"Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.."

[Fern]

North Carolina is trying to implement a restrictive voter id law and being sued over it. There is nothing I can find of an effort to fund getting people IDs. I've found articles that talk about the NC law that reference Virginia not being sued because it funds those voter IDs. And in fact in NC state issued public assistance IDs are NOT valid for their voter ID laws. If you have additional information I would love to read more.

“The fact of the matter of is, if you don’t have an I.D. in North Carolina, you can obtain one for free.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/how-north-carolinas-voter-id-law-could-actually-help-democra

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The standards of proof that I am familiar with are those of the accounting profession. An assertion that cannot be independently verified is not considered proof.

The article of faith in question here is the acceptance of an unconfirmed assertion as proof. That is, indeed, faith.

Again, if your claim is that facts entered into evidence at trial by authoritative witnesses with direct knowledge of the issue that are not contested by either side constitutes an article of faith, basically the entirety of western law is now an article of faith. There's no way you actually believe something so manifestly absurd, so I'm kind of at a loss as to why you would try to make such a ridiculous assertion.

The good news is that we can clean out the jails, because the vast majority of people convicted of crimes are in there on faith by your standard. How fun!

The simple fact is we no have no voting system worth a damn. Our voter rolls are substantially F'd up. This is not even debatable. And, IMO, that's the starting point. If those cannot be trusted, and we know that they cannot, everything which flows from that is suspect and nothing provable by any reasonable definition of the word.

Fern

This makes your position even worse, do you not realize this? Now you're trying to restrict people's voting rights while simultaneously saying that you don't believe there can be any evidence that this is necessary. That is utterly irrational and flies in the face of the basis for US civil rights. How incredibly shitty!

 

[Fern]

Again, if your claim is that facts entered into evidence at trial by authoritative witnesses with direct knowledge of the issue that are not contested by either side constitutes an article of faith, basically the entirety of western law is now an article of faith. There's no way you actually believe something so manifestly absurd, so I'm kind of at a loss as to why you would try to make such a ridiculous assertion.


The good news is that we can clean out the jails, because the vast majority of people convicted of crimes are in there on faith by your standard. How fun!

My claim is quite simply what I have stated it to be: An unconfirmed assertion does not rise to level of proof.

Otherwise what you have written about the court system has no relevance to this issue.

This makes your position even worse, do you not realize this? Now you're trying to restrict people's voting rights while simultaneously saying that you don't believe there can be any evidence that this is necessary. That is utterly irrational and flies in the face of the basis for US civil rights. How incredibly shitty!

Of course it does not make my position worse. Pointing out additional flaws in the system in no way invalidates other suggested improvements.

Removing duplicate entries from people who have moved, dead people and felons who are not allowed to vote from the voter rolls in no way argues against voter ID.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

The standards of proof that I am familiar with are those of the accounting profession. An assertion that cannot be independently verified is not considered proof.

The article of faith in question here is the acceptance of an unconfirmed assertion as proof. That is, indeed, faith.

The simple fact is we no have no voting system worth a damn. Our voter rolls are substantially F'd up. This is not even debatable. And, IMO, that's the starting point. If those cannot be trusted, and we know that they cannot, everything which flows from that is suspect and nothing provable by any reasonable definition of the word.

Fern

unconfirmed assertion by the side claiming that in person voter fraud is a big problem! who is in charge of investigating such things!

 

[Jhhnn]

Yet they were able to obtain the documents required for proof in order to register to vote. :whiste:

Things change. Stuff gets lost, stolen, destroyed. Seniors, in particular, can have difficulty coming up with all the documentation to "prove their identity" but they function just fine because they proved it long ago. That's particularly true for women, who may have been married, divorced & widowed in 5 different states, adopting their husband's surname each time. They don't just need a birth cert, they need to show a whole chain of documentation, depending.

It's an exercise in partisan authoritarian stupidity, anyway, given that the incidence of voter fraud is insignificant.

 

[fskimospy]

My claim is quite simply what I have stated it to be: An unconfirmed assertion does not rise to level of proof.

Otherwise what you have written about the court system has no relevance to this issue.

It most certainly does. Using your standard of proof invalidates basically every court judgment that exists. So either authoritative expert testimony of those directly involved and uncontested by all parties is sufficient proof to draw a judgment from or it isn't. If it isn't, say goodbye to western law.

I guess it depends on how committed you are to dying on this hill, huh? Haha.

Of course it does not make my position worse. Pointing out additional flaws in the system in no way invalidates other suggested improvements.

Removing duplicate entries from people who have moved, dead people and felons who are not allowed to vote from the voter rolls in no way argues against voter ID.

Fern

Oh of course it makes your position worse. Voter ID is only an improvement if it addresses a problem that exists. Otherwise it is just a waste of time and money. You are now arguing that you have no capacity to make such a judgment but you want to anyway. This is irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

unconfirmed assertion by the side claiming that in person voter fraud is a big problem! who is in charge of investigating such things!

At this point it is hard to imagine what possible proof could emerge that he would accept. I'm pretty sure at this point it stems from a desire not to admit that voter ID laws have no rational basis. I don't think he actually believes this nonsense.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/how-north-carolinas-voter-id-law-could-actually-help-democra

Fern

Free ... sort of. Yes, NC will provide a "free" ID if one claims he has no ID. But, they won't come out to your house or pay for your transportation costs to the DMV, and they won't pay for the required documentation (e.g., birth certificate) unless you were born in North Carolina, and they won't pay for any wages lost while one twiddles his thumbs in government offices. Oh, and it's not free to the NC taxpayers who have to foot the bill for preventing something that is virtually non-existent.

 

[Fern]

unconfirmed assertion by the side claiming that in person voter fraud is a big problem! who is in charge of investigating such things!

I haven't claimed that. That's flat out dishonest.

What I have claimed is that presently we have no way of knowing.

What we presently have is akin to claiming that companies' financial statements don't need to be audited. That they don't need to be audited because no fraud or errors have been identified. In the absence of an audit no fraud or errors will ever be identified. The absence of evidence is not proof, particularly when you don't even look for any evidence to begin with.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't claimed that. That's flat out dishonest.

What I have claimed is that presently we have no way of knowing.

What we presently have is akin to claiming that companies' financial statements don't need to be audited. That they don't need to be audited because no fraud or errors have been identified. In the absence of an audit no fraud or errors will ever be identified. The absence of evidence is not proof, particularly when you don't even look for any evidence to begin with.

Fern

The district attorneys office IS THE AUDITOR.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The left and the right see things differently here.

The left sees it as a crime if any one legitimate voter is NOT able to cast their vote, even if a few people are able to vote illegally.

The right sees it as a crime if any one illegitimate vote is counted, even if a few people who legally have the right to vote are denied their right due to not having their papers or whatever.

Similar to difference between left/right on the death penalty.

Left: No death penalty since we can not risk executing 1 innocent person.
Right: Death penalty is good since mostly we execute guilty people.


That said, the actual politicians on the left and right do not give 1 flying fvck about anything. They just want their power and money.

 

[Jhhnn]

The left sees it as a crime if any one legitimate voter is NOT able to cast their vote, even if a few people are able to vote illegally.

We also think that anybody voting illegally should be prosecuted, and that such actual incidents should be well publicized as a deterrent.

 

[Jhhnn]

I haven't claimed that. That's flat out dishonest.

What I have claimed is that presently we have no way of knowing.

What we presently have is akin to claiming that companies' financial statements don't need to be audited. That they don't need to be audited because no fraud or errors have been identified. In the absence of an audit no fraud or errors will ever be identified. The absence of evidence is not proof, particularly when you don't even look for any evidence to begin with.

Fern

Hogwash. We have no way of knowing about Bigfoot for sure, either.

Ever since the Bush era, Righties of all persuasions & levels of authority have been all over the "voter fraud!" boogeyman like stink on shit, and they haven't found shit in the process, either.

Audits occur after the fact, not as some sort of pre-emptive measure at all. Audit who voted when & where? Have at it.

 

[JohnShadows]

I haven't claimed that. That's flat out dishonest.

What I have claimed is that presently we have no way of knowing.

What we presently have is akin to claiming that companies' financial statements don't need to be audited. That they don't need to be audited because no fraud or errors have been identified. In the absence of an audit no fraud or errors will ever be identified. The absence of evidence is not proof, particularly when you don't even look for any evidence to begin with.

Fern

What we currently have is a risk-benefit situation. The benefit would be stopping a problem that has not been proven to be significant. The risk is effective disenfranchisement, or at least making it more difficult for some to vote.

And make no mistake - the right is on the wrong side of history, and they aren't going to win with their ideas. So they're trying to find a back door to victory.

 

[glenn1]

We also think that anybody voting illegally should be prosecuted, and that such actual incidents should be well publicized as a deterrent.

And how would you prove it? Let's say two men, both without ID, show up at a polling place claiming to be Joe Blow. Since there is no way of knowing who is truthful, do you let both vote? Neither?

 

[Jhhnn]

And how would you prove it? Let's say two men, both without ID, show up at a polling place claiming to be Joe Blow. Since there is no way of knowing who is truthful, do you let both vote? Neither?

Oh, please. Give up on the false attribution. Voters need some form of proof, even if it's just a signature matching their registration card. If a fraudulent vote is cast in somebody else's name, then when the honest person shows up to vote the fraud will be revealed. If the honest person votes first, the fraudster will be disqualified at the polling place.

Repubs can't even illustrate incidents of that, to my knowledge.

Y'all got nothin', other than a big Jim Crow Authoritarian hard-on powered by partisan fear mongering.

Show us the fraud, don't just claim that it could happen, might happen, should happen to suit your delusions.

 

[Paratus]

Oh, please. Give up on the false attribution. Voters need some form of proof, even if it's just a signature matching their registration card. If a fraudulent vote is cast in somebody else's name, then when the honest person shows up to vote the fraud will be revealed. If the honest person votes first, the fraudster will be disqualified at the polling place.

