Reply With Quote
But there is evidence. Already posted in the previous thread about this same subject two weeks ago. That you choose to ignore it is a completely different story.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest just that.
I'm sure he would "settle" for ineligible voters' being taken off the rolls in the time between the registration deadline and the election.
But there is evidence. Already posted in the previous thread about this same subject two weeks ago. That you choose to ignore it is a completely different story.
Besides, yoni should be fine with all the felons who mistakenly register to vote.
Are more people disenfranchised by fraudulent votes canceling their ballot or by measures to prevent the fraud?
Judging from your numbers?
Definitely the latter -- though I have no idea you would advocate disenfranchisement of any kind.
I don't but, I'm willing to take the course that results in the least disenfranchisement.
Can you support the assertion fraud prevention measures result in more disenfranchised voters than does actual fraudulent votes?
The first two aren't germane and the last one is easily remedied by voters ensuring they obtain proper identification before attempting to vote.
I'm in favor of providing free government identification to those that find themselves in this situation. That would eliminate any possible disenfranchisement.
So, you'd be in favor of measures that prevent disenfranchisement?
I'm in favor of a voter ID card, issued at the state level, not federal...
Did you read the link? Absolutely has everything to do with what we're discussing, including examples of why certain people won't be able to obtain proper identification before attempting to vote.
A lot of these laws lack seriousness from the fact that they're passed with only mere months before the election. Not to mention that they disenfranchise a good amount of legitimate voters over concerns that the state itself claims it's never been a problem.
So you're back to supporting the enforcement of current law in a more timely manner, which would have eliminated all the "fraud" of felons voting mistakenly.
Thanks for agreeing with me yet again.
There's no "theory" here... PA won't even argue there's voting fraud in their state, and the law right now precludes up to 700,000+ legitimate voters. If the state itself claims there's no fraud, the law then it's entirely there with the purpose to limit legitimate voters.
"...won't be..." is not an example of actual disenfranchisement.
Voter fraud prevention measures can be modified to eliminate the the "won't be."
Un-enacted laws have not disenfranchised anyone.
Fraudulent voters have.
That's Pennsylvania...not even one of the States we've discussed. I can't help their officials aren't able to articulate the problem or draft a law that will work.
Sure it is. They won't be voting or will find out they can't vote when they try. That's effectively disenfranchisement.
Or they can simply be put together so "won't be" isn't an issue. The question is whether it's worth the effort seeing voter fraud is minimal and the current laws already do a good job of catching the perpetrators.
The PA law is current law.
You asked for an example where these "fraud-prevention" disenfranchised more voters than voter fraud. You were given an example.
So, make it so they will be eligible to vote when they try.
You act as though the shortcoming are insurmountable.
I would advocate that.
Seeing as how the Minnesota election, in 2008, and the Florida election, in 2000, were so close as to possibly be affected by fraud (and, in one case, probably were), I'd say it's worth the effort.
Who's been disenfranchised?
How many voters were disenfranchised?
yoni, do you realize the law you are supporting has nothing to do with the "fraud" you cited in the OP?
lol he keeps ducking your questions, why bother?
What voter ID laws are useful for is reducing voter participation by you know who. Requiring an unexpired government-issued ID, a bank statement, or a utility bill is good. Requiring an unexpired government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, is better, because about 25 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Latinos don’t have any––as against 11 percent of the general population. The nine states with the strictest photo ID requirements are mostly rural, which means the government offices where such ID can be obtained are likelier to be far away and to keep irregular hours. The Woodville, Mississippi office is open only on the second Thursday of every month. Wisconsin’s Sauk City office is open only on the fifth Wednesday of every month, and since eight months in 2012 don’t even have a fifth Wednesday, the office will open its doors only four days this year.
They're insurmountable simply because the law was passed on March, the election is in November, and there was no effort to educate the voting population over the new requirements, nor there was effort put behind getting potential disenfranchised voters in obtaining the required do entation.
As a matter of fact, neither the legislature nor the governor had the slightest idea of how many legitimate voters were going to be affected with this law.
Luckily there's a challenge to the law, and hopefully it will be at the very least suspended until after the election.
I don't disagree that striving to reduce further the already negligible fraud is a valuable goal. However, if the price to pay for that is disenfranchising legitimate voters, then it's not a solution.
The current estimates puts them on the 700,000+ numbers. Under the current law, today, those people could not vote, even though they're legitimate voters.
I see...
First you claim there are no cases, then you dismiss the cases that are found by percentage.
I don't know the actual statistics, but it is believed by many, including myself, that there is generally around 1000 times more of such behavior not spotted for every incident spotted.
Existing procedures could easily end all the "fraud" listed in the OP -- e.g., if the "watchdog" idiots checked the rolls for ineligible voters before the election.
lol 1000 times
Hey yoni... I am still waiting for that ONE person to come forward and say someone voted using their name....
WC: Voter fraud statistics are limited only by your imagination.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions