How many of you thought casting your vote in a secret ballot is written in the Constitution or otherwise protected by federal law to protect the voter from intimidation? Combine this with the Republican’s frantic push to exclude as many potential Democrat voters around the country and undesirable candidates, and this may make for the lowest percentage voter count ever.

Saying there is no fundamental right to a secret ballot, a federal judge Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by elections integrity activists that challenged whether counties can print ballots with identifying numbers that critics say can be traced back to individual voters easily. Denver U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello first denied a request by the Citizen Center, a group that advocates transparency in elections, to block counties temporarily from printing ballots with identifying bar codes.



  1. Distraction of the day says:

    When you say “Republican’s frantic push to exclude as many potential Democrat voters around the country” I observe retirees voting in Florida and their origin state. I see union caretakers guiding the mentally disabled into voting booths and being allowed to “show them how to vote”.

    • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

      I’ll believe you read about those things in your talking points for the week memo, but doubt you ever “saw” this.

      typical puke–takes a valid idea and then stretches it beyond all credibility.

      Besides==the fact that anything you can dream of actually has happened, the RELEVANT question is: how often?

      Did you see every event?

      If not, then F*ck Off with your propaganda.

      Silly anti Democratic Shill.

  2. Nobody says:

    I wish I could say this surprises me. But having actually observed Judge Arguello in action I’m surprised she isn’t requiring blood tests that include DNA info for every single American!

    To call her a “judge” is about as fitting as calling Adolf Hitler a humanitarian! But hey! That’s what you get when you let the leftists and activists take over the legal system.

    • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

      Another personal observer huh? What did you SEE?

      How about some “facts” rather than fluff?

    • NobodySpecial says:

      Blood tests could work -
      Minimum voting age = 18
      Minimum voting cholesterol = 240

      proves you’re American

  3. stormtrooper 651 says:

    uncle dave, you just referenced The Huffington Post. Getting your “facts” from a Democrat Party website may make you feel good about yourself but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

    • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

      The relevant link to your “position” is to the Denver Post.

      You dipshits get cross-eyed so easily you cant even stumble to the start of an argument.

      Stoopid Hooman.

      • stormtrooper 651 says:

        “Combine this with the Republican’s frantic push to exclude as many potential Democrat voters around the country”

        This is the key reference (bobbo I’m sure you write enough propaganda to understand how it is applied) presented as fact, from huffpo.
        Cue bobbo’s juvenile name-calling response.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          What particular characterization/adjective do you object to?

          “frantic?” /// I agree thats not apt. The action is much more measured, calm, planned, coordinated, tempered, stalwart. I see no frantic at all.

          How’s that? Or what is your complaint more specifically or otherwise?

          I just saw Rmoneyrobot on the tube. He wants “more freedom” for the American Public. Not the word I would use there either. Freedom to starve, freedom to take advantage. Not really what “freedom” is about. “♫ Dog Whistles Galore.”

          Say Stormy–I can imagine how scurrilous and inappropriate my word choice is. Now–can you imagine I have the same reaction to yours?

          Go!!!!!!!!!!

  4. pedro says:

    He doesn’t support the article, he just brings it here, right Uncle?

  5. Rick says:

    Wow, I didn’t know how desperate Republicans are to win, now I know.

    • Mextli: ABO says:

      Can you imaging ANYONE not desperate for a Republication to win with Obummer in office?

  6. Ah_Yea says:

    Wow! Can we get a worse analysis??

    “Republican’s frantic push to exclude as many potential Democrat voters”…

    Should read “Republican’s frantic push to eliminate Democrat voter fraud”…

    I have ALWAYS had to show a picture ID, register to vote in my area, and be checked against a voter list to vote. It’s a good way to be sure I don’t organize a bus tour of voting stations so me and my union buddies could vote 5 or 6 times each.

    • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

      Defined, “Democratic Voter Fraud:” Voting Democratic.

      Silly dweeb. Yes, change the rules 60 days from the election and reduce the office hours of ID producing state Agencies.

