• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Sent Back to Lower Court for reconsideration

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Werepossum said:
When ACORN was caught registering thousands of imaginary people, proggies said it didn't matter because imaginary people don't vote. Now those same proggies are fighting tooth and manicured nail against voter ID. Coincidence?
"Coincidence"? No. I believe the phrase you're looking for is either "non sequitur" or "red herring". I'm not sure which is most appropriate given that both involve connecting unrelated things. Perhaps a Liberal Arts major can provide a ruling from the field.
First we need to break down both what he is saying and what he is implying to draw a conclusion as to the strength of the argument.

P1) "Proggies" support ACORN which registered some imaginary people to vote.
P2) "Proggies" oppose voter ID laws which would (supposedly) stop imaginary people from voting.

Now, the conclusion is not stated explicitly, but is clearly implied:

C) "Proggies" support imaginary people voting.

With the argument clearly stated we can determine the level of merit it holds. Bowfinger has leveled two specific charges in terms of the argument being fallacious, red herring and non sequitur; let's look at them first.

The red herring fallacy is introducing irrelevancies into an argument to strengthen a counterclaim by obfuscating or changing the topic. The topic of this thread is whether the Pennsylvania ID law disenfranchises voters and effectively prevents voter fraud. Whether or not the left supported ACORN in spite of some individuals making up voters in order to get paid by volume has nothing to do with this, that much is certain. The only way it becomes relevant is if you can find examples of the made up people voting as a means to strengthen the case for needing measures to prevent voter fraud. However, since no such link has been introduced and the only connection provided is a common set of people, without more evidence it is indeed a red herring.

The non sequitur simply means literally "does not follow", that the premises of an argument do not lead to the conclusion of the argument, or, at least, do not lead only there. Applied to this case specifically, two problems immediately emerge. First, the argument itself doesn't work because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you don't need an ID to vote absentee which is how people actually interested in voter fraud would do it short of just flat out replacing the card in the voting machine which is way more effective anyway. Secondly, and more pertinent to the cited fallacy, there are other explanations for the premises that follow just as neatly and so the truth of the premises does not guarantee nor even make likely the truth of the conclusion. More likely is Democrats support a looser set of regulations on voting to ensure more people are given the opportunity to vote, both in registration and actually voting, because the amount of grey it produces is essentially negligible but the number of people it enables is enormous (what was it, 750K I think I heard in Penn. alone? Extrapolate that nationwide and we are talking millions of eligible voters). That the left supports and organization that registered people to vote, as well as a few figments of people's imaginations when some of their workers got too lazy to actually go door to door, and that they oppose efforts by the Republican party to limit the right to vote through enacting voter ID law, does not in fact get you in and of itself to the conclusion that he wants people to draw which is that the Democrats support creating fake voters to fill the roles and oppose the ID laws because they could then actually vote and couldn't with them. It is in fact a non sequitur as well as a red herring.

Both fallacies are apt. Beyond that, however, more fallacies seem to be present.

Touching briefly on these, the first is an appeal to fear fallacy, that what the "Proggies" are doing something that is scary and so are wrong. This one isn't as strong as some of the others, but still worth mentioning. The second one, touched on above, is the false cause fallacy. It assumes that the desire to have illicit voting based on just the two pieces of information presented, the fake registrations and the voter ID opposition, without looking into a third explanation for both of them, a desire to ensure all eligible voters are able to vote. Cherry picking is obviously present, Werepossum completely and flagrantly ignores every rationale for why the left has supported ACORN such as the huge number of actual voters, or opposes voter ID laws, the effective suppression of hundreds of thousands of voters. You could make a good case this is a spotlight fallacy as well, focusing only on the aspects of an event that get media attention with ACORN, for example, and ignoring all of the more common, and more mundane events. Finally, I would contend it is a loaded question fallacy because the "coincidence?' reasserts the truth of the premises which are of questionable accuracy to begin with.

So, put another way, Werepossum's remarks were one big argumentum ad excrement.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Every single case of voter fraud has changed an election.



You have yet to show the GOP claims these laws are to suppress legal voters. So far, I have only seem claims which say the DNC will be hurt by losing all the illegal voters they current enjoy.



They have been answered multiple times. I think you keep forgetting because your brain is full trying to remember that PA is only one state and that Florida or New York are different states from PA. A lot for you to remember, I know.
so two days in and Eaglekeeper and cybrtroll refuse to post any supporting evidence for their claims...why am I not surprised?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
First we need to break down both what he is saying and what he is implying to draw a conclusion as to the strength of the argument.

P1) "Proggies" support ACORN which registered some imaginary people to vote.
P2) "Proggies" oppose voter ID laws which would (supposedly) stop imaginary people from voting.

Now, the conclusion is not stated explicitly, but is clearly implied:

C) "Proggies" support imaginary people voting.

With the argument clearly stated we can determine the level of merit it holds. Bowfinger has leveled two specific charges in terms of the argument being fallacious, red herring and non sequitur; let's look at them first.

The red herring fallacy is introducing irrelevancies into an argument to strengthen a counterclaim by obfuscating or changing the topic. The topic of this thread is whether the Pennsylvania ID law disenfranchises voters and effectively prevents voter fraud. Whether or not the left supported ACORN in spite of some individuals making up voters in order to get paid by volume has nothing to do with this, that much is certain. The only way it becomes relevant is if you can find examples of the made up people voting as a means to strengthen the case for needing measures to prevent voter fraud. However, since no such link has been introduced and the only connection provided is a common set of people, without more evidence it is indeed a red herring.

The non sequitur simply means literally "does not follow", that the premises of an argument do not lead to the conclusion of the argument, or, at least, do not lead only there. Applied to this case specifically, two problems immediately emerge. First, the argument itself doesn't work because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you don't need an ID to vote absentee which is how people actually interested in voter fraud would do it short of just flat out replacing the card in the voting machine which is way more effective anyway. Secondly, and more pertinent to the cited fallacy, there are other explanations for the premises that follow just as neatly and so the truth of the premises does not guarantee nor even make likely the truth of the conclusion. More likely is Democrats support a looser set of regulations on voting to ensure more people are given the opportunity to vote, both in registration and actually voting, because the amount of grey it produces is essentially negligible but the number of people it enables is enormous (what was it, 750K I think I heard in Penn. alone? Extrapolate that nationwide and we are talking millions of eligible voters). That the left supports and organization that registered people to vote, as well as a few figments of people's imaginations when some of their workers got too lazy to actually go door to door, and that they oppose efforts by the Republican party to limit the right to vote through enacting voter ID law, does not in fact get you in and of itself to the conclusion that he wants people to draw which is that the Democrats support creating fake voters to fill the roles and oppose the ID laws because they could then actually vote and couldn't with them. It is in fact a non sequitur as well as a red herring.

Both fallacies are apt. Beyond that, however, more fallacies seem to be present.

Touching briefly on these, the first is an appeal to fear fallacy, that what the "Proggies" are doing something that is scary and so are wrong. This one isn't as strong as some of the others, but still worth mentioning. The second one, touched on above, is the false cause fallacy. It assumes that the desire to have illicit voting based on just the two pieces of information presented, the fake registrations and the voter ID opposition, without looking into a third explanation for both of them, a desire to ensure all eligible voters are able to vote. Cherry picking is obviously present, Werepossum completely and flagrantly ignores every rationale for why the left has supported ACORN such as the huge number of actual voters, or opposes voter ID laws, the effective suppression of hundreds of thousands of voters. You could make a good case this is a spotlight fallacy as well, focusing only on the aspects of an event that get media attention with ACORN, for example, and ignoring all of the more common, and more mundane events. Finally, I would contend it is a loaded question fallacy because the "coincidence?' reasserts the truth of the premises which are of questionable accuracy to begin with.

So, put another way, Werepossum's remarks were one big argumentum ad excrement.
You're asking us to agree that the left registering imaginary people and the left fighting against voter ID laws are totally logically disconnected from the left wanting those imaginary people's votes via voter fraud. At the same time, you're asking us to agree that the right pushing voter ID laws logically equals "efforts by the Republican party to limit the right to vote through enacting voter ID law". If requiring ID to do something is an effort to limit those legally able to do that action, then our entire population is being limited. It would not be allowable to require ID to buy a gun, alcohol or tobacco, to rent a car, to write a check. Anyone would be able to get, say, welfare or food stamps simply be showing up and giving a name and a mailing address. Either requiring identification is an acceptable infringement on one's freedom in order to guard against fraud, or it isn't. There is simply no way to claim that our greatest power, the right to select our own government, is not important enough to require as strong identification as buying a pack of Marlboros without looking like an idiot or a fundamentally dishonest person for whom the end goal of empowering the left justifies the means of potential voter fraud.

As far as your logic, it is simply flawed. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying a gun simply because one can also kill with a knife or a golf club. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying alcohol simply because a minor can have an adult buy alcohol for him. Yet you are pretending that because a particular law does not close down every possible avenue of voter fraud, it is invalid. In our entire legal system, laws which block one possible way to do something bad without blocking every possible way to do that something bad are the rule, not the exception, and in pretending otherwise you are, again, either an idiot or fundamentally dishonest. There are valid short-term non-partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (difficulty with providing the required number of people with ID in the remaining time) and valid long-term partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (disproportionately affects Democrat voters), but the ability to commit voter fraud through absentee ballots is not reasonable for either.

I would point out two other problems with your arguments as well. First, you are specifically dismissing widespread voter registration fraud simply because it is good for the left. Second, without voter ID there is virtually no way to catch an illegal voting as a made-up voter, or someone voting multiple times under different names at different polling places. When a registration is bogus, tracing it is a complete dead end. Unless someone is recognized voting multiple times in the same polling station or is recognized and called out as a felon or non-citizen, there is literally no way to catch them. The most one could do is to determine that the voter is not a real person at the given address - but that vote is now one among many, with no way to throw it out unless it has been challenged at the time it was cast. And of course, with no ID requirements, how would one legitimately challenge the vote?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Excerpted from the ruling- forgive the formatting-



Or, what I offered earlier. The whole thing-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1894069.html
Thus, we will return the matter to the Commonwealth Court to make a present assessment of the actual availability of the alternate identification cards on a developed record in light of the experience since the time the cards became available. In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards.
The original ruling was not invalidated, else they would have said so. They wanted the original judge to look at OTHER issues not brought up by the litigants in the original case.

Since the litigants were easily able to obtain the new ID cards in a very short amount of time, I think we already have our answer to what the judge will say. Even the ancient women they claimed would never be able to get one easily obtained one.

The law will survive as it is.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
You're asking us to agree that the left registering imaginary people and the left fighting against voter ID laws are totally logically disconnected from the left wanting those imaginary people's votes via voter fraud.
As long as I'm giving a clinic on fallacies, this one is called a straw man. It is when you assign a position not stated and generally not held to your opposition and then combat this fictitious position, attempting to claim victory by defeating an argument nobody is making.

I never agreed the left registered imaginary people to vote, I stated that lazy people who got paid for the volume of registrations submitted registered imaginary people. Further, I'm not saying they are disconnected so much as you have presented no evidence they are disconnected. If you are going to make the assertion, you get to provide the evidence. Claiming otherwise would be a burden of proof fallacy; surely you aren't adding another one to the pile?
At the same time, you're asking us to agree that the right pushing voter ID laws logically equals "efforts by the Republican party to limit the right to vote through enacting voter ID law". If requiring ID to do something is an effort to limit those legally able to do that action, then our entire population is being limited. It would not be allowable to require ID to buy a gun, alcohol or tobacco, to rent a car, to write a check. Anyone would be able to get, say, welfare or food stamps simply be showing up and giving a name and a mailing address. Either requiring identification is an acceptable infringement on one's freedom in order to guard against fraud, or it isn't. There is simply no way to claim that our greatest power, the right to select our own government, is not important enough to require as strong identification as buying a pack of Marlboros without looking like an idiot or a fundamentally dishonest person for whom the end goal of empowering the left justifies the means of potential voter fraud.
Classic false dilemma fallacy. Either everything is acceptable or nothing is. As a matter of fact, I can choose a third way, to say it is acceptable for some things but not for others. Also a brilliant example of a hasty generalization fallacy.

P1) Rs want ID for voting.
P2) ID requirements for x, y, and z are primarily used to keep people not supposed to be able to do something from doing it.
C) Voter ID must be being asked for to keep people who are not supposed to vote from voting.

This is, of course, not a logical argument. The mobster has a tire iron, tire irons are generally used to change tires, therefor the mobster is off to change a tire.

Since you ignore things like how prevalent the fraud being prevented is, how much damage it causes, how much damage the measures being used to stop it do, and how effective the measure is in preventing it, your comparison is incomplete to the degree of being inaccurate. Consider this, would you support having to show an ID every time you want to avoid being unreasonably searched by the police and losing the ability to exercise that right if you happened to not have any on you?

As far as your logic, it is simply flawed. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying a gun simply because one can also kill with a knife or a golf club. We do not in fact negate ID requirements for buying alcohol simply because a minor can have an adult buy alcohol for him. Yet you are pretending that because a particular law does not close down every possible avenue of voter fraud, it is invalid.
False analogy fallacy. A gun is arguably the most effective tool for murder. Purchasing alcohol is the most effective way to ensure one acquires alcohol. In person voter fraud is the absolute least effective way to commit voter fraud. Your argument is akin to saying we should require people to show ID when they purchase pillows because they can be used to kill or purchase loose fitting clothing because it makes it easier to shoplift alcohol. The only difference is in the US a lot more people get killed with pillows or children shoplift liquor with baggy clothes than people actually commit in person voter fraud.

In our entire legal system, laws which block one possible way to do something bad without blocking every possible way to do that something bad are the rule, not the exception, and in pretending otherwise you are, again, either an idiot or fundamentally dishonest. There are valid short-term non-partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (difficulty with providing the required number of people with ID in the remaining time) and valid long-term partisan reasons for opposing voter ID laws (disproportionately affects Democrat voters), but the ability to commit voter fraud through absentee ballots is not reasonable for either.
And this is another straw man. Nobody made the claim you are arguing against. Also, calling someone fundamentally dishonest while intentionally misrepresenting their argument is kind of poor form.

The claim is twofold. One, it goes to the motives of the people pushing the laws given that they are ineffective in actually accomplishing the stated goals of the Republicans because they are going after the absolute least effective form of voter fraud that barely even exists and just so happens to have an enormous deleterious effect on their political opponents. Second, and more pressingly, pointing out it has an absolutely minimal impact on fraudulent voting while having an enormous negative impact on legitimate voting is a reason to oppose it and pointing out other, more prevalent, more effective methods of voter fraud exist is an important mark against the effectiveness.
I would point out two other problems with your arguments as well. First, you are specifically dismissing widespread voter registration fraud simply because it is good for the left.
Ad Hominem. I dismiss them because there is no evidence they ever amounted to anything. When you can provide any evidence, any at all that a single fraudulently registered voter from the ACORN scandal voted, then we can talk. I further dismiss your claims because there is zero evidence it was good for anyone except the people getting paid to fraudulently register voters.

I do think we've stumbled upon the root of your problems with logic, however. Did at some point in the past someone tell you just randomly making shit up was a valid debate strategy because that is the sense I am getting?

Second, without voter ID there is virtually no way to catch an illegal voting as a made-up voter, or someone voting multiple times under different names at different polling places.
The problem is even with photo ID you aren't going to catch them because someone intent upon illicit voting will not do it in person. The only way to do it is to develop accurate record keeping systems for voter registration that do thinks like tie into SSN checks. Until we have a national voter database, which, by the way, could be easily queried for things like duplicates or fake numbers, you aren't going to effectively combat the problem. More than that, it doesn't matter because voter fraud isn't a problem as it currently happens. If you actually gave a shit about voter fraud instead of just winning in politics by any means necessary, even denying American citizens the right to vote, you would be pushing for massive reform on voting machines which are ridiculously easy to tamper with and actually can impact an election.
When a registration is bogus, tracing it is a complete dead end. Unless someone is recognized voting multiple times in the same polling station or is recognized and called out as a felon or non-citizen, there is literally no way to catch them. The most one could do is to determine that the voter is not a real person at the given address - but that vote is now one among many, with no way to throw it out unless it has been challenged at the time it was cast. And of course, with no ID requirements, how would one legitimately challenge the vote?
Yes, you could determine it was not a real person at a given address and then you could remove them from the voter registration rolls so they can't cast a ballot either in person or absentee which is all you need to do in that regard. That in and of itself is sufficient if you a proactive about it. The problem is every bit the level of partisan hackery takes place in voter registry maintenance as does in every other aspect of the election.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
The original ruling was not invalidated, else they would have said so. They wanted the original judge to look at OTHER issues not brought up by the litigants in the original case.

Since the litigants were easily able to obtain the new ID cards in a very short amount of time, I think we already have our answer to what the judge will say. Even the ancient women they claimed would never be able to get one easily obtained one.

The law will survive as it is.
So dishonest. What part of this do you fail to comprehend?

Accordingly, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is returned to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
Just in case you don't understand "Vacated" in legal terms, here's the definition-

A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_judgment
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Proof of what? What claim are you saying no proof has been brought forth for?
While all you can do is post stupid pictures of maps of the US that have nothing to do with the discussion, I have asked you multiple times for evidence of voter fraud taht has changed the results of an election.

As usual, you have ignored this request for evidence, and continued to troll, (posting stupid maps).

I have pointed out the Penn GOP members have admitted this will help Romeny, and that the state itself says voter fraud is not a problem. You have refused (or more likely, been unable) to refute any of this.

I have also pointed out that FL GOP members have been doing the same thing, showing that this is more of an organized plan by the GOP to do this in multiple states, and you have again been unable to refute this either (but hey, you can troll with map pictures!).

So for my viewpoint, there are actual real GOP members admitting this, that I have posted plenty of links to, and that the state has also officially admitted this, that voter fraud isn't a problem.

On your (ahem) viewpoint, you post maps and troll on. So once again, troll fail from our bigot and troll.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So dishonest. What part of this do you fail to comprehend?

Just in case you don't understand "Vacated" in legal terms, here's the definition-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacated_judgment
Ah, I did miss that one line out of the many hundreds in the brief. You are correct, they did vacate his ruling based on an item he did not take into consideration. They did not say his ruling on the items he did take into consideration are wrong, just that he needed to take this one additional item into consideration and that he did not.

Since the woman who started the lawsuit AND their star ancient woman were both able to easily get the new Voter Photo ID, what do you think his ruling on the new item will be?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
While all you can do is post stupid pictures of maps of the US that have nothing to do with the discussion, I have asked you multiple times for evidence of voter fraud taht has changed the results of an election.
The map was to prove to you that Florida and Pennsylvania are not the same place. You seemed to be highly confused about it. You say you want proof and support...so why complain when you get it?

You changed your question. This is what you kept asking:

Post proof of cases of real voter fraud that affected an election. It should be easy right? Since you claim there is fraud.
I amswered it in post 191

You then slightly changed it later, but it still says the same basic thing:

-Post proof of voter fraud that has changed an election.
I again answered in post 195.

You now changed the question completely and then complained that you asked it over and over...when you most certainly did not.

You are moving the goalposts. Ask the actual question you want answered the first time, or at least admit you did not ask the question you meant to ask. Pretending you asked the same question repeatedly, when so easily shown to be not true, is silly.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Classic false dilemma fallacy. Either everything is acceptable or nothing is. As a matter of fact, I can choose a third way, to say it is acceptable for some things but not for others. Also a brilliant example of a hasty generalization fallacy.

P1) Rs want ID for voting.
P2) ID requirements for x, y, and z are primarily used to keep people not supposed to be able to do something from doing it.
C) Voter ID must be being asked for to keep people who are not supposed to vote from voting.

This is, of course, not a logical argument. The mobster has a tire iron, tire irons are generally used to change tires, therefor the mobster is off to change a tire.
That is true, but here is a good logical argument:

P1) Rs want ID for voting.
P2) Every state has a minimum voting age of 18
P3) ID requirements for actions x, y, and z which all posses an age requirement are primarily used to determine legal age to perform x, y, and z

C) Voter ID must be being asked to keep people who are below 18 from voting.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Ah, I did miss that one line out of the many hundreds in the brief. You are correct, they did vacate his ruling based on an item he did not take into consideration. They did not say his ruling on the items he did take into consideration are wrong, just that he needed to take this one additional item into consideration and that he did not.

Since the woman who started the lawsuit AND their star ancient woman were both able to easily get the new Voter Photo ID, what do you think his ruling on the new item will be?
Still dishonest, in more ways than one.

It's not a brief, it's a ruling, and you somehow missed the ruling itself? Hardly. You just tried to pretend it was something different.

And the "additional item" is absolutely crucial. The superior court commands that the Commonwealth court must determine that *No* disenfranchisement will occur through current implementation in order to avoid issuing an injunction. *No* disenfranchisement- zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Not a single person. That's obviously impossible, no matter how badly the judge is wont to do otherwise.

Figuratively speaking, they held a gun to the Judge's head, told him what to write, commanded that he sign it. Unless he's ready to retire, I suspect he will.
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
The map was to prove to you that Florida and Pennsylvania are not the same place. You seemed to be highly confused about it. You say you want proof and support...so why complain when you get it?
This is 100% untrue and you are once again trolling. Showing that multiple states controlled by state GOP members are trying to suppress voters. That is a fact that I have shown strong evdience for.

Your entire rebuttal has been a map. Not going to work.

You haven't even explained why a GOP state congressman has admitted that this is to help Romeny win (hint: it was a Penn congressman).

So you continue to duh-vert and lie, since you cannot provde one single iota of evidence.

I amswered it in post 191

You then slightly changed it later, but it still says the same basic thing:



I again answered in post 195.


Saying this doesn't count (from post 195):
Every single case of voter fraud has changed an election.

No you didn't. I have repeatedly asked for evidence of voter fraud that has changed an election. You have not posted one example.

I have posted that Penn legal admitted in their court case taht voter fraud isn't a problem. You have been unable to find anything to refute that either.

You now changed the question completely and then complained that you asked it over and over...when you most certainly did not.

So for the fourth time back up your BS with proof. Link us to elections in the US that had voter fraud that changed the election

Also link us proof that the GOP is lying when their own members claim that this isn't for fraud, but for voter suppression.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Still dishonest, in more ways than one.

It's not a brief, it's a ruling, and you somehow missed the ruling itself? Hardly. You just tried to pretend it was something different.
Brief, ruling...I simply used the wrong word. It was very long, so brief is obviously a bad word to use...

And the "additional item" is absolutely crucial. The superior court commands that the Commonwealth court must determine that *No* disenfranchisement will occur through current implementation in order to avoid issuing an injunction. *No* disenfranchisement- zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Not a single person. That's obviously impossible, no matter how badly the judge is wont to do otherwise.
Quote the one that says zero, please.


Figuratively speaking, they held a gun to the Judge's head, told him what to write, commanded that he sign it. Unless he's ready to retire, I suspect he will.
Only in your dreams.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
This is 100% untrue and you are once again trolling. Showing that multiple states controlled by state GOP members are trying to suppress voters. That is a fact that I have shown strong evdience for.
You have not, you have shown your personal opinions...then you tried to use Florida to show what is happening in Pennsylvania. Are you still confused that they are NOT the same place?

Your entire rebuttal has been a map. Not going to work.
Whenyou stop pretending Florida is Pennsylvania (which means you need to stop using the events in Florida to explain what is happening in Pennsylvania), then I will stop explaining that they are different states. Until then, I will continue to instruct you about your error.

You haven't even explained why a GOP state congressman has admitted that this is to help Romeny win (hint: it was a Penn congressman).
I most certainly did...and it was in response to you. You just did not like the answer so you are pretending I did not answer it.

LOL at our troll being wrong once again. And you still refuse to honor your bet that you welched on too. So classy, but hey, you are a confirmed troll.

Let me help you out with some facts (those things that you hate):

Link

So a GOP state congresman is claim it will help romney win. Hmmm.
Of course it will...the dead and illegals vote democrat almost exclusively. Removing them from voting will hurt the dems greatly. I am surprised you agree with this, though it is a welcome change from your normal lying.
http://forums.anandtech.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=33986153

You then quoted me, but you decided to cut out the part you did not like...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33996166&postcount=129

So stop lying and saying you do not get answers to your questions.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Brief, ruling...I simply used the wrong word. It was very long, so brief is obviously a bad word to use...
More dishonesty. You challenged us all to read the actual ruling, yet reveal that you either haven't or that you fail to comprehend it.

Quote the one that says zero, please.
I already have, but I'll do it again-

In this regard, the court is to consider whether the procedures being used for deployment of the cards comport with the requirement of liberal access which the General Assembly attached to the issuance of PennDOT identification cards. If they do not, or if the Commonwealth Court is not still convinced in its predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election, that court is obliged to enter a preliminary injunction.
*No* voter disenfranchisement is the criteria demanded of the lower court. That's quite plain, despite your obfuscations.

Only in your dreams.
Heh. The lower court judge is pretty much cornered, and his judgment is due next Tuesday. If he fails to comply, then the higher court will likely just smack him down harder, issue their own injunction. There's still time for them to do that, and I have little doubt they will if it proves necessary.

You get to run your bullshit around in circles because you're not subject to higher authority, but the Commonwealth judge lacks that luxury. They've given him the opportunity to save face, and he'll probably take it.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
That is true, but here is a good logical argument:

P1) Rs want ID for voting.
P2) Every state has a minimum voting age of 18
P3) ID requirements for actions x, y, and z which all posses an age requirement are primarily used to determine legal age to perform x, y, and z

C) Voter ID must be being asked to keep people who are below 18 from voting.
Notice how the the conclusion that follows from the premises is wrong? That is generally a sign that the argument is not good and logical. Nobody is even discussing voter ID primarily as a means to keep underage voters out, but rather non-citizens or fraudulent voters. Alternatively I could point out that aside from being 16 instead of 18, all of the above is true for driving but we have drivers licenses primarily to ensure competence of drivers by only giving licenses to those who meet the legal requirements and demonstrate proficiency, not just being old enough.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,725
8,029
146
As long as I'm giving a clinic on fallacies, this one is called a straw man. It is when you assign a position not stated and generally not held to your opposition and then combat this fictitious position, attempting to claim victory by defeating an argument nobody is making.

I never agreed the left registered imaginary people to vote, I stated that lazy people who got paid for the volume of registrations submitted registered imaginary people. Further, I'm not saying they are disconnected so much as you have presented no evidence they are disconnected. If you are going to make the assertion, you get to provide the evidence. Claiming otherwise would be a burden of proof fallacy; surely you aren't adding another one to the pile?
Classic false dilemma fallacy. Either everything is acceptable or nothing is. As a matter of fact, I can choose a third way, to say it is acceptable for some things but not for others. Also a brilliant example of a hasty generalization fallacy.

