Holder's Ballot Given to Young Man

[Pens1566]

From your own link.



I guess 5% of fraudulent voters doesn't reach the significant problem for you. Gee golly Bubba Jhnnn it's only 5% of the vote! Who cares as long as a Democrat gets elected?

Did you not read that link, or just cherry pick what you thought might help your argument? Very first line :

After Wilson made the dead-voters charge in January, the State Election Commission investigated the matter, but was unable to find any evidence of voter fraud, much less zombie voters.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm hurt Moonie, i'm only asking for voter ID because I care. It's not my fault that I care more than you do and for that reason i'm a better person then you are.

Liberals use phony morality to fuck people because they can't stand to see the truth about themselves. Scum, just like I said before. We see things the same moonie, with just a very small difference.

I know, you aren't scum, you are a good person who just happens to be blind, has to be blind, had to be blind to survive your childhood. The facts of this matter, however, are different than you believe. The amount of voter fraud is minimal and happens on both sides. The disenfranchisement practiced by Republicans is a major issue. Gore won Florida by only a few hundred votes despite Republican corruption which did manage to shift the election to the court where Bush won 5 to 4. And the facts are today that all kinds of public groups, including the league of women voters have abandoned registering voters there. The amount of Democratic voters coming onto the rolls has taken a very large dive. This is all due to Republican changes to the law to suppress voter registration. Reducing the number of folks who vote by election laws is undemocratic, that means unAmerican, and that means evil, or do you disagree. So you are evil but only because you're also ignorant. You would be different if you knew better, I am sure.

Now I don't have links and I don't want to look for them, but I believe the facts in Florida's declining voter registration, etc. is real.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here we go:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1222350.ece

 

[FuzzyBee]

/double facepalm

No, we are not estimating without applicable data. You don't understand how evidence works. We are telling you that you don't have evidence to support your statement. We don't have to prove anything.

Yeah, you are. You just don't realize it because you're parroting the faulty data you've been presented.

What I would tell you in your example is that from what you just told me there is no evidence that lemon trees exist on that farm. If you had a farm with 1,000,000 trees and you went out and took a random sample of 1,000 trees from that farm and came back with no lemon trees, I would say that while you can never prove a negative you can say with a high level of confidence that there are no lemon trees on that farm. (EDIT: Or to be more accurate, that there are very, very few lemon trees on that farm)

Of course in this analogy you are the one that is claiming that there are lots of lemon trees on that farm because you saw a single one.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that you haven't been told how many trees are in the orchard, just that there are some trees. Without using all of the data, you've made a faulty approximation.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Heh. I suspect that you'll search until hell freezes over before finding anything significant. Why? Because the leaders of the whole "Voter Fraud" crusade have undoubtedly done so, and their findings would be easily accessible... if they amounted to even a very small hill of beans.

You're not barking up the wrong tree, but rather barking up an imaginary tree.

As I see it, many proponents of voting restrictions know full well that it'll target groups they'd rather prevent from voting, and that their pitch in the marketplace of ideas they tout so highly won't fly in many people's minds. So if the electorate won't put you on top, reshape the electorate to better suit your ambitions. 10%? Who knows. Those are estimates. As far as I'm concerned, in the absence of any evidence supporting the existence of significant in person voter fraud, those are the goals of the effort entirely. Safeguarding the vote is simply a chicken little ruse.

Here comes the paranoia.

 

[FuzzyBee]

I think monovile is just trolling you guys. He's being tarded on purpose.

Though I'm pretty certain FuzzyBee is legit full retard.

If you don't have the ability to debate, insult.

 

[FuzzyBee]

One! OMFG! One! It's the end of the Republic! And worth disenfranchising tens or hundreds of thousands more just to stop the next idiot who tries the same thing!
.

You still haven't address the faults in the solitary survey that you've referenced.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[micrometers]

the thing is this: it would take a lot of work to do this. You have to go in person and have all of the guy's information memorized. and all to cast one vote in a sea of millions.

TO really have an impact, you would have to have thousands of people deliberately doing this. IT would likely take a few hours...basically, return is really low.

 

[FuzzyBee]

the thing is this: it would take a lot of work to do this. You have to go in person and have all of the guy's information memorized. and all to cast one vote in a sea of millions.

TO really have an impact, you would have to have thousands of people deliberately doing this. IT would likely take a few hours...basically, return is really low.

Not really. In some states, all you have to do is show a phone bill.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, you are. You just don't realize it because you're parroting the faulty data you've been presented.

No. I don't know how else to explain stats 101 to you.

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that you haven't been told how many trees are in the orchard, just that there are some trees. Without using all of the data, you've made a faulty approximation.

This is simply baffling, and the only reason I can see that you would say this is if you literally had no idea how hypothesis testing works. Then again, since its abundantly clear that you've never taken a single statistics class in your life, you probably don't have any idea how hypothesis testing works. (hint for you, you don't need to know the number of trees in the orchard in order to calculate margins of error)

Not only is the Brennan Center's data fine, even if it weren't it would do literally nothing to help your point because the burden of proof is not on those who say voter fraud does not exist in significant amounts, it's on those who say it does. Speaking of that, how's that research on voter fraud coming anyway?

 

[FuzzyBee]

No. I don't know how else to explain stats 101 to you.



This is simply baffling, and the only reason I can see that you would say this is if you literally had no idea how hypothesis testing works. Then again, since its abundantly clear that you've never taken a single statistics class in your life, you probably don't have any idea how hypothesis testing works. (hint for you, you don't need to know the number of trees in the orchard in order to calculate margins of error)

Not only is the Brennan Center's data fine, even if it weren't it would do literally nothing to help your point because the burden of proof is not on those who say voter fraud does not exist in significant amounts, it's on those who say it does. Speaking of that, how's that research on voter fraud coming anyway?

The bolded is the key word. You (and others) are reporting a hypothesis as fact.

The Brennan Center's data is *not* fine. Once again, if you were the statistics whiz you keep claiming to be, you'd be able to yank off your blinders and determine why it's not.

You'll have to pardon me. Between a job, a wife, and a four-year-old, I don't have a lot of time to research data that the Brennan Center (which, I'd dare say, has more resources available than I do) can't seem to determine. Remember - not reporting data is not the same as reporting data that is zero.

 

[fskimospy]

The bolded is the key word. You (and others) are reporting a hypothesis as fact.

No. It's now obvious that you don't even know the hypothesis that the Brennan Center was testing. If you had, you wouldn't have written this. For clarity's sake though, please tell me what you think their hypothesis was. (EDIT: Or to be more clear, as there were multiple hypotheses, what they were testing in relation to the prevalence of voter fraud)

The Brennan Center's data is *not* fine. Once again, if you were the statistics whiz you keep claiming to be, you'd be able to yank off your blinders and determine why it's not.

You'll have to pardon me. Between a job, a wife, and a four-year-old, I don't have a lot of time to research data that the Brennan Center (which, I'd dare say, has more resources available than I do) can't seem to determine. Remember - not reporting data is not the same as reporting data that is zero.

I'm not claiming to be a statistics whiz, although I do work with stats almost every day. I am a competent statistician however, and you are not. Their data is fine. Like I just told you, your 'gotcha' example about not knowing the number of trees is indicative of someone who has no clue as to what they are talking about. If you had, you would know that you can do estimates without population sizes.

I don't really care how busy you are, if you can't put together some data to back up your claims, the smart thing to say is "I don't have that information", not proclaim something and then say you're going to find out how to prove it later.

 

[FuzzyBee]

No. It's now obvious that you don't even know the hypothesis that the Brennan Center was testing. If you had, you wouldn't have written this. For clarity's sake though, please tell me what you think their hypothesis was. (EDIT: Or to be more clear, as there were multiple hypotheses, what they were testing in relation to the prevalence of voter fraud)

In other words, you are ignoring that you are stating whatever their results are as fact. Pretty intellectually dishonest (or is it just pure intellectual laziness?)
[/quote]
I'm not claiming to be a statistics whiz, although I do work with stats almost every day. I am a competent statistician however, and you are not. Their data is fine. Like I just told you, your 'gotcha' example about not knowing the number of trees is indicative of someone who has no clue as to what they are talking about. If you had, you would know that you can do estimates without population sizes.[/quote]

I'm sure you are an abundantly competent statistician. That said, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you are stating results extrapolated from statistics as fact.

I don't really care how busy you are, if you can't put together some data to back up your claims, the smart thing to say is "I don't have that information", not proclaim something and then say you're going to find out how to prove it later.

I can't tell you off the top of my head how many people were murdered yesterday. Does that mean that there's no murder problem?

It must to be nice to live in a Candyland world where everything falls into it's own little neat statistical pile, and "Republicans" are the source of all evil. Let me know when you join the rest of the real world.

 

[fskimospy]

In other words, you are ignoring that you are stating whatever their results are as fact. Pretty intellectually dishonest (or is it just pure intellectual laziness?)

I notice you didn't tell me what you think their tested hypothesis was. I am not repeating their results as fact, I am repeating their results which showcase the lack of evidence for your position. Again, you have mixed up the burden of proof.

The hypothesis under test in relation to voter fraud was something to the effect of "there exists a significant amount of voter fraud in US elections". They did not find any evidence for this, therefore the hypothesis could not be supported.

I'm sure you are an abundantly competent statistician. That said, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you are stating results extrapolated from statistics as fact.

As I stated above, you have confused an expression of the lack of evidence for your position to be an affirmative argument to the contrary.

I can't tell you off the top of my head how many people were murdered yesterday. Does that mean that there's no murder problem?

It must to be nice to live in a Candyland world where everything falls into it's own little neat statistical pile, and "Republicans" are the source of all evil. Let me know when you join the rest of the real world.

This is an awful analogy. What do you mean by 'murder problem'? Does the existence of a single murder in the whole country mean that the US has a murder problem? The question here is not if voter fraud exists at all, it is if it exists to an amount large enough to require a legislative response. For that sort of determination you would most certainly need a good idea of how often it was happening, which is of course the whole point of this discussion. There is no evidence for it happening to a significant extent.

 

[FuzzyBee]

BTW, I find it funny that the Brennan Center "voter fraud" study that is so statistically based throws out this gem:

Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.

As if it is fact, with nothing at all to substantiate it. (Don't bother looking at the endnote - it just complains about absentee voting fraud, which I also agree is a problem, but has nothing to do with their comment)

 

[micrometers]

Not really. In some states, all you have to do is show a phone bill.

Look man, that's still a lot of fucking work to commit vote fraud. You have to dig through someone's garbage or whatever. and all you get is one vote.

And to cast that vote, you need to get a guy to stand in line for up to like an hour. And that same guy can't go by there again because the campaign workers will recognize him, so he needs to go to a different polling station.

basically, it would require much complexity and manpower to really do something like this.

This is an utterly fake issue drummed up by Republicans who have racist motivations IMO.

 

[Jhhnn]

As if it is fact, with nothing at all to substantiate it. (Don't bother looking at the endnote - it just complains about absentee voting fraud, which I also agree is a problem, but has nothing to do with their comment)

That's because there's little to nothing to substantiate your claims in the first place. Your conclusions require a leap of faith, whether you're capable of recognizing that, or not.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump, since we had yet another voter ID thread started.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Look man, that's still a lot of fucking work to commit vote fraud. You have to dig through someone's garbage or whatever. and all you get is one vote.

And to cast that vote, you need to get a guy to stand in line for up to like an hour. And that same guy can't go by there again because the campaign workers will recognize him, so he needs to go to a different polling station.

basically, it would require much complexity and manpower to really do something like this.

This is an utterly fake issue drummed up by Republicans who have racist motivations IMO.

This pretty much sums it up. Systematic, coordinated voter fraud would be almost impossible to hide in a free media society like ours. Are we really to believe that people are going to go through all the trouble and risk to register ONE VOTE?? The most effective way to steal elections would be to tamper with the ballot box (ie ballot stuffing), and voter ID laws would do NOTHING to affect this.

This is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise voting constituencies that lean democratic. Quit lying to yourselves in attempting to proclaim otherwise, because deep down you know what you are doing.

 

[thraashman]

This pretty much sums it up. Systematic, coordinated voter fraud would be almost impossible to hide in a free media society like ours. Are we really to believe that people are going to go through all the trouble and risk to register ONE VOTE?? The most effective way to steal elections would be to tamper with the ballot box (ie ballot stuffing), and voter ID laws would do NOTHING to affect this.

This is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise voting constituencies that lean democratic. Quit lying to yourselves in attempting to proclaim otherwise, because deep down you know what you are doing.

As you said, they know what they're doing. They're not lying to themselves at all, they're attempting to lie to the American public because if conservatives only talked when they were telling the truth, then Fox News would have to go off the air.

 

[Bowfinger]

This pretty much sums it up. Systematic, coordinated voter fraud would be almost impossible to hide in a free media society like ours. Are we really to believe that people are going to go through all the trouble and risk to register ONE VOTE?? The most effective way to steal elections would be to tamper with the ballot box (ie ballot stuffing), and voter ID laws would do NOTHING to affect this.

This is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise voting constituencies that lean democratic. Quit lying to yourselves in attempting to proclaim otherwise, because deep down you know what you are doing.

As you said, they know what they're doing. They're not lying to themselves at all, they're attempting to lie to the American public because if conservatives only talked when they were telling the truth, then Fox News would have to go off the air.

Exactly. I'll give the masses the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure most are sincere in believing the lies about vote fraud and photo IDs, spread by the RNC propagnda machine. The Republican leaders are not so clueless, however. They know exactly what they're trying to do, and it has zero to do with voter fraud. It is a deliberate, calculated drive to suppress Democratic voters.