Voter Fraud Fraud

And to reiterate this question, since nobody wants to answer it and I want to watch it make you squirm some more: Why are you in favor of allowing fraud in elections? Moreover: are you in favor of a little bank fraud? How much fraud is just enough that you're okay with it?

It seems to give you diaper rash.

So... a little graft okay? How about just a dash of cronyism? Just a smidge of nepotism, is that all right by you? Those aren't even as important as controlling the beast that uses legislative and police powers to control you, so if keeping fraud out of our system for controlling that beast isn't a big deal to you, how big a deal could just a spot of banking and securities shenannigans be to ya?

I'm not.

See that, it's called answering a question. Ready to answer any of mime? No, I'm sure you aren't, because you got nothing other than a squeamish defense of disenfranchising lazy fools, followed by an ode to ambulance chasers. Hopefully somebody else in disenfranchiseforge can offer up a better argument. Me, I can't support reducing voting rights.

You still won't tell me who you expect would be disenfranchised or how. How can I answer a question that's predicated upon an answer you won't give?

Okay, here, I'll give it a shot anyway: Nobody will be disenfranchised, because there is no mechanism by which such disenfranchisement could occur. That's based on your non-answer.

Remember, I asked who would be -- you didn't answer up with anybody. I asked how they would be, you didn't offer up an answer to that, either; consequently, there's no 'who' and there's no 'how.'

So nobody would be disenfranchised. So how many is acceptable? 10% of nothin'... carry the nothin'...

Well, no...not until you added them to the list, now I have to like them to make you cry and pee.
Stop it, you're turning me into a monster!

Then how do you propose that the possibility of it be reduced if not through a requirement for valid identification for eligible voters?

Soon you will know the powah of the dahck si-eeed.

That's how you talk when you're evil, y'know.

See, ya don't like the stupid reactionary bullshit when it cuts the other way.

Sure you can, by opposing voter ID. How does that support a reduction in voting rights? By supporting a reduction in voting power. When you oppose a system that ensures only eligible voters are voting, you're supporting the votes of the ineligible, and every ineligible vote diminishes the power of a legitimate vote.

So, ironically enough, you are supporting a reduction in voting rights.

If that wasn't apples to oranges, you'd have a point. As it is, all you have is a really strange sense of humor. Or possibly a brain tumor which is severely impairing your cognitive function. But either is as good as the other in New York.

It's the exact same thing.
Horrible people doing horrible things with a lame-o ideological justification.

I'm not sure what's so horrible about making sure that only the people allowed to do something are the ones doing it. I think it's your Ray Walston problem that's got you befuddled on that score.

To the responsible adult, of course that's the issue. But let's remember that this is the Red Room.

It's hard to reduce the possibility of 0. It's a good thing you're a "writer," you seem to have no understanding of math. As for who would be disenfranchised?

• the elderly
• the poor
• the language limited

This is a country that is incapable of ensuring 100% of citizens are able to do just about anything. Get back to me when you've figured out how to get every kid in school, why some seniors fail to collect social security, and why I'm frequently called by a cable company that doesn't offer services on my street. It's a big, complicated place, and there is no way for an army of lawyers and activists to get an ID in to the hands of every single eligible voter. If you are foolish enough to give that much credit to lawyers and neighborhood organizers, we don't really need to read your opinion on anything.

Based on what? Your best guess? How is that any better than anyone else's best guess?

Then you shouldn't mind voter ID laws, either; based on the same reasoning, plenty of illegal aliens, felons and dead people will still be able to vote Democrat anyway. So what's the objection now?

Careful there, you've correctly identified one of the big flaws with voter ID.

And driver's licenses. I suppose you're against those for the same reasons?

I'm pretty sure driving is not a right. But it also seems you might not understand the flaw you've stumbled upon.

Argument A: evil bad people are purposefully defrauding voters by faking their eligibility status.

Argument B: requiring an ID to vote will totally prevent law breakers from obtaining false identification by breaking the law.

I'm not in favor of it, either. I just want to know why you lot are hung up on "It's gotta be a photo ID" when there are so many other options.

Except that they aren't.

There just isn't any proof that fraudulent voting is happening at anywhere near the scale you and other conservatives so desperately wish it were.

They don't care about fraudulent voting, they care about reducing the franchise. Vote fraud claims are a way to stir up the mass of uninformed voters, but the end that justifies the means is disenfranchising legitimate voters who tend to vote Democratic.

Fools like Visionrazer respond to the vote fraud argument because it plays to their existing fears of illegal aliens and prisoners. They suck it up, but when challenged they not only can't produce evidence that it happens, but they can't even guarantee that it won't lead to disenfranchisement.

Other options like what? A handwritten note?

Alternative version: Evil bad organizations are registering ineligible voters. Thousands, in just one state.

Nope. No such thing as voter fraud.

No law totally prevents lawbreaking. Should we scrap them all? Because I guarantee that not one law that has ever been on anybody's books has gone unbroken.

But defend voter fraud even harder, 'cause that sure does convince me that you oppose it.

This conversation's been going on in this forum since March. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? You just jumped on this because you thought it was kewl, didn't you?

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=92930&highlight=retina

http://www.wordforge.net/showthread.php?t=95079&highlight=retina

Come on, skin. I know it's all a big troll for you, but you're just being stupid. Voter registration is not the same thing as voting, and you know it. Stop playing dumb.

So... other options like what? A handwritten note? (See what I did there? You didn't answer that question, so I just re-asked it. And now you'll go on not answering it. 'Cause that's what you do.)

Fraudulent registrations allow ineligible votes when no requirement exists for the voter at the poll to positively identify himself/herself.

You knew that, of course.

And yet...these ineligible votes aren't being cast.

You knew that, of course.

Scrap the laws that don't prevent law breaking? Sign me up! I'm surprised a small government guy like you would prefer to keep ineffectual laws and add more.