P1) Rs want ID for voting.
P2) ID requirements for x, y, and z are primarily used to keep people not supposed to be able to do something from doing it.
C) Voter ID must be being asked for to keep people who are not supposed to vote from voting.

This is, of course, not a logical argument. The mobster has a tire iron, tire irons are generally used to change tires, therefor the mobster is off to change a tire.

Since you ignore things like how prevalent the fraud being prevented is, how much damage it causes, how much damage the measures being used to stop it do, and how effective the measure is in preventing it, your comparison is incomplete to the degree of being inaccurate. Consider this, would you support having to show an ID every time you want to avoid being unreasonably searched by the police and losing the ability to exercise that right if you happened to not have any on you?



False analogy fallacy. A gun is arguably the most effective tool for murder. Purchasing alcohol is the most effective way to ensure one acquires alcohol. In person voter fraud is the absolute least effective way to commit voter fraud. Your argument is akin to saying we should require people to show ID when they purchase pillows because they can be used to kill or purchase loose fitting clothing because it makes it easier to shoplift alcohol. The only difference is in the US a lot more people get killed with pillows or children shoplift liquor with baggy clothes than people actually commit in person voter fraud.

And this is another straw man. Nobody made the claim you are arguing against. Also, calling someone fundamentally dishonest while intentionally misrepresenting their argument is kind of poor form.

The claim is twofold. One, it goes to the motives of the people pushing the laws given that they are ineffective in actually accomplishing the stated goals of the Republicans because they are going after the absolute least effective form of voter fraud that barely even exists and just so happens to have an enormous deleterious effect on their political opponents. Second, and more pressingly, pointing out it has an absolutely minimal impact on fraudulent voting while having an enormous negative impact on legitimate voting is a reason to oppose it and pointing out other, more prevalent, more effective methods of voter fraud exist is an important mark against the effectiveness.
Ad Hominem. I dismiss them because there is no evidence they ever amounted to anything. When you can provide any evidence, any at all that a single fraudulently registered voter from the ACORN scandal voted, then we can talk. I further dismiss your claims because there is zero evidence it was good for anyone except the people getting paid to fraudulently register voters.

I do think we've stumbled upon the root of your problems with logic, however. Did at some point in the past someone tell you just randomly making shit up was a valid debate strategy because that is the sense I am getting?

The problem is even with photo ID you aren't going to catch them because someone intent upon illicit voting will not do it in person. The only way to do it is to develop accurate record keeping systems for voter registration that do thinks like tie into SSN checks. Until we have a national voter database, which, by the way, could be easily queried for things like duplicates or fake numbers, you aren't going to effectively combat the problem. More than that, it doesn't matter because voter fraud isn't a problem as it currently happens. If you actually gave a shit about voter fraud instead of just winning in politics by any means necessary, even denying American citizens the right to vote, you would be pushing for massive reform on voting machines which are ridiculously easy to tamper with and actually can impact an election. Yes, you could determine it was not a real person at a given address and then you could remove them from the voter registration rolls so they can't cast a ballot either in person or absentee which is all you need to do in that regard. That in and of itself is sufficient if you a proactive about it. The problem is every bit the level of partisan hackery takes place in voter registry maintenance as does in every other aspect of the election.
Bravo sir
Bravo
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You have not, you have shown your personal opinions...then you tried to use Florida to show what is happening in Pennsylvania. Are you still confused that they are NOT the same place?
Fifth time, post evidence supporting your lies that voter fraud occurs and has changed an election result.

You are really slipping up troll, everyone can see your outright refusal and inability to provide even one case of voter fraud that has changed an election.

And the mods can see that you are being willfully ignorant, and thread crapping. Given your keen ignorance of the forum rules, I will post them to remind you:

No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.
So you are clearly falling into that. You have claimed voter fraud is a real problem. You have refused to post anything supporting your claim. That is thread-crapping and intentional derailment.

Given your "claimed" willingness to obey forum rules, we will all await you to actually do research and present examples. Otherwise we all see once again you are lying, just like when you lied about Racism in the GOP (and got smacked down hard by Dr Pizza) and when you lied about Iraq WMD (smacked down hard by lots of us).

Just another lie in the long list of your lies.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
More dishonesty. You challenged us all to read the actual ruling, yet reveal that you either haven't or that you fail to comprehend it.

I already have, but I'll do it again-

*No* voter disenfranchisement is the criteria demanded of the lower court. That's quite plain, despite your obfuscations.

Heh. The lower court judge is pretty much cornered, and his judgment is due next Tuesday. If he fails to comply, then the higher court will likely just smack him down harder, issue their own injunction. There's still time for them to do that, and I have little doubt they will if it proves necessary.

