thief's.

Dan

A very bad analogy, Dan. One burglar can make a mess of my life. A
thousand illegal voters makes no measurable difference to yours.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:06:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

So do you lock your house up when you go somewhere? From your answer on purging the voter rolls, your answer ought to be that there is little theft in your area and it is not worth the effort because only a small fraction of the local residents are thief's.

Dan

A very bad analogy, Dan. One burglar can make a mess of my life. A
thousand illegal voters makes no measurable difference to yours.

--
Ed Huntress

I disagree, Many elections occur with less than a thousand vote majority. Allowing illegal votes erodes our belief in our system of government.

You seem to be saying that a little crime is okay.

Dan

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:06:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

So do you lock your house up when you go somewhere? From your answer on purging the voter rolls, your answer ought to be that there is little theft in your area and it is not worth the effort because only a small fraction of the local residents are thief's.

Dan

A very bad analogy, Dan. One burglar can make a mess of my life. A
thousand illegal voters makes no measurable difference to yours.

--
Ed Huntress

I disagree, Many elections occur with less than a thousand vote majority.

I'm talking about nationwide. You couldn't even measure the effect.

Allowing illegal votes erodes our belief in our system of government.


Only for people who can't do the arithmetic. And I'm not saying it
should be "allowed."

You seem to be saying that a little crime is okay.

No. What I would say, if I were asked, is that suppressing a million
votes via unprecedented restrictions in order to catch a few thousand
fraudulent votes spread around.does a hell of a lot more damage to
"belief in our system of government."

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/7/2017 7:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:40:54 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:01 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought.

Truth hurts, no?

Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport?

Oh it's true enough.

Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Yup:

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-hillar...itizens/35700/

According to Gregg Philips of votefraud.org, three million illegal
aliens voted! This was voters fraud on a massive scale!
We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.
We are joining .@TrueTheVote to initiate legal action. #unrigged


"We have verified more than three million votes cast..."?


Yep.

On 8/7/2017 7:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:53:51 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.

There is no such database. They're full of ****; you're full of ****;
and Trump is full of ****.



And Crazy Eddy melts down again gang!

Yee haw!

Thus spoke Seaview,

Mmm hmmm!

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:52:13 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:




No. What I would say, if I were asked, is that suppressing a million
votes via unprecedented restrictions in order to catch a few thousand
fraudulent votes spread around.does a hell of a lot more damage to
"belief in our system of government."

--
Ed Huntress

Please explain how purging voter rolls of old outdated registrations is going to surpresss a million wotes. And explain what the unprecedented restriction is. I am of the opinion that there has always been a restriction on being registered to vote in multiple areas. So how is actually enforcing that is unprecedented.

Dan

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 09:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:52:13 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:




No. What I would say, if I were asked, is that suppressing a million
votes via unprecedented restrictions in order to catch a few thousand
fraudulent votes spread around.does a hell of a lot more damage to
"belief in our system of government."

--
Ed Huntress

Please explain how purging voter rolls of old outdated registrations is going to surpresss a million wotes.

You're making the wrong connection. What I said is that one of those
two things is much worse in terms of damaging "belief in our system of
government" than the other. And I said that the "purge" will produce,
at most, an insignificant result -- at considerable trouble and at
extra, unnecessary, expense.

And explain what the unprecedented restriction is.

Reducing polling places in selected areas and about a dozen other
restrictions that Kobach proposed in his home state. A federal court
fined him earlier this year for voter-fraud deceptions. He wants to do
the same thing nationwide.

I am of the opinion that there has always been a restriction on being registered to vote in multiple areas. So how is actually enforcing that is unprecedented.

No, there has been no such "restriction." Tell us about nationwide
laws that say you have to de-register when you move from one state to
another.

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:23:12 PM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/7/2017 2:10 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens. The bombshell revelation was made after the group
completed an analysis of a database containing 180 million voter
registrations.



€œNumber of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,€�
tweeted Gregg Phillips, who heads up the fraud reporting agency.


Its safe to assume that virtually all of the votes cast by these 3
million illegals wouldve been for Hillary Clinton, meaning that Trump
wouldve won in a landslide against Hillary in the popular vote as well.
States where this fraud went on wouldve been in locations allowing
people to vote with no identification, including California, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

By your own standards, this is not believable until it reported by a journalist of the caliber of Bob Woodward. So far, it has not.



This is also not an example of "fact-checking", so your comment is a non
sequitur.

I see. It's a fact that there were all these illegal votes because you read someone's tweet on someone else's blog. And THAT you blindly accept as "truth?" Why don't you look a little deeper and find out whether there is actual evidence of voter fraud other than "someone (or everyone) says so, so it must be true?"

On 8/7/2017 11:48 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:41:35 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.



Silence, Renfield!

http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.

Bull****.

On 8/7/2017 11:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary

So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens.

Bull****.

No, there has been no such "restriction." Tell us about nationwide
laws that say you have to de-register when you move from one state to
another.

--
Ed Huntress

The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

Dan

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

"Do States have to use the NCOA process to initiate the notice
process?

"No. States do not have to use the NCOA [National Change of Address
program] process. Under the NVRA, States must have a general program
that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of
voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of
address. The program has to be uniform, non-discriminatory, in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act and must be completed 90 days
before a federal election. States otherwise have discretion under the
NVRA and HAVA in how they design their general program, and States
currently undertake a variety of approaches to how they initiate the
notice process."

In other words, good luck.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:14:08 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

"Do States have to use the NCOA process to initiate the notice
process?

"No. States do not have to use the NCOA [National Change of Address
program] process. Under the NVRA, States must have a general program
that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of
voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of
address. The program has to be uniform, non-discriminatory, in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act and must be completed 90 days
before a federal election. States otherwise have discretion under the
NVRA and HAVA in how they design their general program, and States
currently undertake a variety of approaches to how they initiate the
notice process."

In other words, good luck.

--
Ed Huntress

Under the NVRA, States must have a general program
that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of
voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of
address

In other words there is a requirement. THere does not seem to be compliance. You asked about a requirement.

The same applies to illegal immagrants.

There is a requirment, but not much compliance.

Dan

Dan

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 9:14:08 AM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

"Do States have to use the NCOA process to initiate the notice
process?

"No. States do not have to use the NCOA [National Change of Address
program] process. Under the NVRA, States must have a general program
that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of
voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of
address. The program has to be uniform, non-discriminatory, in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act and must be completed 90 days
before a federal election. States otherwise have discretion under the
NVRA and HAVA in how they design their general program, and States
currently undertake a variety of approaches to how they initiate the
notice process."

In other words, good luck.

--
Ed Huntress

Under the NVRA, States must have a general program
that makes a reasonable effort to identify and remove the names of
voters who have become ineligible to vote by means of a change of
address

In other words there is a requirement. THere does not seem to be compliance. You asked about a requirement.

The same applies to illegal immagrants.

There is a requirment, but not much compliance.

There are two problems with this "requirement." First, states can't
remove someone for four years after they question a residency by the
mail survey procedure described in the Act..

Second, and stemming from the first point, they can't remove someone
even if they don't return the confirmation postcard, if they DO vote
in the subsequent four years.

In other words, it can't catch fraudulent voters if they vote in
multiple jurisdictions, unless they fail to vote in a four year
period.

Which makes the whole thing moot as a device to prevent multiple votes
in multiple states.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/8/2017 11:48 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/7/2017 11:48 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:41:35 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 11:26 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Seaview wrote:
On 8/6/2017 10:07 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
That's because you're a leftard wallowing in denial.
Answer the question, if you can. How many of the ineligible
actually voted?

Several million, you leftard spaniel felcher.

you're even crazier than I thought. Do you REALLY believe that or
are you doing this for sport? Do you have any real data (other than
Trump says so) to back up that absurd statement?

Sport. He gave up pulling the wings off of flies to do this.



Silence, Renfield!

http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary


We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.

Bull****.


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat **** and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William"
To: jonball@[...]
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
__________________________________________________ _
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

On 8/8/2017 11:49 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/7/2017 11:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 12:42:47 -0600, Seaview wrote:

On 8/7/2017 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.


http://www.lovethispic.com/blog/1273...ed-for-hillary


So, just how extensive was the voter fraud? According to a voting fraud
investigation agency, VoterFraud.org, an astounding 3 million votes were
cast by non-citizens.

Bull****.


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat **** and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_i...p?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William"
To: jonball@[...]
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
__________________________________________________ _
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8

and I won't die soon.

Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.

You certainly have no means to hasten my death.

Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

On 8/9/2017 8:15 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In other words, it can't catch fraudulent voters if they vote in
multiple jurisdictions, unless they fail to vote in a four year
period.

Which makes the whole thing moot as a device to prevent multiple votes
in multiple states.

Sounds like something that needs to be smart ID'd.

End of problem.

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



No, there has been no such "restriction." Tell us about nationwide
laws that say you have to de-register when you move from one state to
another.

--
Ed Huntress

The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

Dan

Budda Bing!!!

We have a winner!

And Fast Eddy loses again.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 13:01:33 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 05:50:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



No, there has been no such "restriction." Tell us about nationwide
laws that say you have to de-register when you move from one state to
another.

--
Ed Huntress

The National Voter Registration Act Of 1993

Dan

Budda Bing!!!

We have a winner!

And Fast Eddy loses again.

Gunner, you dimwit, the NVRA doesn't say you have to de-register.
Individuals don't have to do anything. What I pointed out to Dan is
that, in fact, if you vote in two states at least every four years,
the states will never even know you're registered in multiple states.

Man, you keep putting your foot in it again and again. Why don't you
try learning what you're talking about before making a fool of
yourself?

--
Ed Huntress