New Presidential Candidate

[Tom Schindler]

She is adorable. Dumber than a brick. I could never be married to someone like that. I do not have the patience for stupidity.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I read the links.



You said a couple of times that there is a law that prevents people from changing parties, voting in a primary, then changing back in the general election. You said breaking that law is a felony.



Caymen said:

[I said that] being a registered Republican and changing party afiliation just to skew the elections is against the law.

However, the links you describe show no such law.



The new articles state that

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections is investigating whether any Republicans broke the law when they switched parties in the March 4 presidential primary...

And the articles also stated that:

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, a Democrat, said he hasn't seen evidence of wrongdoing by switchers and was skeptical a criminal case could be made.

Lastly, the article states:

The board has a responsibility to look into possible criminal wrongdoing, he said.



Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punish able by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

So, altogether the article says that there is an investigation into whether or not laws have been broken; it is unlikely that charges will be filed as the evidence seems weak; and lastly, the only wrongdoing that could have occurred is lying on a signed statement, which requires someone to be able to prove a lie...how exactly can one do that in this case?



Seems to me there is no real law that specifically prevents what you are describing and instead a general law that seems to apply to "contract law" that indicates if someone falsifies something that is signed it is unlawful. But that seems largely unenforceable and possibly inapplicable in this case (was this a contract, for example? How can you prove I was not sincere at the time, for example).



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Yes it does.



Changing you afiliation just to skew elections is against the law. Registering as a Democrat just so you can vote for the person that has the least chance to win against the Republican is against the law. Prooving it is next to impossible.



That still does not mean it is legal or right.





Tom

 

[Les]

Conspiracies...can't live with them, can't live without them...

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Tom 1: Does too.

Tom 2: Does not.

Tom 1: Does too.

Tom 2: Does not.

:lol:



I think everyone agrees that Ohio's law is dumb. Even the local DA sees no way of enforcing it.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Changing you[r] afiliation just to skew elections is against the law. Registering as a Democrat just so you can vote for the person that has the least chance to win against the Republican is against the law.

Which law?



Please show me the law.



The article talks about what seems to me to be a potential break in general contract law. not about a specific law as you describe.



Is the law that you are refering to the general law that says you can't sign something falsely?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Click this link below TJR.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, thanks for the link. I stand corrected. There is a specific law, of sorts...



So this so-called law has no meat, is convtroversial, is considered by most to "thought policing", and has yet to be enforced.



I'm still struggling to understand the exact definition of the law.



That last article made it a little clearer that there is a law, by stating:

If the voter is actually attempting to switch parties, and the wily poll worker smells a potential rat, then the voter must sign a piece of paper, under penalty of election falsification, that states he or she sincerely supports the principles of the political party that the voter is crossing over to join.

However, as I said, I would like to understand more about the so-called law and its wording. I wonder if this is a general "election falsification" law, and I thereby wonder if it is even enforceable or necesssarily even applicable. Clearly it is being shown to be unenforceable.



A law that is not enforced and cannot be enforced, IMHO, isn't much of a law.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I feel the same way. Just because there is a law does not mean that it will stop people from doing wrong and just because there is no law does not mean it is right.



The point is, those people that changed party afiliation just to tamper with election results is committing a felony.



Enforcable or not, it is still a felony. Even if they never get caught, they still commited a felony.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

The point is, those people that changed party afiliation just to tamper with election results is committing a felony.

Not true! They *MAY* have broken the law, and even then ONLY if challenged by the poll worker.



I found the Ohio "law":

3513.20 Effect of challenge to voter at primary.



Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election , the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets.



If a person challenged refuses to make that statement under penalty of election falsification, the person shall be permitted to vote a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code. If a majority of the precinct officials finds that the statements of a person challenged or the person’s voting record or other evidence shows that the person lacks any of the qualifications required to make the person a qualified elector at the primary election or that the person is not affiliated with or is not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote, the person shall be permitted to vote a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code.



Effective Date: 10-20-1981; 05-02-2006

I found this text at: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.20



Note, I made bold the word "challenged". The way the law works is that a poll worker must challenge the voter wishing to change party affiliation, requesting they fill out this new, signed statement. The challenge and therefore the signing of the form is not automatic.



That challenge aspect and the enforceability of this law is described here:

Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law who specializes in election law, says it's debatable whether Ohio's law is enforceable and says that even if it is enforceable the likelihood that anyone would be prosecuted under it is "infinitesimally small."



First of all, the law pertains only to a voter who was challenged by poll workers as to his sincerity and signed an affidavit swearing to that sincerity. The secretary of state's office told me that poll workers are supposed to have anyone who switches parties at the polls sign such a statement. The Cleveland Plain Dealer also reported that any voter who switches parties must sign an affidavit.



But Tokaji says it's not clear from the law that the poll worker has an obligation to challenge the voter and have them sign such a statement, and many poll workers did not do this.

See link below for more on this.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, Caymen, one other thing...



The law considers it falsefication with regards to the following:

the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote

That clearly is "thought police" stuff and is therefore not enforceable.



For example, someone wishing to vote for Hillary in the primary, needing to be part of the Democratic party to do so clearly has a "desire to be affiliated with the party".



Likewise, since the "principles of the Democratic party" (or the Republican party) are extremely subjective one can claim that they support such vague principles. I still can't figure out the principles of the Democratic party. Likewise any voter that agrees with all the principles of a single party probably is too sheepish to be voting anyway... laugh.



P.S. This whole notion of knowing what people are thinking by their actions and statements must be an Ohio thing. You claim to know exactly what I am thinking all the time. LOL!



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Caymen... you MAY be right, but only with Ohio. My assertion stands on all other 49 states and Wash DC.



Notice how all this hub-bub is about Republicans switching over to the Dem. primary. What about all the Dem's and independants signing up to the Rep. party in NY, FLA, NH, et. al. when Guliani and Romney were supposed to be far and away the winner over McCain? There is several documented cases of similar happenings going on in FLA, yet no one in the Rep. party has really complained like these Dem's have.



Two-faced? Yep.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Two-faced? Yep.

Committing a possible felony is something serious, not funny or a prank.



Ever notice that an aplication for a job asks you have you ever been convicted or charged with a felony?



It doesn't say with a crime, it says Felony.



If you are breaking the law, you are breaking the law.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

If you are breaking the law, you are breaking the law.

Yep!



And yet, an Ohioan can change political parties, then vote for Hillary in the primary, then vote for McCain in November for president and NOT be breaking the law. It can happen. There is no law specifically against that. There could be countless reasons why one might do that.



Such a person performing those actions is only breaking the law *IF* when they changed political parties they were challenged and then falsely signed a statement of their "desire to be affiliated with and support the principles of the political party".



That last part is unenforceable. It requires an accusor to be able to prove what is in mind of the accused at a particular point in time. That's why I call it "thought policing"



TJR

 

[Les]

It's the Right Wing Conspiracy at work...