      Defined, “In your Face Criminality:” Pukes.

      Once again, thank you Oh_No for showing how it works.

      • pedro says:

        Here’s an ice pack. Hurry! Put it on your knee. It’ll swell pretty fast after that knee-jerk answer fumble

        • bobbo, the always supportive gregarious optimist says:

          What was knee jerk about my answer Pedro?

          Kneejerk does have at lease two meanings:

          1. Unthinking–but I thought about my answer, whether it should be long or short, a quip or pontifical, what aspect of the “obviousness” of the scam should be least contestable, and I chose the short time frame the State is giving everyone to comply with this new requirement. Easy bite size consideration for those who wish.

          2. Quick–yes it was quick but this subject has been addressed in others threads so my ducks were already all lined up. All I had to do was pick mine as I outlined above.

          Take your pick or do you have a third and a fourth? Oh, do tell us Pedro. Otherwise, you won’t be kneejerk in your response, but rather Donkey Dick swallowing.

          Again, your choice. I think your Donkey is a loser in all scenario’s.

          The Aristocrats.

  7. bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

    If you support the Constitution (♫ Dog Whistle) then you read and apply what is written. Ambiguities and unmentioneds to be filled in by Legislation.

    The Constitution does not mention Secret ballot so how can there be a fundamental right to it? GAWD certainly doesn’t let anyone vote and he allows no secrets. HAAHAHAHA.

    No…. the subject is properly one of statute. The Constitution also does not BAR secret ballots.

    Let FREEEEEEEEDOM Ring.

  8. bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

    I am more gumpy than usual. Just stopped watching the three part PBS show: Alan Greenspan Tested. The man and his entire Chicago School of Right Wing Nutbaggery Trickle Down De-Regulation BS Chicago/Austrian School of Economics has brought the USA to our knees, and the rest of the World even lower.

    Yet, he is treated as if he has a great mind. Follower of Ayn Rand.

    He’s a proven idiot.

    Even he half see’s it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=R5lZPWNFizQ&feature=related

    but his evil ideas will remain among the gullible for another generation…. longer what with the declining attention span.

    Stoopid Hoomans.

    • pedro says:

      You rather support the Chicago left-wing support for Chicanos voting by the busload and avoid speaking English & “La Migra”

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Yes, and the Keynesian inspired planned industrialization efforts employed throughout the developing world post WWII that left most of those nations in tatters did such a better job.

      You are as much an idiot as you proclaim Greenspan to be.

  9. plane_of_thought says:

    Ah fantastic! I remember this from when I lived in East Germany. Now they can finally identify and press charges against those that dare to vote for “the wrong party”… The good ol’ days.

    • bobbo, one Real Liberal making Obama a Conservative by comparison says:

      Yep… secret ballots were hotly litigated years ago when union voting was hot and heavy. The fear and the fact of retribution for voting incorrectly is “real.”

      The judge took this actuality into account in her ruling, but more importantly, I think “common sense” says the identification should be voluntary if at all.

      People are still free to lie about how they vote (before or after) they leave the ballot box.

      Human Nature has been established.

      Every State/Federal Jurisdiction should pass secret ballot legislation.

      Yea, verily.

      • NobodySpecial says:

        It happened in the UK in the 1970s.
        Ballots are numbered and are kept in case of recounts.
        The secret service (MI5) were caught going through ballots to check how members of the jury in a trial had voted.

        They wanted to check none of the jury were communists – wouldn’t be a problem in the USA.

  10. msbpodcast says:

    Bwahahahaha.

    There goes your right to a secret ballot (which was done to protect you from retaliation from whom ever got in office. [So now, you can get the shit kicked out of you for voting what anybody considers the wrong way.])

    I can just see Mittenz’ Mormons hanging out at polling stations handing out religious flyers on the way in, and pain on the way out if you voted against Mittenz…

    My selectoral system sounds better and better, doesn’t it?

    Lets just get the parties out of politics and select our representatives at random, like a citizen’s draft.

