Holder's Ballot Given to Young Man

[monovillage]

You tell us ...

The truth supports those that want more security to prevent additional vote fraud. Democrats are opposed to increased security to prevent voting fraud because it would benefit them politically. It's simple, it's cut and dried. Anyone that says differently is a lying partisan.

 

[fskimospy]

The truth supports those that want more security to prevent additional vote fraud. Democrats are opposed to increased security to prevent voting fraud because it would benefit them politically. It's simple, it's cut and dried. Anyone that says differently is a lying partisan.

No it doesn't. This has already been shown to you repeatedly. You can repeat your article of religious faith as many times as you wish, but this will not change reality.

 

[FuzzyBee]

This post makes it abundantly clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't count arrests, you count two votes under the same registration. It is irrelevant as to who voted first for this exercise, as you are merely trying to prove the existence of fraud, not prosecute someone for doing it.

Of course people who haven't voted in years suddenly decide to vote sometimes. It in no way requires the vast majority of the population to vote. This is Statistics 101.

Are you stating that this *never* happens? Because you certainly can't put forth any numbers that says this happened "twice in 2008" and "once in 2004". Where are those numbers?

I'm glad I didn't take "Statistics 101" at your school, because they apparently taught you that you can ignore data that you want to ignore if it derides from your target.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Do you know what an anecdote is?

Are you seriously attempting to claim that people either vote often or not at all? If not, then you are implicitly agreeing with me that infrequent voters return to voting.

I certainly do, and I also know what evidence is. Apparently, you don't.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you stating that this *never* happens? Because you certainly can't put forth any numbers that says this happened "twice in 2008" and "once in 2004". Where are those numbers?

I'm glad I didn't take "Statistics 101" at your school, because they apparently taught you that you can ignore data that you want to ignore if it derides from your target.

/facepalm

No, I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying that were it to happen to a meaningful degree it would show up in audits. Whether or not something EVER happens is irrelevant. The only question is if something happens often enough to do something about.

I work with statistics every day. I get the impression that you have never taken a statistics class in your entire life as it appears that you don't understand the argument that I'm making.

 

[fskimospy]

I certainly do, and I also know what evidence is. Apparently, you don't.

I don't know what to say other than that you clearly do not understand what evidence is. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is no evidence whatsoever that in-person voter fraud occurs at a meaningful rate in the United States. You have failed to provide any evidence that this is so. In your quest to shift the burden of proof, you have attempted to attack a study that you don't understand. That's really the beginning and end of it.

I'm quite sure that no amount of research will convince you of this simple fact because you are desperately searching for ways in which it might be true instead of evaluating the world rationally.

 

[monovillage]

No it doesn't. This has already been shown to you repeatedly. You can repeat your article of religious faith as many times as you wish, but this will not change reality.

I can prove vote fraud, all you are proving is that partisan Democrats don't think it occurs often enough for them to risk losing votes by supporting more security.

 

[Jhhnn]

I hope you realize that a lack of statistics is not statistics itself, no matter how much you want to tell yourself it is. What are they going to record? Arrests? How would they know who the criminal was that voted first?

I believe that you've convinced yourself that people that haven't voted in years (and would be eligible candidates for somebody swiping their phone bill to vote for them) would suddenly decide to vote. That would make sense if a vast majority of the voting-eligible population actually utilized their right to vote, but they don't. Heck - 2008 was a banner year, and just a little bit more than half of the registered voters turned out - or at least that many votes were turned in. There's some data for you.

Remarkable. What the Brennan Center study discovered is that there is no proof that in person voter fraud occurs, no matter how badly you want to claim that it does.

If people were voting under another's name, it would show up at least part of the time, simply on the basis of random chance, and yet you can provide no evidence to support the claim- none whatsoever.

Yet you firmly maintain that it does, simply on the basis of Faith. Where's the evidence? Don't analogize, don't tell us that it "could" happen- give us a real reason to disenfranchise up to 10% of eligible voters. As I've offered many times, and as you & other advocates of voter ID pointedly try to ignore, the burden of proof is yours, & you haven't provided any at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can prove vote fraud, all you are proving is that partisan Democrats don't think it occurs often enough for them to risk losing votes by supporting more security.

