How to rig an election

[Chucho]

You can repeat yourself, scream, handwave, jump up and down, etc but this take has been refuted. WI made that argument and when asked for proof by the court showed nothing. They lost their case on that basis.

You've had this pointed out to you 4 times now. You like to go back to your initial assertion don't you.

Now I am guessing that this si the part where you call me psuedo-intellectual or "not as smart as I think I am," but what you are doing with this tactic is monumentally stupid in and of itself. It is what really stupid, pigheaded people do when struck by cognitive dissonance.

LOL, someone's still upset. You do realize this is what you were doing when you were calling someone "brotherkiller", right? Your projecting doesn't change your pseudo intellectualism and that's why you're trying to "Get a win".

And I should take a court case as the be all, end all? How often are cases overturned? You're standing by that because you're a pig headed, tool trying to stroke his ego. You're basically saying "don't question anything, the Government said it's this way." So, why do you question everything the administration says? Because it's stupid and vain to think everything is correct.

[Chucho]

My question is, how can you prove there was no voter fraud before ID laws were ins uted and then disprove the lack of effectiveness when they're implemented?

[DarrinS]

A preventive measure that prevents a problem that doesn't exist is bad because it is all cost and no benefit. It is like spending money on a unicorn steak at a restaurant. I have a cost, the price, and no benefit, i.e. I can't eat a non-existent steak.


Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

I can find examples of voter fraud. No unicorns tho.

[RandomGuy]

So, assume it was never an issue because data based on where the ID law was implemented showed the law prevented voter fraud?

"Assume bank robbing unicorns exist. How much money would you want to spend catching them?"

If bank-robbing unicorns existed, I would want the police to catch them.

If in-person voter fraud were proven to be a material problem, I would be fine with having voter ID laws, especially if some care was made to make the IDs easier.

In principle, I am not opposed to ID laws. The problem is that they are all cost, and no benefit.

You can't prove the problem exists, any more than any of the state attorney generals could when they got called to the mat in court, where it counts.

Why should we have a law, or spend one cent of anyone's money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

[DarrinS]

You got me. She just chuckled, went on to point out the various flaws in it in rather more detail than was necessary (if you ever deal with actuaries, expect answers like this), and said "is this person serious?"

Yeah, I was definitely trying to do a rigorous statistical analysis and not make an analogy. Glad you ran that past the actuary tho.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL, someone's still upset. You do realize this is what you were doing when you were calling someone "brotherkiller", right? Your projecting doesn't change your pseudo intellectualism and that's why you're trying to "Get a win".

And I should take a court case as the be all, end all? How often are cases overturned? You're standing by that because you're a pig headed, tool trying to stroke his ego. You're basically saying "don't question anything, the Government said it's this way." So, why do you question everything the administration says? Because it's stupid and vain to think everything is correct.

called it.

Now I expect here in the next 4 -24 hours you will once again repeat the initial assertion.

And dumb , WI is the government making the claim that there was proof of voter fraud. If we are not to trust the government then we don't trust WI in the cir stance. This goes back to what I was talking about when I was pointing out how you lack introspection. Frankly, that is just some piss poor critical thinking.

pseudo intellectualism. You wouldn't know an intellectual if they punched you in the face.

[DarrinS]

Now we’re on to bank-robbing unicorns. Good stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, I was definitely trying to do a rigorous statistical analysis and not make an analogy. Glad you ran that past the actuary tho.

No one is saying that you were trying to do a rigorous analysis, sophist. You cherry picked anecdotes in your normal halfbaked way and then tried to pass it off as a valid representation of the whole.

It's like being asked to multiply two numbers and you subtract two random numbers you googled. When it's pointed out how ignorant it is you turn around and say you weren't being rigorous. You are once again completely missing the point.

Not surprising but its there just the same.

[Pavlov]

There appears to be no foolproof solution. Any system that can be exploited, will be exploited.

To make a YouTube video, sure.

[RandomGuy]

I can find examples of voter fraud. No unicorns tho.

Sure voter fraud exists. Easy.

Different types of voter fraud exist. Also easy.

The kind of voter fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law doesn't exist. We can quibble over semantics if you want.

I can then clarify that it has an effect in .00000000000000001% of votes, which is, for all practical purposes, non-existant.

How much do you want your taxes to go up to prevent 00.00000000000000001% of voter fraud? If you have a better figure than .00000000000000001%, then present it. Maybe you will have better luck than the highly-paid lawyers who tried to argue this in court and came up with nada.

[RandomGuy]

Now we’re on to bank-robbing unicorns. Good stuff.

They are as real as the fraud you say we need laws to prevent. Sort of my point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure voter fraud exists. Easy.

Different types of voter fraud exist. Also easy.

The kind of voter fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID law doesn't exist. We can quibble over semantics if you want.

I can then clarify that it has an effect in .00000000000000001% of votes, which is, for all practical purposes, non-existant.

How much do you want your taxes to go up to prevent 00..00000000000000001% of voter fraud? If you have a better figure than .00000000000000001%, then present it. Maybe you will have better luck than the highly-paid lawyers who tried to argue this in court and came up with nada.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fokd83nn4x...eVote.pdf?dl=0

Here is another study from Penn from last month. It actually is a rigorous statistical analysis.

[RandomGuy]

No one is saying that you were trying to do a rigorous analysis, sophist. You cherry picked anecdotes in your normal halfbaked way and then tried to pass it off as a valid representation of the whole.

It's like being asked to multiply two numbers and you subtract two random numbers you googled. When it's pointed out how ignorant it is you turn around and say you weren't being rigorous. You are once again completely missing the point.

Not surprising but its there just the same.

+1

He doesn't even realize it fails as an analogy.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fokd83nn4x...eVote.pdf?dl=0

Here is another study from Penn from last month. It actually is a rigorous statistical analysis.

We find that one of Crosscheck’s proposed purging strategies

would eliminate about 300 registrations used to cast a seemingly legitimate vote

for every one registration used to cast a double vote.

Basically 300 false positives for every case of actual error elimination. All cost, no benefit. More Republican failure.

Again.

[Chucho]

You wouldn't know an intellectual if they punched you in the face.

I know you're not one. Not even close. The only person who'd call you intellectual is you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know you're not one. Not even close. The only person who'd call you intellectual is you.

I've never called myself one that I can recall. It's always just been important to people like yourself that I not be one.

So anywho what makes you qualified to judge who is or is not an intellectual? You have demonstrated poor critical thinking and a disingenuous nature. I see no reason to find you credible in just about anything but perhaps you can make a case for yourself. I'm willing to listen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Basically 300 false positives for every case of actual error elimination. All cost, no benefit. More Republican failure.

Again.

The article does a good job quantifying the issue. Even if you take the most generous extreme of possible outcomes given the error, there has never been remotely enough preventable fraud to affect an election.

OTOH, you article in the OP points out how 10s of thousands were disenfranchised which is a significant and outcoming level of change to the electorate.

It is quite easy to weigh and it is no surprise that the states have lost on ID laws repeatedly. It's an easy case to figure.

[RandomGuy]

The article does a good job quantifying the issue. Even if you take the most generous extreme of possible outcomes given the error, there has never been remotely enough preventable fraud to affect an election.

OTOH, you article in the OP points out how 10s of thousands were disenfranchised which is a significant and outcoming level of change to the electorate.

It is quite easy to weigh and it is no surprise that the states have lost on ID laws repeatedly. It's an easy case to figure.

It's about the suppression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxvw2Is0pLM

Republican county chair, and executive committee member of the NC Republican party gave an interview, where he pretty much admitted that the laws were intended to hurt groups that vote Democratic. He didn't once mention fraud.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, published Friday, quotes former Buncombe County, North Carolina, precinct chairman Don Yelton as saying on the Daily Show three years ago: If the N.C. voter ID law “hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.”

Yelton also previously testified at a N.C. General Assembly committee in 2013 that changing state election laws could help Republicans win elections by disenfranchising some Democratic Party “special voting blocks” and that was “that reason for the photo ID” requirement.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...e93060687.html


(edit)

Did I mention the interview was with the Daily Show? It wasn't even a serious interview, but he admitted on tape what he thought the real reason for the ID law was...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's about the suppression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxvw2Is0pLM

Republican county chair, and executive committee member of the NC Republican party gave an interview, where he pretty much admitted that the laws were intended to hurt groups that vote Democratic. He didn't once mention fraud.





http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...e93060687.html


(edit)

Did I mention the interview was with the Daily Show? It wasn't even a serious interview, but he admitted on tape what he thought the real reason for the ID law was...

That's all been known for a long time. The issue is that you like many others are rational and use critical thinking skills to weight new evidence and incorporate it into your outlook.

Board conservatives around here are rife with people that simply ignore contrary evidence and repeat initial claims. The one's that are not like that for the most part no longer post here. Instead we are left with Darrin and all of m>s and TSA trolls.

[RandomGuy]

Robert Gleason, Chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party says that the Voter ID law helped to lessen Obama's margin of victory in the 2012 election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXF9euvxreE

[RandomGuy]

(R) Admits Voter ID Laws About Helping Romney Win Election

"The Pennsylvania House majority leader says voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win" the presidency."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60


Looks like the GOP in Pennsylvania didn't get the memo about how to prevent fraud, and were more concerned about turnout.

[RandomGuy]

Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.

“Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.

“Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/1277406...id-laws-racist

[RandomGuy]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?

[dabom]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?

Always the crux in the argument.

[DarrinS]

Note how easy it was to find Republicans talking about reducing turn out, but so hard to find actual "fraud" that ID laws can prevent.

I wonder why that is?

Easiest way to reduce turnout — ty candidates.