    • Hyph3n says:

      I’ve alway liked the idea of the House being a randomly selected citizen. Kind of like jury duty for two years.

    • orchidcup says:

      Randomly selecting representatives sounds reasonable, but I have concerns:

      Most randomly selected people could not score 100 on an I.Q. test.

      (Think of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Al Sharpton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi et al)

      Shouldn’t age be a factor? Do you really want a 21 year-old representative in the House?

      Should English be their primary language?

      And so on.

      • NewformatSux says:

        >Most randomly selected people could not score 100 on an I.Q. test.

        You would clearly not make it.
        By the way George W Bush has a higher IQ than Kerry, as can be seen from their military evaluations, in the 120s.

      • msbpodcast says:

        Most randomly selected people could not score 100 on an I.Q. test.

        They would score precisely 100 in an I.Q. test.

        You have just revealed that you would score 100 in an I.Q. test.

        That’s the definition of a bell curve.

        In a room full of Einstein grade intellects, the average I.Q. score for that room would still be 100.

        What makes you think that your politicians are super-human genii who are wise and learned in the ways of the world?

        Basing myself on the evidence, some, if not most, of them are lucky idiots who happen to be easily fooled and easily bought. (Remember, if they were really good at what they had been doing, they’d still be doing it. Instead, they’re just politicians…)

        • orchidcup says:

          Well-known modern IQ tests include Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.

          Approximately 95% of the population have scores within two standard deviations (SD) of the mean. If one SD is 15 points, as is common in almost all modern tests, then 95% of the population are within a range of 70 to 130, and 98% are below 131.

          Alternatively, two-thirds of the population have IQ scores within one SD of the mean, i.e. within the range 85-115.

        • pedro says:

          Since when random means mean?

  11. NewformatSux says:

    The judge took his cues from the Obama Administration, whose NLRB is pushing card check union organizing with no secret ballot.

  12. NewformatSux says:

    The same people who are complaining about this are the same ones who want a receipt when you vote, or push internet voting.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Oh New Format…you really do suck don’t you. Didn’t read the linked articles at all because your mind is already made up. Details/facts don’t matter.

      Easy facts:

      1. This judge struck the requirement/process down.

      2. He is a she.

      How stupid can you be and still breath? Or in this case I suppose post? Really NFS===whats your IQ.

      Dumber than Alife……. and thats not a compliment.

      Ha, ha. …………….. OK………… seriously NFS==you have a desire to express your opinion. Why don’t you support it? Argue for it???? Come to realize too many of your positions are unthinking nonsense.

      Actually engaging people who disagree with you is how you don’t fall down in your 80′s from decalcified bones. Almost “libertarian” in your refusal/inability to talk to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

      Just my helpful hint for this week.

      Live, change, grow, learn. Be more better.

      Easy Peasy.

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    orchidcup says:
    9/24/2012 at 5:37 am

    Randomly selecting representatives sounds reasonable, but I have concerns:

    Most randomly selected people could not score 100 on an I.Q. test. /// Stupidly exactly, thats either true or false depending on how you define an 100 IQ. In testing circles, an IQ measure is accepted as having a variance of …. up to one standard deviation allowing for learning, aging, stress factors and what not. If that could mean 100 IQ then well more than half would score 100.

    If you mean that 49.5 of the population would score below 100 while another 49.5 of the population would score above 100, then you would be correct but most users of the terms accept a range of IQ with the number just being the mid point for discussion references. What range are you using?

    Now, I think its fair to say that in common parlance if you can score higher than a given score you are also included as capable of scoring the lesser included scores? That being the common parlance, most/majority of people will score 100 IQ.

    There is more I could dither with, but you get my drift. I spy that the average of people posting here is probably about 110 IQ with those good folks with the shit for brain public policies having IQ’s around 115.

    I know a lot about all this because it dismayed me that people I disagree with were actually no dumber than me. Pukes and Dems measure about the same. No… its all about attitudes, beliefs, values, childhood trauma and raising, all that sociological/psychological stuff.

    I was just reading a bit on it yesterday.. is it in my brower? >>>>> yep, there it is. Turns out pukes are just immature, scared, selfish, ignorant little baby hoomans.

    http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=calling-truce-political-wars

    If you could pick your own personality/character…… how blue could you glue?

    (Think of Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Al Sharpton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi et al)==yep, all 115-120. Extra 5 points for silver spoons stuck up your ass.

    Shouldn’t age be a factor? Do you really want a 21 year-old representative in the House?

    Should English be their primary language?

    And so on.

  14. Trex says:

    Repubs were right all along!!! There is VOTER FRAUD going on. Video Proof. (1:07 min)
    http://youtu.be/Rdk55dLsFhc

  15. msbpodcast says:

    Shouldn’t age be a factor? Do you really want a 21 year-old representative in the House?

    So you’d rather be represented by ancient fossils like Ted Stevens who demonstrated his clear grasp of net neutrality and the internet as “a series of tubes“?

    Age doesn’t confer anything except but fading vision, wrinkly skin, bad veins, worse joints and a feeling that you’ve got to pee…

    • bobbo, the always supportive gregarious optimist says:

      Why are you so negative and insulting all the time mpod?

      could have said the same thing by being cheerful and sunny: “Why Yes Orchi, no one would want a callow youth any more than a worn out shell of an interloper. I suggest 35 years of age should be the minimum, same as our Fathers set for the Office of Presidency. Makes sense?

      As to max age, again some very good people will be cut off at any point selected, so …. what is the goal? I think it is to be representative of the American People. Let me cast back in my mind….when did I disengage from the public and seek my own private rewards?? I’d say max of 50 would be most pragmatic.

      Good points all.

    • orchidcup says:

      I would rather be represented by somebody that is normal, like me.

      I am my best representative.

      Short of that, I don’t think the 25 year-old pizza delivery guy that can’t make correct change would be a good choice as my representative.

      Randomly select any person that is browsing a shopping mall and sit down with them and talk about general subjects and you will see what I mean.

    • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

      Ha, you’re not really there. It’s not a feeling you have to pee – it’s you have to pee… all…the…time…

  16. Mextli: ABO says:

    Speaking of excluding voters…

    “July 30, 2012 | 3:50 pm

    A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.”
    http://tinyurl.com/c5d8e7m

  17. NewformatSux says:

    The Justice Department Civil Rights Division is not interested in enforcing the law against minority defendants.

  18. Floyd R Turbo says:

    careful thay git them ‘mericans voters riled up they might likely start shootin’ at stuff

  19. Pmitchell says:

    Gee Dave you have to have a photo ID to rent an apt, write check , even to get into an R rated movie but you ignorant liberals cry and whine about voter suppression when is all we want is you to prove who you are when you doing the most important thing a person can ( that is voting for your ignorant liberals on here )

    I personally am a victim of voter fraud and know it exists for a fact. In 2008 an individual registered for an absentee ballot with my address stating they lived there and did so again in 2010 (which is when I caught it because their voter card came to my mail box ) My family has been the sole owners and habitators of this residence for over 35 years. when I contacted my local precinct about the voter fraudulent ID card I received, they simply blew it off and said they would send a challenge letter to the person but when I querried as to whether they voted they had voted in both 2008 and 2010 with a fake name ( and as a soldier of the US armed forces ) and my address.
    Yes voter fraud is real, it just does not get reported because the people running the voting are lazy ass civil servants who don’t want their asses in trouble for not vetting the people who register to vote

    • orchidcup says:

      If Obama wins he election there is rampant voter fraud by deadbeats and freeloaders that don’t pay taxes and depend on the government.

      If Willard Romoney wins the election, well, it is about time people came to their senses and voted for a wealthy elitist corporate aristocrat.

      • pedro says:

        And that’s your comeback to a guy’s real story of voter fraud? What a pathetic partisan doggie.

        • bobbo, the always supportive gregarious optimist says:

          Of course voter fraud exists. Fraud exists everywhere. Kinda like your posts.

