Reply With Quote
A crime would have been committed. Are you saying that investigating crime is a waste of time?
Seems an odd at ude for someone concerned about deterring fraud.
Ah. So the quote and link it was supposed to go though was just an honest mistake. Fair enough.
As for your link: you have evidence of clerical sloppiness, and the fact that NY post was willing to find people to commit fraud, not that any in-person fraud actually exists, and that voter ID laws would prevent that.
Your own article notes that the problem stemmed from delays in removing deceased people from the rolls.
If one is really concerned about this issue, it would seem that this would be far more cost effective to simply improve the reconciliation process that removes the deceased from voter rolls. That would prevent this just as easily.
My theory, though, is that you aren't really concerned about voter fraud. I genuinely think that your only motivation is to deter potential Democratic voting blocs.
The only evidence I have for that, though, is that you can't show there is a problem to begin with. Since you generally hold that government interference and waste is a horrible thing, openly advocating for a wasteful policy appears incongruent with that, and opens up the question of motive in my mind.
A crime would have been committed. Are you saying that investigating crime is a waste of time?
Seems an odd at ude for someone concerned about deterring fraud.
Fair enough. Spurminator pwned you faster than I did.
it's more cost effective to deter the fraud in the first place.
Again, how would you go about finding someone that voted in the stead of an eligible voter that, even though registered, did not cast a vote? How would you even go about finding a person that voted in place of a dead person?
Not really. Judging by my response to Spurminator, I still didn't realize my mistake.
Deterrent:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=laws+against+voter+fraud
Finding one case, next to impossible.
Finding something systemic, far easier.
Precisely my point.
If a problem is systemic or large enough to affect a national election, it would be fairly easy to detect.
The real mistake is wasting taxpayer money solving a problem that doesn't exist.
How would one go about identifying the kind of voter fraud that photo id would supposedly prevent? Seems pretty naive just to say it doesn't exist because you can't quantify something that went unnoticed in the first place.
parallels with red states spending $100Ks on drug testing welfare recipients, and finding nothing, destroying the REPUG LIE that welfare recipients use welfare to buy drugs.The real mistake is wasting taxpayer money solving a problem that doesn't exist.
There is that minor bit of hypocrisy.
"I hate government spending so much, I am going to make the government spend more money!"
I will let you re-think that question, before pointing it out.
Think carefully, and I bet you can answer it.
537 is a small number.
Go ahead and point it out. How do you know the person standing before you, at the polling place, presenting a voter registration card, is the person named on that card?
Wouldn't it be easy with a government issued photo identification card?
Again, the problem with your theory is that if any given area is known to be critical for an election, both parties tend to send extra observers. But such concerns are something of red herring, if the subject is whether or not there is evidence to support your assertion.
So, once more, I am left with simply asking you to provide reasonable proof that a problem exists that would be solved by voter ID laws.
Reasonable proof you, or anyone else for that matter, has yet to provide.
Propaganda generally involves deliberate misinformation.
If all I am asking for, is simply reasonable evidence for a problem, so I can determine for myself whether it exists, I have provided no information at all.
(edit)
Deliberate misinformation though, would generally be characterized as something that fails basic fact checks.
i.e. Yoni's post of a claim that was rated mostly false.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7679845
Wouldn't you agree?
You keep moving the goalpost, Random.
First you say the problem would have to be widespread in order to affect a national election. 537 votes in one state says otherwise.
Then you say there's no proof of a problem. Aside from the fact most of the suspected fraudulent activities occurs in areas, where the party fighting such controls, dominate the political landscape, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence abuses occur.
Requiring a valid photo ID is a modest means for addressing one such method of fraud. Again, what's your objection?
Would you agree voting is a qualified right and that states have an obligation to ensure a voter is qualified to exercise that right?
The last election was not really much effected by disenfranchisement.
I have not claimed it was.
You are either, therefore, committing a strawman attack, or yet another red herring fallacy.
Which type of lie is it?
But, since you brought it up, let's see what the Brennan center is actually saying.
(edit to add links-RG)State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.
These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:
These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.
States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.
This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun.
http://www.brennancenter.org/publica...w-changes-2012
Pdf study:
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/d...ng_Law_V10.pdf
(end edit)
Once one starts looking at the groups affected, and who is pushing hardest to restrict access to voting, the pattern does become a lot clearer.
It's about the suppression, stupid.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-20-2014 at 10:56 AM.
Not addressed to you. Sorry.
(edit)
But yes. Where we will disagree is what that obligation entails. I prefer policy solutions based on things like evidence.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-20-2014 at 10:59 AM. Reason: getting rid of snark
My link was a direct response to the Brennan report (well, an opinion piece written by one of its authors, actually).
Weiser's example for suppression was North Carolina. Voting was up in North Carolina, over 2010 midterms. Voting, among groups she claimed were suppressed, were also up.
Hence, the "Myth" in the le.
Weiser and the Brennan group tried to perpetuate a "myth," unfortunately for them, there are people willing to actually look at the numbers and not just pull crap out of their collective asses.
You have your preferences and I have mine.
I guess RG didn't want to elaborate.
31 allegations of voter fraud in the US since 2000, out of one billion votes cast. voter ID is still clearly a solution in search of a problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-ballots-cast/I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports wherever they crop up.
To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.
So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.
To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.
or maybe the problem, as Greg Abbott so delicately put it, is how to keep certain traditional Democratic cons uencies at home on election day.
BUT BUT BUT .... thos 31 "allegations" totally changed the outcome of the elections.
voter fraud, yet another Repug LIE
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