Repubs can't even illustrate incidents of that, to my knowledge.

Y'all got nothin', other than a big Jim Crow Authoritarian hard-on powered by partisan fear mongering.

Show us the fraud, don't just claim that it could happen, might happen, should happen to suit your delusions.

Hey don't worry about it Jhhnn all them conservative types are heavily armed thanks to the 2nd and just as soon as the government starts taking away basically rights from Americans they'll be there to protect our rights.

Who needs votes when you got guns!

:biggrin: shit couldn't keep a straight face.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Hey don't worry about it Jhhnn all them conservative types are heavily armed thanks to the 2nd and just as soon as the government starts taking away basically rights from Americans they'll be there to protect our rights.

Who needs votes when you got guns!

:biggrin: shit couldn't keep a straight face.

How many cows does one need for said protection to be offered?

 

[Paratus]

How many cows does one need for said protection to be offered?

This one:

 

[ElFenix]

I haven't claimed that. That's flat out dishonest.

What I have claimed is that presently we have no way of knowing.

What we presently have is akin to claiming that companies' financial statements don't need to be audited. That they don't need to be audited because no fraud or errors have been identified. In the absence of an audit no fraud or errors will ever be identified. The absence of evidence is not proof, particularly when you don't even look for any evidence to begin with.

Fern

no, it is honest. you don't seem to have read the court decision. what was quoted by eskimo and which you claimed was unconfirmed assertion was the testimony of the assistant district attorney for milwaukee, who had a huge amount of data available to him. there was a huge amount of effort and manpower poured into milwaukee to find voting irregularities. and they found pretty much nothing that amounted to voter impersonation. most of the irregularities they found would be better fixed by fixing the registration system. they also found irregularities with the machines counting the vote. both of these should be way higher on the list of priorities to fix but they don't disproportionately affect the poors so the republicans loldontcare.

"we don't know if it exists" is not a justification for an additional burden on the right to vote.

read the court decision. read the milwaukee task force report. there was a lot of effort put into finding voting irregularities. they did find some. they didn't find this massive boogeyman of voter impersonation that republicans insist is hiding inside the closet for which the proposed cure is burning down that section of the house.

 

[shira]

Yet they were able to obtain the documents required for proof in order to register to vote. :whiste:

The fact that in the past a person had a birth certificate or passport or other means of proving residency and identity, and registered to vote, doesn't mean they still have these proofs now.

But the broader point is the the judge in this case looked at all of the evidence, and concluded that the ID law would indeed deter from voting "a significant portion" of the 300,000 Blacks and Latinos who currently lack acceptable photo IDs. You've provided nothing but your smugness to refute the evidence presented in the ruling.

People like you can never be convinced of anything that counters your ideology, because you simply reject the evidence. You revel in your own ignorance.

 

[shira]

And how would you prove it? Let's say two men, both without ID, show up at a polling place claiming to be Joe Blow. Since there is no way of knowing who is truthful, do you let both vote? Neither?

Why are you even making this argument? The fact is that this type of thing almost never happens. Why would you base a law on extremely rare events that even if the DO occur will have no practical significance in deciding the outcome of elections?

Hey, I know, let's amend the air traffic laws to state that everyone who goes outside must have a license to fly. This type of law is necessary because there may be rare individuals who have the power to fly, and they could present a serious hazard to normal air traffic. We MUST stop irresponsible people who have the power to levitate themselves into the flight path of airplanes and helicopters.

Arguing for voter ID laws is only slightly less absurd than requiring anyone who wants to go outside to get a flying license. At least such a flying law could prevent potentially catastrophic accidents.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

What possible need would there be to grandfather people from an ID which would be provided for free? There could obviously be a period (maybe even a couple years) in which to obtain said free ID but it shouldn't be permanent. Proving your identity should be a minimum threshhold for receiving government benefits IMHO.

Define "government benefits".

Roads?

Mail?

SS?

A job in the Army?

Subsidized corn?

 

[shortylickens]

You do have to prove you are eligible to get a job in the army.
And Obama wants to toll the interstate.

 

[glenn1]

The fact that in the past a person had a birth certificate or passport or other means of proving residency and identity, and registered to vote, doesn't mean they still have these proofs now.

But the broader point is the the judge in this case looked at all of the evidence, and concluded that the ID law would indeed deter from voting "a significant portion" of the 300,000 Blacks and Latinos who currently lack acceptable photo IDs. You've provided nothing but your smugness to refute the evidence presented in the ruling.

People like you can never be convinced of anything that counters your ideology, because you simply reject the evidence. You revel in your own ignorance.

Include the photo on the voter registration card then, which is already provided free and required in basically every state to be provided at the polls. That eliminates every single other consideration of cost and everything else involved with having to obtain a state ID like a driver's license. Or are you now going to argue that getting a picture taken is a supreme burden on voters?