You've proven nothing other than minor fraud wrt absentee ballots, not in person voter fraud, & we both know it.

 

[fskimospy]

I can prove vote fraud, all you are proving is that partisan Democrats don't think it occurs often enough for them to risk losing votes by supporting more security.

If you have read this thread and comprehended what you have read it is impossible for you to believe what you just wrote is true.

I can prove that people are killed by meteors. Does that mean we should embark on a campaign to outfit every American with a meteor proof hat?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Remarkable. What the Brennan Center study discovered is that there is no proof that in person voter fraud occurs, no matter how badly you want to claim that it does.

If people were voting under another's name, it would show up at least part of the time, simply on the basis of random chance, and yet you can provide no evidence to support the claim- none whatsoever.

Yet you firmly maintain that it does, simply on the basis of Faith. Where's the evidence? Don't analogize, don't tell us that it "could" happen- give us a real reason to disenfranchise up to 10% of eligible voters. As I've offered many times, and as you & other advocates of voter ID pointedly try to ignore, the burden of proof is yours, & you haven't provided any at all.

If this is, indeed, the case, why doesn't the Brennan Center study discuss it at all? That would definitely bolster their opinion, yet they conveniently leave it out. Why do you think that is?

I believe that you are the one with the misguided faith.

By the way, your "10%" also isn't verifiable. If you'd read the Brennan Center study, I'm sure you'd see the flaws. If you'd go looking for other sources, you'd also see contradictory "real data." But keep up the faith, okay?

 

[thraashman]

I can prove vote fraud, all you are proving is that partisan Democrats don't think it occurs often enough for them to risk losing votes by supporting more security.

You can prove that vote fraud is possible and occurs at an insignificant rate. We can prove that creating these voter id laws causes that rate to decrease to only a slightly more insignificant number. We can also prove that these voter id laws will disenfranchise legal voters at an alarming rate. We've provided links and numbers and studies. You've provided two things, jack and shit and jack left town.

This is just another version of the Ben Franklin quote about giving up essential freedom for temporary safety. You want to prevent something that is so insignificant as to not be a problem. And to do it you want to destroy freedoms for millions. You are more likely to be struck by lightning per year than commit voter fraud, we haven't made people start walking around with grounded lightning rods though.

 

[FuzzyBee]

We've provided a link and a number and a study.

This is more factual. Oh, I left out the part about it being a flawed study.

 

[fskimospy]

If this is, indeed, the case, why doesn't the Brennan Center study discuss it at all? That would definitely bolster their opinion, yet they conveniently leave it out. Why do you think that is?

I believe that you are the one with the misguided faith.

By the way, your "10%" also isn't verifiable. If you'd read the Brennan Center study, I'm sure you'd see the flaws. If you'd go looking for other sources, you'd also see contradictory "real data." But keep up the faith, okay?

Like I told you before, this is statistics 101. In this case, basic probability and the law of large numbers.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Like I told you before, this is statistics 101. In this case, basic probability and the law of large numbers.

Really? Your Statistics prof told you to ignore data you didn't have? Wow.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Your Statistics prof told you to ignore data you didn't have? Wow.

No.

Do you work with statistics? Have you ever taken a single class on statistics in your entire life? Do you know how probability works, and do you know what the law of large numbers says? Do you understand how they relate to the question you asked?

 

[FuzzyBee]

No.

Do you work with statistics? Have you ever taken a single class on statistics in your entire life? Do you know how probability works, and do you know what the law of large numbers says? Do you understand how they relate to the question you asked?

Please teach me how to ignore data, oh wise one. If you knew half of what you were spouting on about, you'd be ashamed with yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Please teach me how to ignore data, oh wise one. If you knew half of what you were spouting on about, you'd be ashamed with yourself.

Nobody is ignoring data. You should be ashamed of yourself for carrying on about this so long after it's become clear that you don't understand the topic. If you did you would have never asked that question to begin with.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Nobody is ignoring data. You should be ashamed of yourself for carrying on about this so long after it's become clear that you don't understand the topic. If you did you would have never asked that question to begin with.

