Because proponents of ID laws have failed to prove more-than-negligible fraud exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Printable View
Because proponents of ID laws have failed to prove more-than-negligible fraud exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Big Government Yonivore wants more laws so we can prevent hypothetical crimes from happening. He must be a huge gun control proponent.
It's linked in the post. The testimony states that 213 people that pre-deceased the election, voted. That wasn't a suggestion but, an under-oath statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
How do you find who used a dead person's registration to vote? Cameras aren't allowed at polling places so, what investigative technique do you suggest be employed to divine who took on the identities of 213 dead people, walked into a polling place, and cast a ballot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I say we make it harder for dead people to vote by making them show a valid, government-issued, photo identification card when they show up at the poll.
Ohhh, it was under oath, well that means they proved it, I guess. Nevermind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
They must just be working on those arrests... I know these investigations take time, but I'm sure A.G. Greg Abbott was highly motivated to get to the bottom of all of this when the report was sent to his office.
I'm not a detective, but the process starts with proving how many of those were the result of clerical errors, something that clearly had not been investigated fully at the time that claim was made, if you read the Politifact article.Quote:
How do you find who used a dead person's registration to vote? Cameras aren't allowed at polling places so, what investigative technique do you suggest be employed to divine who took on the identities of 213 dead people, walked into a polling place, and cast a ballot?
I say dead people haven't shown a propensity to want to vote so it's a solution to a nonexistent problem.Quote:
I say we make it harder for dead people to vote by making them show a valid, government-issued, photo identification card when they show up at the poll.
Yeah, well, Voter ID is now the law and it doesn't appear the U. S. Supreme Court is going to overturn it.
So, we can continue to agree to disagree on the matter.
I'll gladly present my photo ID when I vote.
Which elections have been thrown by alleged voter fraud?
Which elections have been thrown by voter suppression, disenfranchisement, insane gerrymandering by the Repugs?
note: SCOTUS5 says gerrymandering is OK for screwing the opposition, building a structural block to losing elections, but gerrymandering based race isn't. :lol fucking SCOTUS, what a joke. NO LAW IS ABOVE THE MAN.
I must have mistakenly given the impression that I had any delusions that we would not continue to disagree on the matter. I just wanted to show that you are a shill with no substantial rationale or intellectual honesty behind your position on Voter ID, and I think I've succeeded in doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Thanks for the discussion!
Yeah, you won the internet, Spurminator. Good job.
I enjoyed reading him/her logically dismantle your arugements. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
His/her logic could have been used by meQuote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
Show me evidence that voter ID laws suppress voter turnout. See how that works?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7678559Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So your default position is to implement laws and regulation regardless of whether or not there is a need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I believe there's a need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
I believe there is voter fraud.
So do the voter's that passed the Voter ID law. (That's right, voters. We elected the Legislature that passed the law - they represent us.)
I don't believe requiring a voter to identify and qualify themselves, when voting, is an undue burden on the voter.
Nor do the courts.
But you've already conceded your belief is not based on any imperial evidence. It's based solely on emotion. Sorry, but that doesn't make for good policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
That's a lie: https://www.texastribune.org/2014/10...w-unconstitut/Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I've conceded nothing of the sort. The evidence supporting voter fraud is just as empirical as that of voter ID suppressing votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
And, yet, The Supreme Court stayed the ruling until after the election. Something tells me that if they thought it was even a close call, they wouldn't have waded in. Incidentally, they've upheld similar laws in other states so, I'm guessing this one will pass muster, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
It's really not. You've yet to provide any empirical evidence that in-person voter fraud exists. When asked to do so, you linked to some unsubstantiated bullshit and when you were called on it, you simply said whelp, it's the law of the land. You have not provided any evidence that voter ID law is good policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The ruling was stayed due to the proximity of the ruling to the election. The Texas ruling was unique in that explicitly stated the law "was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose". We'll see if it's upheld, but to act as if it's a foregone conclusion is simply another emotional response.
Been there, seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Doesn't say what you hope it does.
You have evidence of clerical lag.Quote:
In the method Texas Watchdog used, matching first, last and middle names and dates of birth, two people with a common name born on the same day could be mixed up with each other.
FAIL.
You always seem to be vague about the types of fraud you say exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Either deliberately misleading, or ignorant of what fraud actually exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I will suggest precisely that.Quote:
In one case identified by Texas Watchdog, a poll worker's mistake may have led to a faulty record.
John Medford said there must have been a mix-up when he was told his father -– who died in 2006 –- had voted in the March Democratic primary.
They lived at the same Neff Street address. They shared their name: John Curtis Medford. But the father was born in 1917, the son in 1951.
“My mom and I voted. That’s all I know,” Medford said. But the younger Medford didn’t vote, records show.
Poll workers apparently recorded the father as showing up to the polls, not the son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Your quote isn't in that article.Quote:
"Ingram put it this way in his testimony: 'We believe 239 folks voted in the recent election after passing away' including, he said, 213 who voted in person."
...
"Mortara asked Ingram: 'Does the investigation you performed on the May voting data tell you anything about the prevalence of in person voter fraud of this type?'
"Ingram replied: 'It tells us that it's more common than we thought...'"
Wow... that is misleading... even for you.
Ah... there we go.
Found Yoni's quote.
Unsurprisingly..
Greg Abbott says state proved in court that more than 200 dead people voted in the latest Texas elections
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...ostlyfalse.gif
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...-voters-Texas/
Nothing was actually proven, other than Abbott is willing to manufacture evidence to provide cover for cynical ploys to disenfranchise voters. Nobody went to jail. No investigation of this heinous crime ever brought a prosecution.Quote:
Our ruling
Abbott said the recent trial proved that more than 200 dead people voted in the latest elections, the May 2012 party primaries.
But the trial was less conclusive.
To recap: An elections official testified that after comparing a list of 50,000 dead registered voters -- where’s that headline? -- to records of voters in the recent primaries, "we believe" that 239 "folks voted in the recent election after passing away," meaning 239 voters cast ballots using voter registrations of dead Texans. According to his testimony, the state then took the best matches and sought death certificates "for as many of those as we could round up in a short time." Ten death certificates came back and, the official testified, four names, birth dates and Social Security numbers completely aligned on the lists and death certificates.
We can see how this information might raise flags, but we do not see that it proves there were more than 200 dead voters, so to speak. That's because there’s a difference between suspecting fraud and proving it. After all, Abbott's office has been handed the 200-plus matches to investigate.
His claim rates Mostly False.
What a scumbag.
It wasn't intentional. I had two articles up and pasted the wrong one without noticing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
So, how many votes were suppressed by the law?
The dead can vote in NYC
Voter substitution can and does occur. The only way to stop it at the polling place is to require a voter to qualify themselves when they show up to vote and, the best way to do that is to require a government-issued photo identification.
Trying to figure out who cast the votes is a waste of time, after the fact. You're not going to change the outcome of the election and you're going to spend a lot of money trying to identify people who are not required to identify themselves and are not subject to being photographed or recorded when they commit the crime. The best you're going to do is prove the fraudulent votes occurred and, according to the testimony, the AG's office was satisfied the fraud occurred. Requiring a photo ID at the polls will go a long way to ending this type of fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Spurminator beat you by about 9 hours (according to the forum's clock).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7678797
"AG" :lol
Of course, Abbott would "run" a politicized, REPUG AG office in fucking TX "satisfied" that the Repugs' decades propaganda of rampant, election-throwing voting fraud was confirmed :lol