• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

If you don't measure something it's hard to say that it doesn't exist. I'm struggling to figure out why people don't have basic documents, or how they cannot afford basic documents that are required for a great many things.

I don't subscribe to the concept of marriage as a "right" independent of other rights of free association but many places require birth certificates for marriage licenses. So it seems to me that if basic government identification is no bar to marriage for those who recognize it as a right, then producing the same should be no bar to the right to vote.
 
emperus said:
“Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin, and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future,” the judge wrote.



Still no voter fraud found.
Click to expand...

Of course. Our usual ravers are waiting for instructions from the great conservative motherships of the right wing noise machine in order to reply. They'll be receiving the spin shortly, I suspect, spreading it as well as they can. It'll be a humdinger, something so preposterous as to leave you gasping for air.

Facts as they apply to voter fraud are like facts as they apply to the virgin birth for the Faithful, anyway. They don't.

They Believe. They have Faith. If they're losing, then the opposition must be cheating, and that's that.
 
Knowing said:
If you don't measure something it's hard to say that it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

That's what they say about Bigfoot, too.

I'm struggling to figure out why people don't have basic documents, or how they cannot afford basic documents that are required for a great many things.

I don't subscribe to the concept of marriage as a "right" independent of other rights of free association but many places require birth certificates for marriage licenses. So it seems to me that if basic government identification is no bar to marriage for those who recognize it as a right, then producing the same should be no bar to the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs make a right, I suppose. Well, at least in the realm of denial & obfuscation.
 
Jhhnn said:
Of course. Our usual ravers are waiting for instructions from the great conservative motherships of the right wing noise machine in order to reply. They'll be receiving the spin shortly, I suspect, spreading it as well as they can. It'll be a humdinger, something so preposterous as to leave you gasping for air.

Facts as they apply to voter fraud are like facts as they apply to the virgin birth for the Faithful, anyway. They don't.

They Believe. They have Faith. If they're losing, then the opposition must be cheating, and that's that.
Click to expand...

And this is the stupidity that occurs in a brainwashed society. Few, if any, claim that voter fraud is the reason for lost elections. However, that doesn't mean that it is a problem to ignore. Turning real problems into a war on the "other side" to avoid solving the problems seems to be the only thing stopping illegal activity from being prevented.

How does it feel being an advocate for usurping the constitutional rights of citizens to elect their leaders in a fair and equal way to argue against an instilled, fictional opponent?
 
mrjminer said:
Virtually true, but ultimately false.
Click to expand...

Let us stipulate that voter fraud does, in fact, occur at an insignificant level. Prove a need to take action based on that, or provide evidence to show that it's more widespread than that.

Have at it.
 
mrjminer said:
And this is the stupidity that occurs in a brainwashed society. Few, if any, claim that voter fraud is the reason for lost elections. However, that doesn't mean that it is a problem to ignore. Turning real problems into a war on the "other side" to avoid solving the problems seems to be the only thing stopping illegal activity from being prevented.

How does it feel being an advocate for usurping the constitutional rights of citizens to elect their leaders in a fair and equal way to argue against an instilled, fictional opponent?
Click to expand...

I dunno. Ask yourself & other voter fraud ravers the same question.
 
Jhhnn said:
Let us stipulate that voter fraud does, in fact, occur at an insignificant level. Prove a need to take action based on that, or provide evidence to show that it's more widespread than that.

Have at it.
Click to expand...

There is no need to stipulate that voter fraud occurs at a low-level. The article already provides that point. Neither do I need to provide evidence of widespread voter fraud because that is not what I claim.

I don't need to prove jack shit. My proof is in the constitution and the law. You need to prove that voter fraud is not illegal instead of trying to act as though the burden of proof to uphold the law on admitted illegal activity occurring is somehow on the person advocating that votes should be unequivocally fair. Rather than attempting to shift the burden of proof to my easily won side of the argument to your unwinnable side of the argument, however, you could use your brain and realize that voter fraud is a problem that you really don't want to exist, and that you are arguing to have votes not be fair.
 
Jhhnn said:
Let us stipulate that voter fraud does, in fact, occur at an insignificant level. Prove a need to take action based on that, or provide evidence to show that it's more widespread than that.

Have at it.
Click to expand...

Crime being at a "tolerable" level is no reason to disband the police force and lock up the courthouse.

I had another thought about your earlier speculation - if bigfoot shows up at a polling place and attempts to vote we'd be able to determine that (s)he does exist.
 
mrjminer said:
And this is the stupidity that occurs in a brainwashed society. Few, if any, claim that voter fraud is the reason for lost elections. However, that doesn't mean that it is a problem to ignore. Turning real problems into a war on the "other side" to avoid solving the problems seems to be the only thing stopping illegal activity from being prevented.

How does it feel being an advocate for usurping the constitutional rights of citizens to elect their leaders in a fair and equal way to argue against an instilled, fictional opponent?
Click to expand...

What is the problem that you feel needs to be solved?
 
Knowing said:
If you don't measure something it's hard to say that it doesn't exist. I'm struggling to figure out why people don't have basic documents, or how they cannot afford basic documents that are required for a great many things.

I don't subscribe to the concept of marriage as a "right" independent of other rights of free association but many places require birth certificates for marriage licenses. So it seems to me that if basic government identification is no bar to marriage for those who recognize it as a right, then producing the same should be no bar to the right to vote.
Click to expand...

You should probably read the ruling. Needless to say, the argument that people have not measured this is false.
 
emperus said:
“Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin, and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future,” the judge wrote.



Still no voter fraud found.
Click to expand...

Cool story bra...

A Democratic politician appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton. Really?

Fern
 
eskimospy said:
You should probably read the ruling. Needless to say, the argument that people have not measured this is false.
Click to expand...

No link or quote accompanied the claim that fraud doesn't take place. I'm not going to bother reading 90 pages or ctrl+f-ing to find evidence of someone else's assertion.

..and even if they didn't find proof of violations of the law, that still doesn't invalidate the rest of my post.
 
I seriously doubt if it's a major issue anywhere, to be honest.

Cept for dead people in the 60s in some large cities.

Precients in Chicago, etc.
 
Last edited:
Knowing said:
No link or quote accompanied the claim that fraud doesn't take place. I'm not going to bother reading 90 pages or ctrl+f-ing to find evidence of someone else's assertion.

..and even if they didn't find proof of violations of the law, that still doesn't invalidate the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so you're just content to comment in a thread about a court ruling, don't bother to learn anything about the ruling first, make a claim that the ruling specifically addresses and dismisses, and then when notified of this say you aren't going to bother anyway.

Lol.
 
mrjminer said:
There is no need to stipulate that voter fraud occurs at a low-level. The article already provides that point. Neither do I need to provide evidence of widespread voter fraud because that is not what I claim.

I don't need to prove jack shit. My proof is in the constitution and the law. You need to prove that voter fraud is not illegal instead of trying to act as though the burden of proof to uphold the law on admitted illegal activity occurring is somehow on the person advocating that votes should be unequivocally fair. Rather than attempting to shift the burden of proof to my easily won side of the argument to your unwinnable side of the argument, however, you could use your brain and realize that voter fraud is a problem that you really don't want to exist, and that you are arguing to have votes not be fair.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is yours- if you advocate action, you must show sufficient cause.

The law is being upheld. Voter impersonation is prosecuted when discovered, just like any other crime. It's obviously a very infrequent occurrence, statistically insignificant, otherwise the usual ravers wouldn't have to resort to arguments like your own.

Show us the fraud. Give us the numbers, not the speculation that it "could" occur. Not how many dead people are on the rolls who don't vote. Not how many people with the same name voted in adjacent states. Show us that it occurs with sufficient frequency that the cure isn't worse than the disease, that it outweighs disenfranchisement concerns.

Obviously, you can't do that, or you would have.
 
eskimospy said:
Oh ok, so you're just content to comment in a thread about a court ruling, don't bother to learn anything about the ruling first, make a claim that the ruling specifically addresses and dismisses, and then when notified of this say you aren't going to bother anyway.

Lol.
Click to expand...

I read the article that was posted, which repeated the claim made by the OP of the thread but presented no evidence.

How much effort do you expect me to expend proving other people's claims? - in calories please.

...and all of that *still* does not invalidate the rest of my post.
 
Knowing said:
I read the article that was posted, which repeated the claim made by the OP of the thread but presented no evidence.

How much effort do you expect me to expend proving other people's claims? - in calories please.

...and all of that *still* does not invalidate the rest of my post.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the "prove a negative" rationale for the invasion of Iraq. Prove that voter fraud is insignificant. If it were significant, you'd have the proof you need from the number of people apprehended & prosecuted. You don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top