You get to run your bullshit around in circles because you're not subject to higher authority, but the Commonwealth judge lacks that luxury. They've given him the opportunity to save face, and he'll probably take it.
If a voter has ample time to get an ID and does not, has he been disenfranchised?

If so, could you not say that a voter who simply does not vote on Tuesday has been similarly disenfranchised and should therefore be allowed to cast his vote whenever the hell he feels like doing so?

And should we not extend this same definition to the Second Amendment? I have to have proof of identity to buy a gun - but if I choose not to get this proof of identity, shouldn't I be allowed to buy a gun anyway, since otherwise I'm being disenfranchised? Remember that I have a specific right in the Constitution to bear arms; I have no such corresponding right to vote.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Fifth time, post evidence supporting your lies that voter fraud occurs and has changed an election result.

You are really slipping up troll, everyone can see your outright refusal and inability to provide even one case of voter fraud that has changed an election.

And the mods can see that you are being willfully ignorant, and thread crapping. Given your keen ignorance of the forum rules, I will post them to remind you:

So you are clearly falling into that. You have claimed voter fraud is a real problem. You have refused to post anything supporting your claim. That is thread-crapping and intentional derailment.

Given your "claimed" willingness to obey forum rules, we will all await you to actually do research and present examples. Otherwise we all see once again you are lying, just like when you lied about Racism in the GOP (and got smacked down hard by Dr Pizza) and when you lied about Iraq WMD (smacked down hard by lots of us).

Just another lie in the long list of your lies.
It takes only a tiny bit of intelligence to realize that it's impossible under our system of government to prove that voter fraud has changed an election. Accepting that you cannot see this, I'll explain.

1. Under even the most stringent of voter identification schemes, one's registration is not tied to one's vote.
2. Given the above, it is impossible to demonstrate that election fraud, even when uncovered, in the form of illegal voters has changed an election. The very most one could ever prove is that the numbers are sufficient to have changed an election. One can not prove that, say, illegal aliens voted for the party that wants to give them citizenship and free goodies over the party that wants to hold them to the law, or that convicted felons voted for the party that says they are the true victims rather than the party that wants to lock them up for their crimes.

The left has a voting scheme conducive to voting fraud that's almost impossible to prove that voting fraud and now demands as a condition to ensuring that the law is followed that we not only prove that fraud exists but that it changed an election.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
It takes only a tiny bit of intelligence to realize that it's impossible under our system of government to prove that voter fraud has changed an election. ...
Bzzzt! Try to keep up here, Buddy. It was Cybrsage who asserted, "Every single case of voter fraud has changed an election." If you have an issue with that bold claim, take it up with him, not those who challenge him on it.


The left has a voting scheme conducive to voting fraud that's almost impossible to prove that voting fraud ...
Yawn. Repeating that canard over and over won't magically make it true, no matter how strongly you FEEL otherwise. There are statistical methods to determine whether any significant level of in-person fraud exists. All have come up with nothing. The right's incessant crying about voter fraud is a lot of empty noise intended to distract the gullible while allowing them to sneak in voter suppression laws. It's just that simple.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Bzzzt! Try to keep up here, Buddy. It was Cybrsage who asserted, "Every single case of voter fraud has changed an election." If you have an issue with that bold claim, take it up with him, not those who challenge him on it.



Yawn. Repeating that canard over and over won't magically make it true, no matter how strongly you FEEL otherwise. There are statistical methods to determine whether any significant level of in-person fraud exists. All have come up with nothing. The right's incessant crying about voter fraud is a lot of empty noise intended to distract the gullible while allowing them to sneak in voter suppression laws. It's just that simple.
My bad. I read that as changed an election from one winner to another, not as technically making any change to the election.

I'm always amused when someone presents a "statistical" analysis about something for which there is little way to obtain good data and no real attempt to do so.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
My bad. I read that as changed an election from one winner to another, not as technically making any change to the election.

I'm always amused when someone presents a "statistical" analysis about something for which there is little way to obtain good data and no real attempt to do so.
Oh, please. Repubs, particularly the Bush Admin, engaged in Jihad to find "voter fraud", came up with nothing of significance. They even fired some of their own US attorneys for failure to seek that grail with the proper fervor.

There are a variety of ways to determine if in person voter fraud has occurred, and Repubs have been all over it like a monkey on a cupcake for the last 10 years. They've been sifting through & cross referencing every database they can find, only to come up with less than squat.

There are a variety of fanciful ways to say that it *could* occur, which doesn't change the fact that it's extremely rare, basically Bigfoot rare in terms of having any significant effect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY