Holder's Ballot Given to Young Man

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
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?

So you are saying that we need to act to restrict the voting rights of Americans due to the fact that although significant in-person voter fraud has never occurred across thousands of elections and hundreds of millions of votes, it might do so at some nebulous point in the future.

The reasons for why this is a bad idea have already been explained to you numerous times, and none of them had to do with the amount of time it takes to show a poll worker an ID. You already know this, so why would you bring that up?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
So you are saying that we need to act to restrict the voting rights of Americans due to the fact that although significant in-person voter fraud has never occurred across thousands of elections and hundreds of millions of votes, it might do so at some nebulous point in the future.

The reasons for why this is a bad idea have already been explained to you numerous times, and none of them had to do with the amount of time it takes to show a poll worker an ID. You already know this, so why would you bring that up?

That is not what I am saying at all. Having citizens show a simple identification when they vote is not a significant imposition on their right to vote.
How can it be when a 10 day waiting period and a background check with identification needed is allowed for a gun purchase?
We have already seen proof of voter fraud, it's been proven beyond any doubt. We need more vote security to stop it from happening in the future and changing what should be the legal vote outcome.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
That is not what I am saying at all. Having citizens show a simple identification when they vote is not a significant imposition on their right to vote.
How can it be when a 10 day waiting period and a background check with identification needed is allowed for a gun purchase?
We have already seen proof of voter fraud, it's been proven beyond any doubt. We need more vote security to stop it from happening in the future and changing what should be the legal vote outcome.

We have already seen proof of people being killed by meteors, it's been proven beyond any doubt. We all need meteor proof hats to stop it from happening in the future. See how silly your argument is?

I have no idea why you would base what is a reasonable restriction on voting on what is a reasonable restriction on gun ownership. Should the requirements for owning a gun be the same as for having a protest? Of course not, that would be nonsensical.

Public policy is always the tradeoff between outcomes. There is zero evidence whatsoever that in-person voter fraud represents a large enough threat to the integrity of our system to require voter suppression of this sort. It is obviously an partisan attempt at voter suppression as no objective person can look at the evidence and come to this conclusion.

I know you want team red to win, but that's not actually a reason to craft public policy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
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"?

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.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I know you want team blue to win and that's why you oppose common sense security to help prevent vote fraud.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
I know you want team blue to win and that's why you oppose common sense security to help prevent vote fraud.

If you think it's common sense to tilt at windmills, that's your business. You are a very confusing person to me, you combine a high level of self awareness with a bunch of manifestly retarded ideas. I genuinely don't get it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
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.

My prediction is that people will return with a few anecdotal cases of voter fraud and some other vague assertions.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I know you want team blue to win and that's why you oppose common sense security to help prevent vote fraud.

I'm no fan of security measures designed to prevent home invasions by bigfoot, either, or any other imaginary boogeyman of the right wing.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
If you think it's common sense to tilt at windmills, that's your business. You are a very confusing person to me, you combine a high level of self awareness with a bunch of manifestly retarded ideas. I genuinely don't get it.

I'm just having fun with the idea that having to show a valid ID when you vote and tighter controls on absentee voting is an evil thing. Common sense tells us that if vote fraud is taking place (it is) and there's reasonable doubt about honesty in voting (there is) that small steps to increase security are a logical thing for States to do.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
My prediction is that people will return with a few anecdotal cases of voter fraud and some other vague assertions.

They don't need reasons to believe- all they need are fears, projections & innuendo. It's not about facts, but about faith in their leaders, faith in the idea that they're being cheated & oppressed, faith in the notion that means don't matter when you're on an ideological crusade, a mission from God.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I'm no fan of security measures designed to prevent home invasions by bigfoot, either, or any other imaginary boogeyman of the right wing.

You and eskimospy are trying to show that valid concerns about voting security are ridiculous when several States have voted to increase security for good reason and had those votes blocked by the Feds. It's not a freak thing, it's not tinfoil hat territory, it's a reasonable response to vote fraud.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You and eskimospy are trying to show that valid concerns about voting security are ridiculous when several States have voted to increase security for good reason and had those votes blocked by the Feds. It's not a freak thing, it's not tinfoil hat territory, it's a reasonable response to vote fraud.

What good reason? What voter fraud? Prove that it exists somewhere other than in your fevered imagination, and we can talk. Until then, you're just beating an imaginary drum as if it were real.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
What good reason? What voter fraud? Prove that it exists somewhere other than in your fevered imagination, and we can talk. Until then, you're just beating an imaginary drum as if it were real.

I posted links to convictions for voter fraud in this thread. Look them up. Google them yourself.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I posted links to convictions for voter fraud in this thread. Look them up. Google them yourself.

Utterly dishonest on your part, and you know it. None of what you offered had anything to do with in person voter fraud, but rather with fraud in absentee ballots.

You're embarrassing yourself.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I posted links to convictions for voter fraud in this thread. Look them up. Google them yourself.
Why are you being so doggedly dishonest about this? Your two examples I saw were both of absentee ballot fraud... fraud that WILL NOT BE PREVENTED by photo voter ID laws.

That's what's really so absurd about this "debate". While it's certainly true, there is no evidence of any material level of in-person voter fraud, that fact is effectively irrelevant. Why? Because to whatever miniscule extent in-person fraud is happening today, all a photo ID law will accomplish is driving those fraudsters to using absentee ballots instead. That's the shameful truth, that such laws don't truly address fraud at all. They only make it more difficult, and thus less likely, for a certain segment of the population to vote. A left-leaning segment of the population, which is the real reason Republicans are so determined to introduce such laws.
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
monovil takes home the prize for this thread. Partisan hacks are funny.

Direct monovil quote: "I may be a partisan fighting for my conservative cause, but so are you on your side."
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,586
8,661
146
I posted links to convictions for voter fraud in this thread. Look them up. Google them yourself.

How bout you go through what you posted and point out what impact voter ID would have had in the prevention of each case.

I'm sure you'll only reply with some useless retort, but should you truly have faith in what you posted as evidence you should be glad to show the rest of us how right you are.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Rick Perry's "emergency" voter ID law passed in 2010, the forms of ID accepted do not include a college or other student ID, but do include a military ID or concealed handgun permit:

http://www.texasobserver.org/component/k2/item/17879-voter-id-signed-into-law

Next step: only proof of registration as a republican will be accepted as proper voter ID.

For those supporting these laws, quit lying about the motives behind them. We know that you know what the true purpose is. Don't embarrass yourselves by continuing to lie about it.

- wolf
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,586
8,661
146
Why are you being so doggedly dishonest about this? Your two examples I saw were both of absentee ballot fraud... fraud that WILL NOT BE PREVENTED by photo voter ID laws.

That's what's really so absurd about this "debate". While it's certainly true, there is no evidence of any material level of in-person voter fraud, that fact is effectively irrelevant. Why? Because to whatever miniscule extent in-person fraud is happening today, all a photo ID law will accomplish is driving those fraudsters to using absentee ballots instead. That's the shameful truth, that such laws don't truly address fraud at all. They only make it more difficult, and thus less likely, for a certain segment of the population to vote. A left-leaning segment of the population, which is the real reason Republicans are so determined to introduce such laws.

What I find truly sad in all of this is the fact the people advocating ID will post all of these examples of voter fraud (or mostly registration fraud) but then turn around and say there's no examples of in person fraud because they don't advertise while doing it. So did the absentee voters take out billboards? Run around shouting how they gamed the system?

It is the same EVERY time this topic comes up.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I agree with you in that we need to do a better job in securing absentee ballots. I'm not a big fan of 'early voting' or that anybody can just get an absentee ballot. One should have a reason for needing one: disability, out of town on election day, pregnancy, etc.

Given that, do you have any thoughts on how to better secure these? I'd genuinely like to know.
Off the top of my head, I'd think signature matching along with a significant level of randomized follow-up verifications. We could require that all absentee ballots be signed, and that every ballot received would then be verified against the registration signature. All discrepancies must be investigated. In addition, always select a large random sample of absentee ballots for follow-up validation.

Again, that's off the top of my head. Thanks for asking. I think it's a far more meaningful discussion than continuing to beat the dead horse of mythical in-person fraud.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Utterly dishonest on your part, and you know it. None of what you offered had anything to do with in person voter fraud, but rather with fraud in absentee ballots.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Voter fraud is voter fraud, I also support higher security for absentee voting. I find it funny that some of the most biased leftwing extreme Democrats in these forums, Jhhnn, Eskimospy, Bowfinger, First, momentofsanity etc. are all so viciously opposed to reasonable security such as showing a picture ID when you vote. It's such a small security measure and you all are practically foaming at the mouths against it.

If we save just one young vote it will all be worth it.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,586
8,661
146
Voter fraud is voter fraud, I also support higher security for absentee voting. I find it funny that some of the most biased leftwing extreme Democrats in these forums, Jhhnn, Eskimospy, Bowfinger, First, momentofsanity etc. are all so viciously opposed to reasonable security such as showing a picture ID when you vote. It's such a small security measure and you all are practically foaming at the mouths against it.

If we save just one young vote it will all be worth it.

Lol I'm left wing extreme??? Fuck you're completely delusional.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I think monovile is just trolling you guys. He's being tarded on purpose.

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

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Off the top of my head, I'd think signature matching along with a significant level of randomized follow-up verifications. We could require that all absentee ballots be signed, and that every ballot received would then be verified against the registration signature. All discrepancies must be investigated. In addition, always select a large random sample of absentee ballots for follow-up validation.

Again, that's off the top of my head. Thanks for asking. I think it's a far more meaningful discussion than continuing to beat the dead horse of mythical in-person fraud.

Why not both? It'd be easy, quick and anyone who the initiative to find their way to a polling place surely has the initiative to find a local place to get a free photo ID. The argument that some people "can't" is utter BS.