• 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."

Voter Fraud!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,303
18,918
136
I think they just mixed up the numbers of UFO sightings with actual occurrences of voter fraud.

It makes perfect sense--both groups tend to believe things that aren't there.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,512
13,514
136
Can one of the loony libs who posted in this thread explain how to show in person voter fraud is happening when there is no reliable way to verify the person voting is who he says he is?
Why would it be under one name??? How do you prove that someone didn't register and vote as their neighbor or someone else?
This is, once again, for the umpteenth time, the Bigfoot argument.

Nobody can say with absolute certainty that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and it's the same wrt voter fraud. All kinds of elaborate excuses & scenarios can be fabricated in support of the hypothesis that it does in meaningful measure, and the side effects of that, & of trying to stop Bigfoot are thrown to the wind, because we must stop voter fraud & Bigfoot!

The sad truth is that the side effect, disenfranchisement, is the desired result, because those promoting the conspiracy theory know that voter fraud is every bit as much a chimera as Bigfoot... and have said as much many times.

It's all part & parcel of the notion that there is no sin when you have God on your side, that the ends justify the means.

If Righties are so sure that their ideas will prevail at the polls & in the "marketplace of ideas" that they tout so highly, why do they want to keep people from participating?

Because they care not for democracy in the slightest, other than as a fig leaf, a claim to legitimacy as hollow as their ideology-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
"Jaywalking" is an offense in most areas of the country. Can anybody tell me how many cases of jaywalking there are every year? No? I guess nobody ever jaywalks.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,066
7,524
146
"Jaywalking" is an offense in most areas of the country. Can anybody tell me how many cases of jaywalking there are every year? No? I guess nobody ever jaywalks.
Quick google search yielded several examples of jaywalking fines. How many you got for in person voter fraud?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,512
13,514
136
"Jaywalking" is an offense in most areas of the country. Can anybody tell me how many cases of jaywalking there are every year? No? I guess nobody ever jaywalks.
Desperate false equivalency.

The Bush Admin & Repub state govts went nuts trying to find examples of voter fraud to prosecute, and came up with zip, zero, nada, nothing. If the authorities pursued jaywalkers the same way, millions would have been ticketed.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Desperate false equivalency.

The Bush Admin & Repub state govts went nuts trying to find examples of voter fraud to prosecute, and came up with zip, zero, nada, nothing. If the authorities pursued jaywalkers the same way, millions would have been ticketed.
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.

Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.

And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,512
13,514
136
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.

Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.

And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
Negative. All we know is that the accusation of voter fraud occurred.

Show me convictions, and show me how a potential problem with .000009% of registered Florida voters is sufficient cause to deliberately disenfranchise hundreds of thousands more.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Negative. All we know is that the accusation of voter fraud occurred.

Show me convictions, and show me how a potential problem with .000009% of registered Florida voters is sufficient cause to deliberately disenfranchise hundreds of thousands more.
It is so much easier to deny voter fraud when you say that all evidence of it doesnt count.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.

Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.

And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
You provided an example of voter registration fraud, not in person voter fraud.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You provided an example of voter registration fraud, not in person voter fraud.
Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn't know how she got registered.

"I have no idea. I mean, how am I supposed to know."

Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years.
Please explain how in person voter fraud did not occur?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Ever consider she might be lying to avoid prosecution herself?
So either

Someone voted using her identity, which would be in person voter fraud.

or

She voted while not a citizen, which would be in person voter fraud.

If photo id was required we would be able to prosecute the 2nd case, since we would have evidence it was actually her that voted.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,512
13,514
136
So either

Someone voted using her identity, which would be in person voter fraud.

or

She voted while not a citizen, which would be in person voter fraud.

If photo id was required we would be able to prosecute the 2nd case, since we would have evidence it was actually her that voted.
Or the voting records used are unreliable. Or it's a different kind of election fraud entirely, like stuffing ballot boxes with dead people's votes.

The actual number of prosecutions and convictions for voter fraud is what, exactly?

Surely, with anti- voter fraud zealots working diligently to bust the perps, there must be something, huh?

Or perhaps those same zealots are making a mountain out of a molehill to support a partisan voter suppression agenda?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Or the voting records used are unreliable. Or it's a different kind of election fraud entirely, like stuffing ballot boxes with dead people's votes.
And how exactly would you prosecute voter fraud if the the voting records are unreliable?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,512
13,514
136
And how exactly would you prosecute voter fraud if the the voting records are unreliable?
How would you prove voter fraud if the records were unreliable?

You wouldn't. You'd just claim accusation as proof, declare victory.

Sound familiar?
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
So people have to actually go do something...much like they would do to get a photo ID.

Why are you for voter suppression? Why do you want to disenfranchise the people who cannot easily get to a store, are not in college (not everyone is rich and can go) or in high school (why do you hate drop outs?).

The logic is the same. If getting a photo ID is disenfranchisement because you have to actually do something to get it, then voter registration is also disenfranchisement since you have to do something to get it.

You cannot support one and not the other without being a hypocrit.
Why it's almost as if, like with every other thing in life, there are tradeoffs involved and an absolute position is untenable!!! Imagine!

If there was actual significant voter fraud going on, I would be okay with requiring IDs if that was the type of fraud that was happening and it fixed more than it broke. There is no reason to believe that's the case.

We do need some way to check who has a right to vote in the first place, so we require registration, which is a very low burden to solve a very real issue. (Note: It's getting a lot harder to register voters when Republican legislatures pass laws aimed at requiring registration-aimed groups like the League of Women Voters to turn over the collected registrations in an unrealistically quick timeframe, as has happened in some states.)


There's no evidence that unicorns are going to attack the airport. Spending tons of taxpayer money on unicorn screening would be bad.

There's reason to believe Al Qaeda members would attack airports if it was easy to do so. It's worth spending some amount of money and sacrificing some liberties to screen for Al Qaeda members at airports.

See the difference? It's not that I hate airports when I say we don't need unicorn screening kits, it's that it's a non-problem and the tradeoff is therefore not worth it. If the "unicorn screening kits" happened to put money in someone's pockets, I'd also start to suspect that that's the real reason we're seeing the law passed.

Edit: Also, here's a thought: Instead of these ID laws, just require everyone to vote. That solves your problem 100%, since duplicate votes would be immediately obvious, plus it gets people involved in the democratic process.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,015
3,076
126
Here's an idea, call it a compromise: Perhaps the Republicans should promote a Policy of 100% Picture ID of the population first. Then you can implement Pic ID as a requirement for Voting. How could the Democrats oppose it then?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,722
20,095
136
I provided an example of voter fraud on the first page.

Unfortunately it is impossible to prove whether someone borrowed the identity of an immigrant and used it to vote illegally, or if the immigrant themselves voted illegally.

And therefore no prosecution can occur. But either way we know voter fraud occurred.
You realize why anecdotal evidence is bad, right?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
Good article from NR today:

Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.

Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.

As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006.

Every state that has implemented a voter-ID law has also made free IDs available to voters who don’t have them. One might wonder how in the world 5 million people are going to be prevented from voting — and why so few people are receiving free IDs.

For instance, Kansas has a new voter-ID law. Through May of this year, only 32 out of 1.7 million registered voters have applied for a free photo ID because they didn’t already have one. In most of the six years that Georgia has had a voter-ID law in place, fewer than 0.05 percent of the state’s 6 million registered voters have received free IDs.

Schultheis also says, as if it is a proven fact, that these “laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities.” Really? Based on what evidence? Another Brennan Center study? The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.

Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute.

The idea that large numbers of “young people” lack photo ID is just ridiculous. Teenagers can’t wait to get their driver’s licenses, and college IDs are acceptable under the voter-ID laws of most states. One of the only exceptions to this is Texas, but that’s because Texas allows illegal aliens to attend its state universities: To accept college IDs would be to allow noncitizens to vote. The only “young person” that the Department of Justice could find for the recent trial over the Texas voter-ID law was an 18-year-old who claimed she didn’t have a car and her parents didn’t have time to take her to get an ID. How she would get to the voting booth even with a photo ID was left a mystery.

The idea put forward in the Politico article, that these laws were passed to hurt Barack Obama’s reelection prospects, is absurd and historically ignorant. States such as Georgia, Indiana, and Arizona passed their laws during the Bush administration. Obama won Indiana in 2008, when the ID law (which the Supreme Court called the strictest in the nation) was in effect for the first time in a presidential election.

Texas had been debating and trying to pass an ID law for years. The subject of a book, by a liberal historian, called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” doesn’t need to pass a voter-ID law to ensure Republican victories — and a majority of Democrats in the Kansas legislature supported the voter-ID bill. Schultheis fails to mention that Rhode Island, which also passed a voter-ID law, is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. The chief sponsor of that bill was an African-American Democratic state senator who was concerned about the voter fraud he had seen in that state. He scoffed at the idea that black Rhode Islanders did not have IDs or could not obtain a free ID for voting.

Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Good article from NR today:

Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.

Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.

As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006.

Every state that has implemented a voter-ID law has also made free IDs available to voters who don’t have them. One might wonder how in the world 5 million people are going to be prevented from voting — and why so few people are receiving free IDs.

For instance, Kansas has a new voter-ID law. Through May of this year, only 32 out of 1.7 million registered voters have applied for a free photo ID because they didn’t already have one. In most of the six years that Georgia has had a voter-ID law in place, fewer than 0.05 percent of the state’s 6 million registered voters have received free IDs.

Schultheis also says, as if it is a proven fact, that these “laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities.” Really? Based on what evidence? Another Brennan Center study? The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.

Furthermore, in lawsuits filed by liberal groups against both states, none of the plaintiffs, including organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU, could come up with a single witness who was unable to vote because of the voter-ID laws. That is why their cases were eventually thrown out and the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana statute.

The idea that large numbers of “young people” lack photo ID is just ridiculous. Teenagers can’t wait to get their driver’s licenses, and college IDs are acceptable under the voter-ID laws of most states. One of the only exceptions to this is Texas, but that’s because Texas allows illegal aliens to attend its state universities: To accept college IDs would be to allow noncitizens to vote. The only “young person” that the Department of Justice could find for the recent trial over the Texas voter-ID law was an 18-year-old who claimed she didn’t have a car and her parents didn’t have time to take her to get an ID. How she would get to the voting booth even with a photo ID was left a mystery.

The idea put forward in the Politico article, that these laws were passed to hurt Barack Obama’s reelection prospects, is absurd and historically ignorant. States such as Georgia, Indiana, and Arizona passed their laws during the Bush administration. Obama won Indiana in 2008, when the ID law (which the Supreme Court called the strictest in the nation) was in effect for the first time in a presidential election.

Texas had been debating and trying to pass an ID law for years. The subject of a book, by a liberal historian, called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” doesn’t need to pass a voter-ID law to ensure Republican victories — and a majority of Democrats in the Kansas legislature supported the voter-ID bill. Schultheis fails to mention that Rhode Island, which also passed a voter-ID law, is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. The chief sponsor of that bill was an African-American Democratic state senator who was concerned about the voter fraud he had seen in that state. He scoffed at the idea that black Rhode Islanders did not have IDs or could not obtain a free ID for voting.

Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties.
So in other words Liberals

1.) Massively overstate the number of people without ID

2.) Say all evidence of voter fraud doesnt count

:rolleyes:

sounds to me like Democrats are just in favor of voter fraud to me.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
Desperate false equivalency.

The Bush Admin & Repub state govts went nuts trying to find examples of voter fraud to prosecute, and came up with zip, zero, nada, nothing. If the authorities pursued jaywalkers the same way, millions would have been ticketed.
No, it's not. Neither are recorded. People jaywalk *ALL THE TIME*, yet I'd net you could find record of very few instances. By your ignorant "logic", jaywalking never happens - after all, how do you find out about it after the fact?

How in the world would you pursue jaywalking *after it occurred*? It's like pursing kids using faked IDs *months after they bought beer*.

You just discredit yourself with your blatant attempts to try to convince everybody there is a definitive answer, when there obviously isn't.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
No, it's not. Neither are recorded. People jaywalk *ALL THE TIME*, yet I'd net you could find record of very few instances. By your ignorant "logic", jaywalking never happens - after all, how do you find out about it after the fact?

How in the world would you pursue jaywalking *after it occurred*? It's like pursing kids using faked IDs *months after they bought beer*.

You just discredit yourself with your blatant attempts to try to convince everybody there is a definitive answer, when there obviously isn't.
The liberal proof that there is no voter fraud is the same as stick a blind man in the forest and then claiming that since he does not see any trees there must not be any.

And then when he says he can feel bark and leaves saying that does not count since he cannot SEE any trees.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY