UK to lower voting age to 16

[phyllo]

I'm not interested in this kind of bullshit.

If you think that a few cases of non-citizens voting is a national problem that needs to be solved, I'm not going to be able to change your mind no matter what I say.

[MikeNovack]

When I became an self-responsible, Autonomous Adult, who does not want to share a society with Anarchists, Deplorables, and Criminals. I want Leftists and their scum DESTROYED. I don't want to live in the same country as turd-worlder child shankers. You and all the other Democrat-Liberal-leftists however, do. We are not the same.

We already had the necessary Legislation in the early 20th Century. The problem was/is the rise of Democrat-Leftist-Neo-Liberalism and mass migration of the turd-world, into the First World nations.

Response from the position of the left libertarian (democratic anarchist)

You don't want to share society with us? Well tough sh*t. Apparently you don't believe in democracy because that implies accepting that those with political opinions different than your own also get to vote. And if you want to complain about unwanted immigrants HERE, unless you are one of the Native American tribes, shut the f*ck up.

I don't like having to share society with fascist scum like yourself, but I accept the necessary reality.

PS --- Neo-liberalism --- complete misuse of the term. The Neo-liberals are NOT liberals in the modern meaning of the term. The "liberal" part of that refers to late 18th to early 19th Century meaning of liberal vs conservative. So a neo-liberal is part of the mid 20th Century RIGHT. But not part of the currently popular right (which is social right wing as well as economic right). The neo-liberals have been cast out of the Republican Party but that does not mean they can find a home with the Democrats or leftists (by and large, the Democrats are NOT lewftists)

[Immanuel Can]

If you think that a few cases of non-citizens voting is a national problem that needs to be solved, I'm not going to be able to change your mind no matter what I say.

You don't believe in the democratic process? You don't think voter integrity matters to democracy?

Okay. That's your view, I guess. It's not mine...or anybody's who believes that voting matters, I suspect. In fact, 85% of your countrymen think you're wrong, apparently...so I guess you're just in a happy minority.

[Gary Childress]

If you think that a few cases of non-citizens voting is a national problem that needs to be solved, I'm not going to be able to change your mind no matter what I say.

You don't believe in the democratic process? You don't think voter integrity matters to democracy?

Okay. That's your view, I guess. It's not mine...or anybody's who believes that voting matters, I suspect. In fact, 85% of your countrymen think you're wrong, apparently...so I guess you're just in a happy minority.

I thought he was just not worried about the issue enough to want the government to devote time and resources to fixing something that isn't much of a problem but is otherwise of the belief that voting matters. But since you never put false words in anyone else's mouth, I must be delusional right now.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think that a few cases of non-citizens voting is a national problem that needs to be solved, I'm not going to be able to change your mind no matter what I say.

You don't believe in the democratic process? You don't think voter integrity matters to democracy?

Okay. That's your view, I guess. It's not mine...or anybody's who believes that voting matters, I suspect. In fact, 85% of your countrymen think you're wrong, apparently...so I guess you're just in a happy minority.

...isn't much of a problem...

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

If the procedures in place are corruptible, do you suppose nobody's going to take advantage of that? Do you suppose nobody already has?

I guess you don't take democracy very seriously.

[Gary Childress]

You don't believe in the democratic process? You don't think voter integrity matters to democracy?

Okay. That's your view, I guess. It's not mine...or anybody's who believes that voting matters, I suspect. In fact, 85% of your countrymen think you're wrong, apparently...so I guess you're just in a happy minority.

...isn't much of a problem...

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

According to statistics that is the case in the US. Do you disagree with statistics?

[phyllo]

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

If the procedures in place are corruptible, do you suppose nobody's going to take advantage of that? Do you suppose nobody already has?

I guess you don't take democracy very seriously.

Can you guys believe these loaded questions?

AI Overview
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic example of a loaded question or a complex question fallacy. It is designed to trap the respondent because both "yes" and "no" answers presuppose that the person has previously beaten their wife.

Key aspects of this loaded question:

Built-in Assumption: The question assumes a controversial or false premise (that you beat your wife) is already true.

No-Win Situation: Answering "Yes" implies you did it in the past; "No" implies you are still doing it.

Proper Response: The only effective rebuttal is to reject the premise entirely, such as saying, "I have never beaten my wife".

Purpose: Such questions are used as rhetorical tools to limit replies and force a confession or an admission of guilt.

This question is often used in media training or logic studies to demonstrate how to handle interrogations that contain false, unproven, or trap-laden assumptions.

[Gary Childress]

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

If the procedures in place are corruptible, do you suppose nobody's going to take advantage of that? Do you suppose nobody already has?

I guess you don't take democracy very seriously.

