"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[Knowing]

Reminds me of the "prove a negative" rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to debate this, start a thread and invite me to it.

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.

That sounds like circular reasoning to me. I don't think that there's an acceptable level of crime to simply ignore it, particularly with regard to political rights.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Who needs fact when you have faith? He believes in-person voter fraud is an important issue. That is all that matters.

 

[shortylickens]

“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.

FOUND.


They cant FIND 12 million illegals running around all over the fuckin place.

Maybe the government is just run by some selfish, self-centered, self-serving assholes whose sole purpose is to convince you everything is fucking wonderful so you'll keep paying taxes.

 

[emperus]

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.

[FONT=ArialMT,Bold]

​

1. Detecting and preventing in-person voter-impersonation fraud​

The defendants claim that Act 23 will deter or prevent voter fraud by making it harder to impersonate a voter and cast a ballot in his or her name without detection. Detecting and preventing in-person voter-impersonation fraud is a legitimate state interest, see Crawford, 553 U.S. at 196, and the photo ID requirement does, to some extent, serve that interest by making it harder to impersonate a voter at the polls. However, as explained below, because 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, this particular state interest has very little weight.​

The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past. The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot. Tr. 2056–57. However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book. Tr. 2057. Still, about one or two cases each major election remain unexplained, and the defendants contend that these one or two cases could be instances of voter-impersonation fraud. I suppose that’s possible, but most likely these cases also have innocent explanations and the District Attorney’s office was simply unable to confirm that they did. Moreover, the most Landgraf’s testimony shows is that cases of potential voter-impersonation fraud occur so infrequently that no rational person familiar with the relevant facts could be concerned about them. There are over 660,000 eligible voters in Milwaukee County, and if the District Attorney’s office finds two unexplained cases each major election, that means that there is less than one questionable vote cast each major election per 330,000 eligible voters. The rate of potential voter-impersonation fraud is thus exceedingly tiny.​

​

​

​

The article has clickable links which would take you to the actual ruling a portion of which I quoted above.​

http://media.jrn.com/documents/adelmanorder.pdf​

​

I always assumed people expended as much energy as necessary to be informed. And with the advent of the internet and Google, that takes less and less energy.​

[/FONT]

 

[Knowing]

Who needs fact when you have faith? He believes in-person voter fraud is an important issue. That is all that matters.

If you have something to say to me, kindly address your comments to me. If you are confused on what I believe, I'd be happy to correct you.

For example, you think that my belief that in-person voter fraud (or any kind of voter fraud, or any kind of fraud) is a crime is based on faith. That couldn't be further from the truth. NIST maintains a page on it, this pdf defines it.

So unless you can just magic up some proof that my faith interacts with the world in such a way as to spontaneously create websites on the .gov tld it seems trivially easy to demonstrate that my belief that voter fraud is a crime is based on fact...which begs the question - why'd you even bother?

 

[emperus]

If you want to debate this, start a thread and invite me to it.



That sounds like circular reasoning to me. I don't think that there's an acceptable level of crime to simply ignore it, particularly with regard to political rights.

But you do believe that it is significant enough to possible disenfranchise orders of magnitudes more?

Btw, they have mail in ballot. How many ballots do you think get lost an election cycle? More then 2? Why isn't there a greater push to fix the Post Office so that these ballots don't get lost. Or better yet, just get rid of mail in ballots?

 

[Knowing]

I always assumed people expended as much energy as necessary to be informed. And with the advent of the internet and Google, that takes less and less energy.

You know what happens when you assume; you make an ass out of u.

So in one specific type of voter fraud they didn't find anything significant. Good, that doesn't mean stop looking or that all fraud does not occur.

If there were no pickpockets in Mayberry in 1963, would it be acceptable for Andy Griffith to ignore a theft in 1965 on the basis that it almost never happens?

 

[Knowing]

But you do believe that it is significant enough to possible disenfranchise orders of magnitudes more?

Btw, they have mail in ballot. How many ballots do you think get lost an election cycle? More then 2? Why isn't there a greater push to fix the Post Office so that these ballots don't get lost. Or better yet, just get rid of mail in ballots?

I don't see how someone could be disenfranchised by having to produce documents required in countless other scenarios.

 

[emperus]

You know what happens when you assume; you make an ass out of u.

Apologies, I guess assuming people will expend energy to be informed was a pretty poor assumption. My bad..

So in one specific type of voter fraud they didn't find anything significant. Good, that doesn't mean stop looking or that all fraud does not occur.

Yes, the one specific type of voter fraud the laws were designed to prevent. You know impersonation voter fraud.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I don't see how someone could be disenfranchised by having to produce documents required in countless other scenarios.

What you fail to understand is your ability to comprehend how others manage day to day without the very limited IDs usually permissible when voting isn't really important. You don't have to understand it. You just need to accept that they do. That some would have to go to great lengths to get what is demanded they have.

 

[emperus]

I don't see how someone could be disenfranchised by having to produce documents required in countless other scenarios.

I have no issue with identification to vote. I do think it has to be phased in say over a 5 year period and the id has to be free. Reading the Wisconsin law, I don't mind it with the exception of not allowing id's from 2 year technical schools. But again, it should be phased in.

My problem is the rush in the laws and the rational behind it. There is no voter fraud issue. It's a blatant attempt to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. Every rational person should understand that.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont think "disenfranchised" should ever be an argument for the worlds most expensive government to not do something sensible.

I dont think it should be an argument for anything, actually.

 

[Bowfinger]

If you have something to say to me, kindly address your comments to me. If you are confused on what I believe, I'd be happy to correct you.

For example, you think that my belief that in-person voter fraud (or any kind of voter fraud, or any kind of fraud) is a crime is based on faith. That couldn't be further from the truth. NIST maintains a page on it, this pdf defines it.

So unless you can just magic up some proof that my faith interacts with the world in such a way as to spontaneously create websites on the .gov tld it seems trivially easy to demonstrate that my belief that voter fraud is a crime is based on fact...which begs the question - why'd you even bother?

Yawn. Get over yourself. NOBODY questions whether voter fraud is a crime. That's just a straw man. Indeed, your "arguments" in this thread have been one straw man after another, where you take others' reasoned comments and pervert them into something nonsensical you then attack. I'm not impressed.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you want to debate this, start a thread and invite me to it.



That sounds like circular reasoning to me. I don't think that there's an acceptable level of crime to simply ignore it, particularly with regard to political rights.

False premise, sir. The problem of voter fraud is not being ignored at all. It is vigorously prosecuted when discovered. There have also been a lot of eager beaver officials working on it in States where the voter fraud meme is rampant, and they've been at it since the Bush era.

The results? Proveable fraud rates so low as to be statistically insignificant and therefore no basis for additional measures. No need to burden voters with additional requirements.

It's real simple once all the bullshit is cast aside.

Or you can just stick with a Bigfoot-believin' headset.

 

[Paratus]

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.

You do realize there are already checks in place to look for in person voter fraud and they have made in person voter fraud virtually non existent.

So other than suppressing voter turnout so your side can win why do we need onerous new voter ID laws? Or do you just prefer expensive big government legislation removing fundamental rights from US citizens?

 

[Knowing]

You just need to accept that they do. That some would have to go to great lengths to get what is demanded they have.

I accept that their feelings might be hurt. I'm not persuaded by their feelings. These documents are required for an abundance of other things, if their feelings aren't hurt when they're obligated to participate in those things then I struggle to figure out why casting a ballot makes people so emotional.

That's just a straw man. Indeed, your "arguments" in this thread have been one straw man after another, where you take others' reasoned comments and pervert them into something nonsensical you then attack.

What's it called when you strawman someone else's argument to another person and then present some faux offense when they call you out on it?

So if we all agree it's a crime then why is it unconscionable to take reasonable measures to prevent it - like requiring government provided documents to participate in government?

I have no issue with identification to vote. I do think it has to be phased in say over a 5 year period and the id has to be free. Reading the Wisconsin law, I don't mind it with the exception of not allowing id's from 2 year technical schools. But again, it should be phased in.

If we had started that process 5 years ago it would be over. How do you enroll in school without any documents?

It's a blatant attempt to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. Every rational person should understand that.

Some times I think you suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

In IL a state ID is $10 (up from $5 when I was a minor). It's free for people over 60. A one day CTA pass is also $10.

I don't see the financial burden.

 

[WHAMPOM]

“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.