          There is also voter identification verification fraud schemes where a problem that amounts to .o1% of the vote and not changing of the result is used as an excuse to affect 5% of the vote and change the election.

          Know what I mean?

          Stories are stories. Issues are facts, study, review, and consideration of trade-offs in what you do next.

          Should not confuse the two. Its even Fraudulent when you do so.

          • pedro says:

            You’re right. Mine was also a knee-jerk reply. Sorry Orchid, you’re dead on!

          • Just Asking says:

            “There is also voter identification verification fraud schemes where a problem that amounts to .o1% of the vote and not changing of the result is used as an excuse to affect 5% of the vote and change the election.”

            Don’t exert yourself, but where would one find these percentages stated as fact?

            Do you believe that reducing voter fraud should ever be attempted?

    • NewformatSux says:

      Next time just fill out his ballot.

  20. oldman says:

    My wife and I went grocery shopping the other day. We were browsing at the produce section, and she picked up this weird looking eggplant which we have never had before. It was on sale for $1.99/lb. At the checkout, the cashier mistakenly punched in Japanese eggplant, which was $3.99/lb. The eggplant weighted 0.49 pound, so we were charged $1.96, instead of $0.98.

    My wife noticed the mistake, and took the eggplant to the customer service desk to get it corrected. The staff at the desk could not comprehend the fact that the price of $1.96 was due to an incorrectly entered unit price of $3.99/lb. After my wife repeatedly explained it to her, she finally said “we actually charged you less than $1.99, we charged you $1.96. So you actually owed us 3 cents.” Out of desperation, my wife returned the eggplant and got $1.96 back.

    I don’t want that service desk staff to represent me!

    • orchidcup says:

      Now you see what I mean.

      I am the only person I know that is normal.

      A normal person would have overlooked the error with the price of an eggplant and not bothered with going to the service desk to correct an error of $0.98.

      It is not worth 98 cents to go to all that trouble and frustration. I know, it was the principle, not the price, that mattered.

      If it were me, I would have avoided the time and frustration to correct the error and would have ate the 98 cents and the eggplant.

      People are crazy, pure and simple.

      • pedro says:

        The conjugation you were looking for was “eaten”

        I would have eaten.

        These chicanos and their poor use of our language…

        • orchidcup says:

          I was using an alliterative figure of speech.

          A colloquialism.

          • pedro says:

            Nice try but no cigar.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

            Well, alliteration is normally made by sequential consonant sounds not vowel sounds. Maybe you were thinking of making a hononym?

            In either case, you would not be using a figure of speech, or even a colloquialism.

            You know the best time to use a dictionary? …… When you want to know what a word means.

          • orchidcup says:

            You both passed the test.

            Congratulations.

      • oldman says:

        I don’t know how much you make. For me, it’s worth the effort to get 98 cents back. In fact, we got $1.96 back.

  21. Uncle Patso says:

    The biggest election fraud in the last 100 years is the Supreme Court decision that money=speech.

  22. Ken says:

    Why should ballots be secret anyway? Considering the condition of politics in this nation, it wouldn’t be so bad for voters to actually be accountable for their votes, rather than hide behind a secret ballot.

    • orchidcup says:

      I am offering bumper stickers that say “I voted for [ insert name here ] and you suck if you didn’t.”

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      whoosh.

  23. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    The ID requirements for voting should be indentical to those for buying alcohol, cigarettes, driving, getting on a plane or buying a gun, collecting a gov’t aid check, etc.

    Synchronize them all and one way or another we’ll all be better off.

  24. Mike Strong says:

    Ballots are secret because otherwise voters can be intimidated or punished or put in prison for voting the “wrong” way. What idiocy to claim this is a matter of voters taking responsibility for their vote. Do we really have to explain that? What, did all knowledge, all history get thrown away, all laws and democratic procedutes forgotten? Did some of you decide to get born yesterday? The people financing the candidates should not be secret to make sure everyone knows who and what they are voting for. Nor should the count be secret. Only the actual vote for each voter.