Can you guys believe these loaded questions?

AI Overview
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic example of a loaded question or a complex question fallacy. It is designed to trap the respondent because both "yes" and "no" answers presuppose that the person has previously beaten their wife.

Key aspects of this loaded question:

Built-in Assumption: The question assumes a controversial or false premise (that you beat your wife) is already true.

No-Win Situation: Answering "Yes" implies you did it in the past; "No" implies you are still doing it.

Proper Response: The only effective rebuttal is to reject the premise entirely, such as saying, "I have never beaten my wife".

Purpose: Such questions are used as rhetorical tools to limit replies and force a confession or an admission of guilt.

This question is often used in media training or logic studies to demonstrate how to handle interrogations that contain false, unproven, or trap-laden assumptions.

IC never does that. Only godless atheists do things like that. How dare us!

[Immanuel Can]

...isn't much of a problem...

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

According to statistics that is the case in the US. Do you disagree with statistics?

I guess you don't know what "integrity" requires. It requires a process that is fair and cannot be subverted. That anybody can undermine it shows you've got a problem, if you care about the results and about democracy.

But what's your evidence that the process has not been significantly undermined? I provided evidence it has, and could easily provide more...where's your evidence that all is well in Americaland?

[Gary Childress]

Voter integrity "isn't much of a problem" in a democracy?

According to statistics that is the case in the US. Do you disagree with statistics?

I guess you don't know what "integrity" requires. It requires a process that is fair and cannot be subverted. That anybody can undermine it shows you've got a problem, if you care about the results and about democracy.

But what's your evidence that the process has not been significantly undermined? I provided evidence it has, and could easily provide more...where's your evidence that all is well in Americaland?

I haven't seen any examples you've provided that the process has been significantly undermined, were they statistical examples that you posted or some other form of evidence?

[Immanuel Can]

According to statistics that is the case in the US. Do you disagree with statistics?

I guess you don't know what "integrity" requires. It requires a process that is fair and cannot be subverted. That anybody can undermine it shows you've got a problem, if you care about the results and about democracy.

But what's your evidence that the process has not been significantly undermined? I provided evidence it has, and could easily provide more...where's your evidence that all is well in Americaland?

I haven't seen any examples you've provided

Go back and look...and I didn' t even have to try hard to find them. How many more are there? Nobody knows for sure, but more, to be sure.

But even one is an indicator of a serious problem. It's like having a mousehole in your garage; if one can get in, can't two? How about ten? Or a thousand? When is the hole too small to admit any more?

Answer: it never is, so long as more want to use it. Likewise, a fault in your democratic procedure means it can be subverted to any degree. So if you're smart, you close the hole.

[Gary Childress]

I guess you don't know what "integrity" requires. It requires a process that is fair and cannot be subverted. That anybody can undermine it shows you've got a problem, if you care about the results and about democracy.

But what's your evidence that the process has not been significantly undermined? I provided evidence it has, and could easily provide more...where's your evidence that all is well in Americaland?

I haven't seen any examples you've provided

Go back and look...and I didn' t even have to try hard to find them. How many more are there? Nobody knows for sure, but more, to be sure.

But even one is an indicator of a serious problem. It's like having a mousehole in your garage; if one can get in, can't two? How about ten? Or a thousand? When is the hole too small to admit any more?

Answer: it never is, so long as more want to use it. Likewise, a fault in your democratic procedure means it can be subverted to any degree. So if you're smart, you close the hole.

OK. Fair enough. I'll take your word for it that you provided evidence, since you're a Godly person. Let's fix the holes. By all means...

[phyllo]

Trump’s Claims About Noncitizens Voting Are False. We Can Prove It.
By Stephen Richer

This week, President Trump called on his party to nationalize American elections, an unconstitutional move that he said would be justified because of the danger of noncitizens casting ballots. “These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally,” he said.

No president has so baldly proposed to intervene in state elections, but the charge that noncitizens are illegally casting ballots is sadly commonplace. Elon Musk claims on X, without evidence, that significant numbers of illegal immigrants vote. Rudy Giuliani erroneously alleged that my home state, Arizona, had allowed “probably about 250,000” votes from noncitizens in 2020, despite the fact that Arizona has long required proof of citizenship to vote in state elections.

Election officials usually respond to these allegations by pointing out that there are almost no prosecutions of fraudulent noncitizen voters. Reuters has noted that even the pro-Trump Heritage Foundation’s database of election crimes listed only 24 instances of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections from 2003 to 2023.

While these rebuttals are correct, they are incomplete: Just because something isn’t prosecuted doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Happily, there is new compelling evidence debunking the false claims. Recently, a number of states have undertaken investigations into noncitizen voting, cross-checking voter rolls with citizenship status, and found it virtually nonexistent.