Get out and serve once on an election board. You will see voter impersonation is mainly mistakes by the poll workers.

 

[shira]

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.

If you want evidence, you really should read the ruling, which goes on for 90 pages and addresses and refutes (pages 12 through 21) with documented evidence each of the state's four claims that the law furthers a legitimate state interest. Furthermore, it (pages 22 through 38) addresses and agrees with the evidence supplied by the plaintiffs that the law has a discriminatory effect on Blacks and Latinos and will prevents many thousands of these groups from voting.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221004483/WiscVoterID-195-Decision

Here are the most important paragraphs in the ruling:

Given the obstacles identified above, it is likely that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack a qualifying ID will be deterred from voting.
.
.
.
Act 23 has a disproportionate impact on Black and Latino voters because it is more likely to burden those voters with the costs of obtaining a photo ID that they would not otherwise obtain. This burden is significant not only because it is likely to deter Blacks and Latinos from voting even if they could obtain IDs without much difficulty, but also because Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites to have difficulty obtaining IDs. This disproportionate impact is a “discriminatory result” because the reason Black and Latino voters are more likely to have to incur the costs of obtaining IDs is that they are disproportionately likely to live in poverty, and the reason Black and Latino voters are disproportionately likely to live in poverty is connected to the history of discrimination against Blacks and Latinos in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Finally, Act 23 only tenuously serves the state’s interest in preventing voter fraud and protecting the integrity of the electoral process,and therefore the state’s interests do not justify the discriminatory result. Accordingly, the photo ID requirement results in the denial or abridgment of the right of Black and Latino citizens to vote on account of race or color.

Now, if you are unable to refute the evidence presented in the ruling, on what basis do you continue to support Wisconsin's voter ID law?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I think we can all agree that we can solve this silly ID card problem by having the Republican party pay for all those who want one, even those folks without an address.

 

[fskimospy]

I accept that their feelings might be hurt. I'm not persuaded by their feelings. These documents are required for an abundance of other things, if their feelings aren't hurt when they're obligated to participate in those things then I struggle to figure out why casting a ballot makes people so emotional.



What's it called when you strawman someone else's argument to another person and then present some faux offense when they call you out on it?

So if we all agree it's a crime then why is it unconscionable to take reasonable measures to prevent it - like requiring government provided documents to participate in government?



If we had started that process 5 years ago it would be over. How do you enroll in school without any documents?



Some times I think you suggest that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

In IL a state ID is $10 (up from $5 when I was a minor). It's free for people over 60. A one day CTA pass is also $10.

I don't see the financial burden.

I like how you said that you didn't want to spend the time reading the ruling on this but are perfectly willing to spend the time to write a whole bunch of long posts that rely on arguments specifically addressed and refuted by the ruling.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of voter fraud in the US should be able to see immediately why these laws are useless, bordering on irrational.

 

[PokerGuy]

Cool story bra...

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

Fern

Ding ding ding, winnar. Some left wing political activist judge tows the left wing party line. Shock and surprise for all. :biggrin:

 

[PokerGuy]

rely on arguments specifically addressed and refuted by the ruling.

"refuted by the ruling" is just another way of saying "a left wing hack judge disagreed with it". Completely worthless and meaningless.

 

[PokerGuy]

Now, if you are unable to refute the evidence presented in the ruling, on what basis do you continue to support Wisconsin's voter ID law?

This was just the reasoning of a leftist judge. Completely worthless and meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

"refuted by the ruling" is just another way of saying "a left wing hack judge disagreed with it". Completely worthless and meaningless.

The lengths you go to in order to ignore inconvenient facts never ceases to impress me. The power of ideology is really that strong.

If you have issues with the findings of fact he presented, please list them and explain why. Be specific.

 

[thraashman]

The lengths you go to in order to ignore inconvenient facts never ceases to impress me. The power of ideology is really that strong.

If you have issues with the findings of fact he presented, please list them and explain why. Be specific.

Um, his issue is that they're facts. We both know he doesn't believe for an instant that voter fraud occurs at any significant level worth instituting these id laws over. He just wants to disenfranchise. Now, no righty will outright admit that, but every so often they slip and let us know. They don't care how many dirty tricks they have to use to win the election, so long as they win it. It's why the right should never again be in charge, they're monsters.