A lot of countries where the whole ID systems are a bit shaky use this system where a finger is dipped in dye once you’ve voted. Some US states should implement that.
(Does not apply in this case, though, as at it was pointed out to me, the issue is that he was in jail or something and thus couldn’t vote. Unlike most countries where people in jails/prisons can vote as they are still people)
He didn’t actually vote 9 times in one election. Voting twice in an election is insanely rare. A bigger issue is votes being miscounted, which accounts for much larger discrepancies than illegal voting. Not that it’s a huge discrepancy, just that illegal voting is so rare
Oh, right, it’s about that weird US thing that people that have been jailed shouldn’t vote.
Because if you’re starving and grab stuff for your children that you can afford, then you shouldn’t vote. It just makes sense, a responsible person should just drown their children to balance their budget.
Wait, then they couldn’t vote either. Curse you voting authority, it’s like you don’t want some people to vote at all!
It’s only felons who can’t vote. Grabbing some food for your kids would likely be a misdemeanor, which means you could still vote.
How can it even be possible to vote illegally once let alone so many times. Id be whinning about it too!
Maybe because asking for identification is communism?
(I don’t know how voting works over there, just guessing)
This wasn’t a case that ID would fix. He registered illegally and voted under his own name. It wasn’t caught because government information is not shared very well between agencies in the US. Rather than the election officials actually checking, he had to sign a sworn declaration that he was legally allowed to vote as part of his registration, and lying in that sworn declaration is one of the things he was also charged with in this case.
Letting criminals swear that they are not going to do something illegal sounds like an extremely naive approach to this problem
“It’s not a case that ID would fix because the whole system is so broken that it doesn’t make any difference”
That’s what I read.
I’m glad that you can focus on such small issues. Other countries have functioning voting systems.
ACAB
I understand his thought process: “i voted nine times and they still won, either I suck very hard or they voted more times than me” Sorry mate, reality is hard
I wonder whether he believed the lie that the election was rigged. If he justified it to himself by saying “well, the other side is doing it.” Horrific.
Edit: I made a false assumption that this was 9 votes in the same election, where it was actually 9 different instances where he would have been allowed to vote, were it not for prior conviction. See the comment below (or the article- my bad) for clarification.
Edit 2: removed the piece in my edit about probation, it wasn’t applicable.
RFTA. It’s so short, FFS.
He didn’t vote 9 times in the 2020 election (or since then). He was on probation in PA for a felony and couldn’t legally vote in GA, but did anyway. I would assume in 9 different elections. He claims he thought it was legal for him to do so. Had he not been on probation in PA, all his votes would have been legal. (In fact, I believe he should have been able to vote, as I don’t think being convicted of a crime should remove this fundamental right. But that’s kind of besides the point here)
He broke the law and should be punished for it, especially for being one who claims that the people were voting illegally, but even guessing that he was doing this because he thought the 2020 election was stolen makes absolutely zero sense, because the bulk of these times (if not all of them) happened before then.
To be honest, the headline is really misleading. Yes, people should definitely RTFA, but not everyone has the time to do that and a headline should be specific enough to avoid spreading misinformation.
The title is never going to be specific enough to remove all ability to misinterpret it. The title just tells you what the article is about. The article itself gives you all the necessary details. I agree that it shouldn’t be misleading, and in the case I think it could be improved, but that doesn’t change the fact that one should refrain from passing judgment about what happened based on a headline. If you don’t have the time to read the article, you also lack the time to form an valid opinion about what happened.
NP, thanks for being nice about it despite me being a cock.
That being said, all of the voting happened before 2011 even, when the probation was actually up.