When confronted with allegations on noncitizens voting in Utah, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top election official, initiated a monthslong review of Utah’s approximately 2.1 million registered voters. She and her team found one “confirmed noncitizen.” Just one. And that one noncitizen, while registered, had never voted.

Idaho, a state of one million voters, ran similar tests in 2024, and they found 36 “very likely” registered noncitizens. That may seem like a lot until you view it in light of claims that statewide elections are altered by such anomalies. Some, but not all, of those 36 people have previously voted, the secretary of state, Phil McGrane, said, but “out of the million-plus registered voters we started with, we’re down to 10 thousandths of a percent” of the overall count — not even close to affecting the outcome.

Louisiana’s investigation in 2025 netted some 390 noncitizen registrants, 79 of whom had voted in at least one election over the last several decades (out of 2.9 million registrants). Just a few weeks ago, Montana found 23 possible noncitizen registrants (out of approximately 785,000 people registered). And Georgia, in some ways the model for these investigations, found in its 2024 audit 20 registered noncitizens (out of 8.2 million registrations). In my four years in office in Maricopa County overseeing voter registration, I came across a total of two possible instances of noncitizens voting out of some 2.5 million registered voters.

Some politicians are trying to exploit even these small numbers. In Michigan, the Macomb County clerk, Anthony Forlini, who is running for the top election office in the state, the secretary of state, recently announced to great fanfare that he’d found 15 noncitizens on his county’s voter rolls of over 724,000 registered voters. The incumbent secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, then tasked her team with investigating the 15 files. It found that three of the people were U.S. citizens, four were previously removed from voter rolls, four were under further investigation and four do seem to be noncitizens.

These investigations affirm what is simply common sense. People largely aren’t willing to risk their status in the United States — the land of economic opportunity — for the ability to cast one more vote out of hundreds of thousands or millions in a state and hundreds of millions in the country.

The investigations also suggest that many politicians and public interest groups, all of which have access to these reports, may not actually care that much about election security. The constant talk of noncitizen voting is more likely about scoring political points and bolstering fund-raising.

Playing politics with the idea of fraudulent voters and stolen elections comes at a real cost to American confidence in our elections. It’s an affront to our democracy and to all those who work to deliver free and fair elections. It’s also an ominous sign for where things may be heading this year.

For President Trump, the myth of noncitizens voting is part of the broader story he’s concocted to avoid accepting that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020. But it also appears to be about this fall’s election. Mr. Trump may well intend to send the F.B.I. to run elections in Fulton County, Ga., or the Department of Homeland Security to seize ballot tabulators from Los Angeles County.

I don’t think it’s likely he will do so. But I also wouldn’t have predicted that the F.B.I. would take hundreds of boxes of 2020 election materials from Fulton County, as it did last week. And I certainly wouldn’t have predicted that Republicans would attempt to derail the electoral count on Jan. 6, 2021.

Everyone — Democrats and Republicans — should use the new state-level proof that noncitizen voting is virtually nonexistent to push back against the real danger to our democracy: craven politicians using the issue to undermine our free and fair elections.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/trumps- ... n-prove-it#

[Immanuel Can]

I haven't seen any examples you've provided

Go back and look...and I didn' t even have to try hard to find them. How many more are there? Nobody knows for sure, but more, to be sure.

But even one is an indicator of a serious problem. It's like having a mousehole in your garage; if one can get in, can't two? How about ten? Or a thousand? When is the hole too small to admit any more?

Answer: it never is, so long as more want to use it. Likewise, a fault in your democratic procedure means it can be subverted to any degree. So if you're smart, you close the hole.

OK. Fair enough. I'll take your word for it that you provided evidence, since you're a Godly person. Let's fix the holes. By all means...

Well, you should look. I provided a whole bunch of links on that. And I could easily have produced more, of course. Those only took me a few minutes to locate.

[MikeNovack]

But even one is an indicator of a serious problem. It's like having a mousehole in your garage; if one can get in, can't two? How about ten? Or a thousand? When is the hole too small to admit any more?

Cure and disease, which is worse.

I'm just a FLMI, not a CLU (the actuaries could not understand why I might want to take the exams unless I wanted to switch to their department).

There is NO CURE for (at least some) dead people voting if early voting, mail in voting, etc. is allowed. That is actuarial reality. If a large number of people are allowed to drop off ballots early at least SOME of them will die between then and election day.

So the only cure to the disease (some dead people voting) is to disallow ANY voting prior to election day. If you tell me you want that to get zero dead people voting THEN I DISBELIEVE YOUR MOTIVATION. I believe you have some other reason you want early voting/mail in voting disallowed.