Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[ivwshane]

You still didn't say which you preferred. Of the two choices given, which is preferable to you?

I think he did and it appears that he'd have no problem losing 100k votes if it prevented all fraud. Sadly the issue isn't 100k to 0, nor is it likely 500k to 0. Why! Because none of the voter fraud prevention laws target where the largest voter fraud occurs.

 

[glenn1]

You still didn't say which you preferred. Of the two choices given, which is preferable to you?

Given your supernatural ability to accurately and precisely determine that 10 and only 10 fraudulent votes were counted, then I think you could likewise divine the intent of those extra 100k voters and allot them accordingly. Thus the 1.2M with zero fraud since it's more accurate.

Hell, like I said I'd be willing to cede those extra 100k votes to the party I opposed to ensure the remaining voters were accurately identified. Unlike you I care more about integrity than the results.

 

[glenn1]

I think he did and it appears that he'd have no problem losing 100k votes if it prevented all fraud. Sadly the issue isn't 100k to 0, nor is it likely 500k to 0. Why! Because none of the voter fraud prevention laws target where the largest voter fraud occurs.

Then why aren't you addressing that largest fraud? Again I agree that Photo ID isn't a perfect solution but if your side refuses to even entertain any improved alternatives then I can't treat your position seriously anymore.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Given your supernatural ability to accurately and precisely determine that 10 and only 10 fraudulent votes were counted, then I think you could likewise divine the intent of those extra 100k voters and allot them accordingly. Thus the 1.2M with zero fraud since it's more accurate.

Hell, like I said I'd be willing to cede those extra 100k votes to the party I opposed to ensure the remaining voters were accurately identified. Unlike you I care more about integrity than the results.

If someone was hardcore determined to cast the maximum amount of fraudulent votes being realistic how many votes do you believe they could make? Remember travel times and voting lines. We'll assume they somehow have a list of names & addresses of people who won't vote.
Don't you think mail in voter fraud would be easier & much less risky?

 

[glenn1]

If someone was hardcore determined to cast the maximum amount of fraudulent votes being realistic how many votes do you believe they could make? Remember travel times and voting lines. We'll assume they somehow have a list of names & addresses of people who won't vote.

Enough to change an election? If we used the standard in the rhetorical question of 10 votes in 1.3MM, scaled to Florida 2000 election tally of 5,963,110 votes cast that amount of fraud could have thrown the election to Gore in certain recount scenarios (e.g. 'One corner of chad detached or optical mark').

 

[SMOGZINN]

I want the highest possible vote participant AND it to be as accurate as possible. They aren't mutually exclusive as you seem to think, otherwise your side wouldn't be complaining about things like absentee vote fraud but instead just celebrating that turnout was increased regardless of anything else.

Practically they are mutually exclusive. As you put more barriers to voting you will reduce the number of eligible voters that will even attempt to participate. This is pretty much an immutable law of human nature. The more effort something requires, the fewer people will attempt it.

So, the question that is being asked to you is where do we decide that losing legitimate voters is a bigger problem than preventing illegitimate voters.

We can actually figure this out mathematically, and I would be willing to bet that photo ID laws make elections less representative not more, as it would require a whole lot of in-person voter fraud to overcome the loss or legitimate voters that photo ID laws create.

 

[thraashman]

I recently created a vaccine to Ebola after it killed 3 people in America last year and infected a few others. It's approximately 50% effective at preventing an Ebola infection. I'm almost done convincing the government to administer it to 200 million Americans. I'm sure we can all agree that it's the right thing for the government to make this vaccine compulsory ... oh yeah, forgot to mention, the vaccine has a 10% lethality rate. But what's killing 20 million Americans if it stops the deaths or infections of about 10?

Now if you think the above sounds stupid, you now understand why voter ID laws are idiotic. If you don't, then you're are quite possibly brain dead.

 

[fskimospy]

Given your supernatural ability to accurately and precisely determine that 10 and only 10 fraudulent votes were counted, then I think you could likewise divine the intent of those extra 100k voters and allot them accordingly. Thus the 1.2M with zero fraud since it's more accurate.

Hell, like I said I'd be willing to cede those extra 100k votes to the party I opposed to ensure the remaining voters were accurately identified. Unlike you I care more about integrity than the results.

Okay, now without the supernatural ability to divine the intent of those extra 100k. 100k votes vs. 10 fraudulent ones. Which would you prefer?

 

[glenn1]

Okay, now without the supernatural ability to divine the intent of those extra 100k. 100k votes vs. 10 fraudulent ones. Which would you prefer?

Asked and answered. Since we're dealing in hypothetical questions at what level of fraud would you act? Obviously not 10, how about 100? 1,000? Any whatsoever?

Or here's another one - if you knew with certainty that the election margin was 9 votes, would you still say you don't care about fraud?

 

[glenn1]

I recently created a vaccine to Ebola after it killed 3 people in America last year and infected a few others. It's approximately 50% effective at preventing an Ebola infection. I'm almost done convincing the government to administer it to 200 million Americans. I'm sure we can all agree that it's the right thing for the government to make this vaccine compulsory ... oh yeah, forgot to mention, the vaccine has a 10% lethality rate. But what's killing 20 million Americans if it stops the deaths or infections of about 10?

Now if you think the above sounds stupid, you now understand why voter ID laws are idiotic. If you don't, then you're are quite possibly brain dead.

Hey, sounds good - let's apply the same logic to financial and other regulation. Since a tiny percentage of stock trades involve fraud let's disband the SEC and save the taxpayer money.

 

[fskimospy]

Asked and answered. Since we're dealing in hypothetical questions at what level of fraud would you act? Obviously not 10, how about 100? 1,000? Any whatsoever?

Or here's another one - if you knew with certainty that the election margin was 9 votes, would you still say you don't care about fraud?

No, it was not answered. You added a new condition and then answered it based on that.

Answer the original question asked. Why is this so hard for you to do?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why would I assume those extra 100k voters would not reflect the voting preferences of the population at large? It's up to you to make the case why all those 100k would be people disenfranchised by Voter ID rather than people that didn't bother to vote or anything else. Even if you did I've laid out my reasons for my position and possible ways to mitigate any impact, the only thing your side has offered is that you don't give a shit about fraud. As someone said earlier, they'd value fraud prevention as worth zero dollars.

Why would we assume that an extra 100,000 voters might not be voting the same percentages as the remaining voting population? Good question. Let's use Alabama as an example, since it's the entire point of this thread. Of the ten counties that voted strongest for Barack Obama in the last election, eight of them had their DMVs closed, including the five strongest Democrat counties in the state. Is it reasonable to assume that if those counties experience a drop in voter participation due to people being unable to obtain an ID, it will be in identical party affiliation percentages to the rest of the state as a whole? Because that seems pretty unlikely given their recent voting history. It seems like you'd see likely Democrat voters disenfranchised as a greater percentage of the population since they make up the bulk of those counties. If you're willing to live with a Republican-controlled state deciding to close DMVs in predominantly Democrat areas because of the unproven threat of in-person voter fraud, you're on the partisanship to stupidity.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^he did at "obviously not 10?

 

[glenn1]

No, it was not answered. You added a new condition and then answered it based on that.

Answer the original question asked. Why is this so hard for you to do?

I did. I already said I would take the 1.2MM and zero fraud and just spot you the extra 100k votes. The question in return is would you accept those votes?

 

[fskimospy]

I did. I already said I would take the 1.2MM and zero fraud and just spot you the extra 100k votes. The question in return is would you accept those votes?

No, that would be nice he opposite of what an election is about. 1.3 million votes with 10 fraud cases is mathematically nearly certain to more closely approximate the true position of the electorate, so I would take that.

It isn't even really about ideology, it's just statistics. Math always wins.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I did. I already said I would take the 1.2MM and zero fraud and just spot you the extra 100k votes. The question in return is would you accept those votes?

Oops now I'm confused

 

[glenn1]

No, that would be nice he opposite of what an election is about. 1.3 million votes with 10 fraud cases is mathematically nearly certain to more closely approximate the true position of the electorate, so I would take that.

It isn't even really about ideology, it's just statistics. Math always wins.

Sure, if you presume only ten votes fraudulent, and that the actual amount of fraud is under the margin of victory then yes. Unless you were one of the people who the fraud was committed against and you weren't able to exercise your vote franchise, but no one gives a shit about them.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, if you presume only ten votes fraudulent, and that the actual amount of fraud is under the margin of victory then yes. Unless you were one of the people who the fraud was committed against and you weren't able to exercise your vote franchise, but no one gives a shit about them.

I imagine someone would feel the same way if they were an eligible voter that was unable to vote under the new rules. There are almost certainly far more of them than there is voter fraud, so if that's your concern I imagine you now oppose voter id?

 

[glenn1]

I imagine someone would feel the same way if they were an eligible voter that was unable to vote under the new rules. There are almost certainly far more of them than there is voter fraud, so if that's your concern I imagine you now oppose voter id?

No, I would do what both sides (including yours) SHOULD be doing and working to get them an ID. But that presumes you actually care about them as people.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sure, if you presume only ten votes fraudulent, and that the actual amount of fraud is under the margin of victory then yes. Unless you were one of the people who the fraud was committed against and you weren't able to exercise your vote franchise, but no one gives a shit about them.

If you're going to presume more than ten fraudulent votes cast in-person that would have been prevented by ID, you're going to need to post some corroborating evidence that such things happen more than ten times in any given election. Because otherwise we are potentially disenfranchising legitimate votes on your assumption that in-person voter fraud is occurring. Without evidence, that's baseless paranoia, and that's not really a good basis for legislation.

 

[glenn1]

If you're going to presume more than ten fraudulent votes cast in-person that would have been prevented by ID, you're going to need to post some corroborating evidence that such things happen more than ten times in any given election. Because otherwise we are potentially disenfranchising legitimate votes on your assumption that in-person voter fraud is occurring. Without evidence, that's baseless paranoia, and that's not really a good basis for legislation.

If you advocating removing the other laws that require showing Photo ID then I'll take your word for it. Otherwise the state's compelling interest in you providing your identity is just as strong when you vote as when you get married or anything else.

 

[fskimospy]

If you advocating removing the other laws that require showing Photo ID then I'll take your word for it. Otherwise the state's compelling interest in you providing your identity is just as strong when you vote as when you get married or anything else.

Why is the compelling interest just as strong? What's the basis for that?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If you advocating removing the other laws that require showing Photo ID then I'll take your word for it. Otherwise the state's compelling interest in you providing your identity is just as strong when you vote as when you get married or anything else.

I'm not sure how Philadelphia's marriage law has anything to do with Alabama's voter law. People have also tried pointing out Colorado and California in this thread, apparently without realizing that there is a different standard of what constitutes acceptable ID in each of those states. Alabama is the only one requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote in elections and then making it harder for certain people to obtain a state-issued photo ID. That's the problem. If Philadelphia required a state-issued photo ID to get married and then closed all their DMVs, I'd oppose that too. I don't have a problem with voter ID if the state is willing to allocate the resources to properly implement it. Alabama is proving that they are not. And that's the problem. Ensuring every legitimate voter has ID is costly and failing to do so is disenfranchising legal voters to chase a bogeyman that has never been proven to exist; it's absurd.

I've got a good follow-up law for Alabama; all bars must now close at 10 PM so people have enough time to get home before the goblins come out. And driving drunk is permitted if the driver swears they're being pursued by at least three ghouls. As long as we're making laws based on things that "could" happen, and not necessarily things that "do" happen, why limit ourselves to voting?

 

[Jhhnn]

Practically they are mutually exclusive. As you put more barriers to voting you will reduce the number of eligible voters that will even attempt to participate. This is pretty much an immutable law of human nature. The more effort something requires, the fewer people will attempt it.

So, the question that is being asked to you is where do we decide that losing legitimate voters is a bigger problem than preventing illegitimate voters.

We can actually figure this out mathematically, and I would be willing to bet that photo ID laws make elections less representative not more, as it would require a whole lot of in-person voter fraud to overcome the loss or legitimate voters that photo ID laws create.

Please. For Repubs, losing legitimate votes isn't a bug, it's a desirable feature. It's actually the whole point of the exercise. Their leaders realize full well that more representative elections are not to their advantage. The rank & file know it too, at a subliminal level. They know they're not the majority. It frightens them and warps their values.

Beyond that, It's foolish to engage voter ID advocates at the level of the hypothetical. It just gives them wiggle room.

It's simple. Show us the fraud. Produce the Bigfoot. If they can't, there no reason to believe it exists other than as a vehicle of deception to achieve political advantage.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not sure how Philadelphia's marriage law has anything to do with Alabama's voter law. People have also tried pointing out Colorado and California in this thread, apparently without realizing that there is a different standard of what constitutes acceptable ID in each of those states. Alabama is the only one requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote in elections and then making it harder for certain people to obtain a state-issued photo ID. That's the problem. If Philadelphia required a state-issued photo ID to get married and then closed all their DMVs, I'd oppose that too. I don't have a problem with voter ID if the state is willing to allocate the resources to properly implement it. Alabama is proving that they are not. And that's the problem. Ensuring every legitimate voter has ID is costly and failing to do so is disenfranchising legal voters to chase a bogeyman that has never been proven to exist; it's absurd.

I've got a good follow-up law for Alabama; all bars must now close at 10 PM so people have enough time to get home before the goblins come out. And driving drunk is permitted if the driver swears they're being pursued by at least three ghouls. As long as we're making laws based on things that "could" happen, and not necessarily things that "do" happen, why limit ourselves to voting?

People here would (and effectively have) argue that even if Alabama opened a DMV on every street corner that would still present too much a burden. They're not arguing from good faith, they won't even concede validating voter identity is a valid state interest.