HR 1 - The Democrats Try to seal up all future elections

[Cassandros]

Good research.

Well, there you go. A known missing person casting a ballot with no signature, with her husband as the witness...

So it seems the system not only noticed potential fraud but help solve a murder. Which is funny, doesn't HR 1 want to remove the witness signature portion of mail in ballots?

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

[spudoc]

Good research.

Well, there you go. A known missing person casting a ballot with no signature, with her husband as the witness...

So it seems the system not only noticed potential fraud but help solve a murder. Which is funny, doesn't HR 1 want to remove the witness signature portion of mail in ballots?

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

[Cassandros]

Good research.

Well, there you go. A known missing person casting a ballot with no signature, with her husband as the witness...

So it seems the system not only noticed potential fraud but help solve a murder. Which is funny, doesn't HR 1 want to remove the witness signature portion of mail in ballots?

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

It shouldn't be.

Both cases consist of a person wanting a document to reflect them as a person and to have others carry out their wishes in their absence.

Either both are racist and unfair to the poor who can't find someone to be a witness... or neither are. Which is it?

[CaptQuint]

By signing the ballot I already attest under the penalty of law that I am legally able to cast my vote I am a resident and a citizen. I don't need anyone else's permission or endorsement to cast a ballot.

[AnalHamster]

In the case of a will the author is dead if it gets challenged. The witness is there to ask if the alleged author really wrote it. It's a pretty straightforward difference.

[spudoc]

Good research.

Well, there you go. A known missing person casting a ballot with no signature, with her husband as the witness...

So it seems the system not only noticed potential fraud but help solve a murder. Which is funny, doesn't HR 1 want to remove the witness signature portion of mail in ballots?

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

It shouldn't be.

Both cases consist of a person wanting a document to reflect them as a person and to have others carry out their wishes in their absence.

Either both are racist and unfair to the poor who can't find someone to be a witness... or neither are. Which is it?

Typically in the movement of assets of an estate there is much more at stake than there is in casting a vote. And as AH pointed out the execution of the will occurs on the death of the author of the will.
So you can kind of see the need for a witness

[CHEEZY17]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

[AnalHamster]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

They checked the signature. That's the basic check they always do. THey don't first check the name for any link to a missing persons case and only then check the signature.

[spudoc]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

It was a routine check of the ballot. The missing signature caught their attention.

[Cassandros]

Good research.

Well, there you go. A known missing person casting a ballot with no signature, with her husband as the witness...

So it seems the system not only noticed potential fraud but help solve a murder. Which is funny, doesn't HR 1 want to remove the witness signature portion of mail in ballots?

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

It shouldn't be.

Both cases consist of a person wanting a document to reflect them as a person and to have others carry out their wishes in their absence.

Either both are racist and unfair to the poor who can't find someone to be a witness... or neither are. Which is it?

Typically in the movement of assets of an estate there is much more at stake than there is in casting a vote. And as AH pointed out the execution of the will occurs on the death of the author of the will.
So you can kind of see the need for a witness

Your voice in government is arguable just as (if not more) important as making sure your car goes to your favorite relative.

So tell me: is the process of writing a will, in your eyes, in anyway racist and unfair to poor people and minorities.... since they cannot easily obtain ID or find a witness?

Or does this not count because you feel poor people and minorities don't have large enough estates to pass to their children?

[AnalHamster]

If the authenticity of a will is challenged, you cannot go and ask the person who made the will because they are dead. Witnesses therefore required. ID isn't, assuming you know two people you aren't naming in your will. Is there really any part of that you cannot grasp?

[Cassandros]

If the authenticity of a will is challenged, you cannot go and ask the person who made the will because they are dead. Witnesses therefore required. Is there really any part of that you cannot grasp?

Does that in anyway change the ability of minorities and poor people from obtaining said document?

[AnalHamster]

Huh? Obtaining a will? You generally write your own if you can't afford a lawyer to do it.

Are you able to grasp the reason why a will must be witnessed by witnesses who do not benefit from it? If you're going to dodge that simple question again try to ask yourself why you have to. There are sound and obvious reasons for requiring a will to be witnessed.

Btw, has anyone but you actually made this claim that it's racist to need a witness signature? It appears you have declared requiring a witness is racist for no particular reason, and then based this sad little attempt at an analogy on your own assertion.

[spudoc]

Yes, what of it? Why should you need the cooperation of another person to vote?

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

It shouldn't be.

Both cases consist of a person wanting a document to reflect them as a person and to have others carry out their wishes in their absence.

Either both are racist and unfair to the poor who can't find someone to be a witness... or neither are. Which is it?

Typically in the movement of assets of an estate there is much more at stake than there is in casting a vote. And as AH pointed out the execution of the will occurs on the death of the author of the will.
So you can kind of see the need for a witness

Your voice in government is arguable just as (if not more) important as making sure your car goes to your favorite relative.

So tell me: is the process of writing a will, in your eyes, in anyway racist and unfair to poor people and minorities.... since they cannot easily obtain ID or find a witness?

Or does this not count because you feel poor people and minorities don't have large enough estates to pass to their children?

Making a will and voting are not the same process nor are the requirements for both activities even remotely the same.

[Cassandros]

Why do you need a witness to create a will?

Because it is a different legal process with different rules.

It shouldn't be.

Both cases consist of a person wanting a document to reflect them as a person and to have others carry out their wishes in their absence.

Either both are racist and unfair to the poor who can't find someone to be a witness... or neither are. Which is it?

Typically in the movement of assets of an estate there is much more at stake than there is in casting a vote. And as AH pointed out the execution of the will occurs on the death of the author of the will.
So you can kind of see the need for a witness

Your voice in government is arguable just as (if not more) important as making sure your car goes to your favorite relative.

So tell me: is the process of writing a will, in your eyes, in anyway racist and unfair to poor people and minorities.... since they cannot easily obtain ID or find a witness?

Or does this not count because you feel poor people and minorities don't have large enough estates to pass to their children?

Making a will and voting are not the same process nor are the requirements for both activities even remotely the same.

The requirements are similar enough.

So answer the question.

[AnalHamster]

The requirements are not in fact similar.

[Cassandros]

No, getting a Will is harder. You actually need two witnesses that are not connected to you in any way.

To vote by mail, a family member is fine.

Regardless, if poor people and minorities 'can't get id' --> they can't get a Will. By your logic, if IDs are racist because of how "difficult" they are to obtain, you should agree that Wills are also racist for the exact same reasons.

The same barriers exist in both cases. Hence why this is a reasonable comparison.

So, are you willing to man up and admit that either both, or neither, are racist? Or are you going to keep making excuses to hide your (not really hidden) hypocrisy?

[CaptQuint]

I voted for by mail in the primary, worked fine. No need for an endorsement.

[spudoc]

No, getting a Will is harder. You actually need two witnesses that are not connected to you in any way.

To vote by mail, a family member is fine.

Regardless, if poor people and minorities 'can't get id' --> they can't get a Will. By your logic, if IDs are racist because of how "difficult" they are to obtain, you should agree that Wills are also racist for the exact same reasons.

The same barriers exist in both cases. Hence why this is a reasonable comparison.

So, are you willing to man up and admit that either both, or neither, are racist? Or are you going to keep making excuses to hide your (not really hidden) hypocrisy?

You know how you said that you are always honest. Well you are honestly awful at constructing an argument.

[Cassandros]

No, getting a Will is harder. You actually need two witnesses that are not connected to you in any way.

To vote by mail, a family member is fine.

Regardless, if poor people and minorities 'can't get id' --> they can't get a Will. By your logic, if IDs are racist because of how "difficult" they are to obtain, you should agree that Wills are also racist for the exact same reasons.

The same barriers exist in both cases. Hence why this is a reasonable comparison.

So, are you willing to man up and admit that either both, or neither, are racist? Or are you going to keep making excuses to hide your (not really hidden) hypocrisy?

You know how you said that you are always honest. Well you are honestly awful at constructing an argument.

Still not answering the question.

[spudoc]

No, getting a Will is harder. You actually need two witnesses that are not connected to you in any way.

To vote by mail, a family member is fine.

Regardless, if poor people and minorities 'can't get id' --> they can't get a Will. By your logic, if IDs are racist because of how "difficult" they are to obtain, you should agree that Wills are also racist for the exact same reasons.

The same barriers exist in both cases. Hence why this is a reasonable comparison.

So, are you willing to man up and admit that either both, or neither, are racist? Or are you going to keep making excuses to hide your (not really hidden) hypocrisy?

You know how you said that you are always honest. Well you are honestly awful at constructing an argument.

Still not answering the question.

There is no question to answer. You are equating two things that aren’t equal and then asking why they aren’t treated equally. You’re chasing your tail here.

[CHEEZY17]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

It was a routine check of the ballot. The missing signature caught their attention.

They checked the signature. That's the basic check they always do. THey don't first check the name for any link to a missing persons case and only then check the signature.

So if he wouldve signed it he would have been good?
Didnt really think that one through, eh?

[spudoc]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

It was a routine check of the ballot. The missing signature caught their attention.

They checked the signature. That's the basic check they always do. THey don't first check the name for any link to a missing persons case and only then check the signature.

So if he wouldve signed it he would have been good?
Didnt really think that one through, eh?

Not really sure what your point is here. They received an unsigned ballot with only a witness signature on it. The law says the voter has to make some kind of mark on it. Procedure requires the clerk to send a letter stating there is a problem with the ballot. If the voter doesn’t reply within eight days a complaint is filed with the sheriff and the ballot is sequestered. All of this happened. Because it was a federal election the FBI became involved.
The empty signature line was the thing that alerted them to the issue.

[AnalHamster]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

It was a routine check of the ballot. The missing signature caught their attention.

They checked the signature. That's the basic check they always do. THey don't first check the name for any link to a missing persons case and only then check the signature.

So if he wouldve signed it he would have been good?
Didnt really think that one through, eh?

Do you know what signature verification is?

[CHEEZY17]

Looks like they needed to check ID.

The system that you think is so ripe for fraud caught the attempt before the vote ever was counted.

Yeah, they just caught it right out of the blue! There were no other circumstances on why they might be looking! Amazing!

It was a routine check of the ballot. The missing signature caught their attention.

They checked the signature. That's the basic check they always do. THey don't first check the name for any link to a missing persons case and only then check the signature.

So if he wouldve signed it he would have been good?
Didnt really think that one through, eh?

Not really sure what your point is here. They received an unsigned ballot with only a witness signature on it. The law says the voter has to make some kind of mark on it. Procedure requires the clerk to send a letter stating there is a problem with the ballot. If the voter doesn’t reply within eight days a complaint is filed with the sheriff and the ballot is sequestered. All of this happened. Because it was a federal election the FBI became involved.
The empty signature line was the thing that alerted them to the issue.

The point is if he would have signed, illegally, no one probably notices.