"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[emperus]

“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.

Voter ID Is the Real Fraud
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/opinion/voter-id-is-the-real-fraud.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Still no voter fraud found.

 

[Knowing]

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.

 

[mrjminer]

Still no voter fraud found.

Virtually true, but ultimately false.

 

[michal1980]

another supporter of voter fraud. The left sure is fighting to protect something they claim doesn't happen.

 

[Jhhnn]

“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.

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you don't measure something it's hard to say that it doesn't exist.

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.

Two wrongs make a right, I suppose. Well, at least in the realm of denial & obfuscation.

 

[Knowing]

That's what they say about Bigfoot, too.

As far as I'm aware, bigfoot is not eligible to vote.

Two wrongs make a right, I suppose. Well, at least in the realm of denial & obfuscation.

Could you clarify?

 

[mrjminer]

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.

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?

 

[Jhhnn]

Virtually true, but ultimately false.

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

I dunno. Ask yourself & other voter fraud ravers the same question.

 

[mrjminer]

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.

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.

 

[Knowing]

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.

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.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/california-man-registers-dog-to-vote/

 

[emperus]

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?

What is the problem that you feel needs to be solved?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

You should probably read the ruling. Needless to say, the argument that people have not measured this is false.

 

[Fern]

“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.

Cool story bra...

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

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Cool story bra...

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

Fern

I strongly suggest you read the ruling also, in particular the findings of fact.

 

[cabri]

A negative is being asked to be proven.

Note that the judge did not state NO

 

[Knowing]

You should probably read the ruling. Needless to say, the argument that people have not measured this is false.

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.

 

[MongGrel]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.

 

[emperus]

Cool story bra...
Fern

Did you hear that when you accidentally flipped to Kevin Hart? Jesus, can you caricature yourself any further?

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

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.

 

[Knowing]

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.

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.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

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.