Wow. Funny. If you aren't ignoring the data, WHERE IS IT?

You can keep going in your happy little circle of non-proof all you want. Come back when you actually have some data.

 

[Jhhnn]

If this is, indeed, the case, why doesn't the Brennan Center study discuss it at all? That would definitely bolster their opinion, yet they conveniently leave it out. Why do you think that is?

I believe that you are the one with the misguided faith.

By the way, your "10%" also isn't verifiable. If you'd read the Brennan Center study, I'm sure you'd see the flaws. If you'd go looking for other sources, you'd also see contradictory "real data." But keep up the faith, okay?

Still no proof, huh? When do we get some?

Prove that in person voter fraud exists to any appreciable degree, and then we can talk. Until that time, what you offer is just another conspiracy theory.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow. Funny. If you aren't ignoring the data, WHERE IS IT?

You can keep going in your happy little circle of non-proof all you want. Come back when you actually have some data.

/facepalm

How much simpler can I make this for you? It's math. Probability + law of large numbers. Unless you can show that their method of detection could not capture the phenomenon that they are looking for (and this is clearly untrue), that's all she wrote.

All of this of course is totally separate from the fact that you are trying to invert the burden of proof. It's the people making the claim that voter fraud exists that are required to prove their claim, not those who are saying that your evidence is crap. But hey, if we can't even get you to understand probability the rest of this is going to be so far over your head that there's no point.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Still no proof, huh? When do we get some?

Prove that in person voter fraud exists to any appreciable degree, and then we can talk. Until that time, what you offer is just another conspiracy theory.

I am searching for the number of reports of voter impersonation. You'll have to pardon me, but I don't have the resources of your much-revered Brennan Center, who apparently hasn't been able to find the data, either (note that not finding the data is *not* the same as finding the data and it equaling zero). If it takes them a long time, certainly you'll cut *me* a little bit of slack.

By the way, what happened to your defense of the "10% disenfranchised"?

 

[FuzzyBee]

/facepalm

How much simpler can I make this for you? It's math. Probability + law of large numbers. Unless you can show that their method of detection could not capture the phenomenon that they are looking for (and this is clearly untrue), that's all she wrote.

All of this of course is totally separate from the fact that you are trying to invert the burden of proof. It's the people making the claim that voter fraud exists that are required to prove their claim, not those who are saying that your evidence is crap. But hey, if we can't even get you to understand probability the rest of this is going to be so far over your head that there's no point.

You could make it "simpler" by not being so obstinate to the fact that you're estimating without the applicable data. I'd imagine that if I told you a farm had 3 apple trees, 8 pear trees, and 12 peach trees, that you'd fight to the death to tell me there were no lemon trees on the farm.

 

[monovillage]

You can prove that vote fraud is possible and occurs at an insignificant rate. We can prove that creating these voter id laws causes that rate to decrease to only a slightly more insignificant number. We can also prove that these voter id laws will disenfranchise legal voters at an alarming rate. We've provided links and numbers and studies. You've provided two things, jack and shit and jack left town.

This is just another version of the Ben Franklin quote about giving up essential freedom for temporary safety. You want to prevent something that is so insignificant as to not be a problem. And to do it you want to destroy freedoms for millions. You are more likely to be struck by lightning per year than commit voter fraud, we haven't made people start walking around with grounded lightning rods though.

It may be insignificant to you or even in past elections, but that's no guarantee that it won't be important in the future. The time to close the barn door is before the horses run out, not after you lose them. The only real insignificant thing in this whole debate is having to present a valid identification when you vote. It's an insignificant delay in being able to vote more securely.
Why are only the most partisan Democrats in this forum the only ones so vehemently opposed to this simple preventative measure?

 

[fskimospy]

You could make it "simpler" by not being so obstinate to the fact that you're estimating without the applicable data. I'd imagine that if I told you a farm had 3 apple trees, 8 pear trees, and 12 peach trees, that you'd fight to the death to tell me there were no lemon trees on the farm.

/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.

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.