Voter Fraud Fraud

Don't be silly. LizK's in my age cohort, but she doesn't have grandkids.

But are they actually voting, or is this just a paperwork backlog? Disingenuous article is disingenuous.

Not once you have a relationship with a pharmacy, but we recently had to switch because we had issues with our long term place and when we went to the new one to start our account Zel had to show picture ID to prove he was the person the insurance card was for.

That was only a few months ago, so it does happen.

And in the rare event that votes are cast in their names, are these fraudulent votes cast in person where ID laws would apply and possibly prevent the votes, votes fraudulently cast by mail where ID laws wouldn't do dick, or legitimately cast early/mail votes where the voter dies before the election?

Here's a hint: the former essentially never happens, the middle occasionally happens, and the latter happens regularly.

You're just plain wrong and skin is just plain right. There is nothing that prevents or inhibits any American citizen from obtaining a photo ID. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Every legal citizen has access to obtain one. It doesn't cost more nor is there any requirement for one group or demographic than another.

It would be polite if you'd read my posts before responding to them.

But not one that excludes any one group, particularly not by design. Therefore, not discriminatory. Therefore, does not lead to disenfranchisement.

Presumably notice should be given.

Provided that notice is given, which I would insist must be so, then yes, it would be that small a percentage.

Why are we going so far out of our way to solve a problem that's not a problem?

I mean, I know why. But I'd like to hear what our conservative friends have convinced themselves of.

Unsupported assertion is still unsupported. Since voter ID isn't in place yet, there's no reliable way outside of extremely obvious cases for detecting fraudulent votes. You're using toddler logic. "If I close my eyes, Daddy disappears!" It's obvious that you're doing it and you should be embarrassed even to have repeated that foolishness.

More toddler logic. When you close your bedroom door, does the rest of your apartment disappear, too? After all, you can't see it -- so where does it go?

Now, now. Say that often enough, and you and Muad and a few others would be reduced to silence.

The unicorns ate it.

So you're answer is, we can't prove it's not happening, so we have to stop it from happening, even though we also can't prove it IS happening?

That's a Swiss watch plan you got there.

I was discussing your claim that it doesn't take one person more effort than another. If it takes any effort at all, and one person already has the ID while the other doesn't, clearly it will take the second person more effort.

How do you give notice that fails in less than .00003% of the time?

No, you hilariously exaggerated dolt, my answer is, put a system in place that detects and impedes fraud. Since it's already happening so blatantly that it's occasionally detected even without that system being in place, the system is obviously necessary.

Large print notice of the requirement on every form associated with voter registration. "YOU WILL NEED TO BRING IDENTIFICATION WITH YOU TO THE POLLING PLACE" or something along those lines. For those who are already registered, mail a notice to the address on record. Get it announced during the evening news.

Can you conjure up a single scenario where someone who is politically active enough that they're likely to vote won't know?

Happening so blatantly = 20 out of 3,000,000.

Do you have any proof that fraudulent votes are going undetected?

How many murders go unsolved? Does that mean that murders aren't happening and since they aren't happening, we should do nothing to solve or prevent them?

For one out of 3.3 million recipients? Easily.

Yes. Yes I do. All the undetected fraudulent votes are carefully logged after not being detected.

Part of the point of voter ID laws is to detect fraudulent votes as well as impede them.

"We don't see the problem, therefore there is no problem" is still toddler logic.

Then get to conjurin', I'm anxious to read what you come up with.

Stupid analogy is stupid.

I've already won this argument. The only thing still drawing me to this thread is the thread title. I keep hearing it in my head to the tune of "Surfin' Bird."

Voter Fraud Fraud Voter Fraud-Fraud Fraud bah-bah-bah Voter Fraud Fraud Voter Fraud-Fraud Fraud... :dancingbacon:

As is "There's no proof of a problem, but there must be one because it fits with my worldview."

How many registered voters have had an undocumented change of address? How many letters simply get lost? How many people don't watch the evening news, or forget what they heard? Again, we're talking about one in 3.3 million people. Just to pull one easily googled comparison, this means you're looking for fifteen times less people than are struck down by lightning in the same time period.

Uh... well, that's new.

Reread your post. You just stumbled over your cock and attacked your own number. Fifteen times less people than are struck down by lightning in the same time period would miss the notice of the new requirement. I'd thank you for making my point for me, except I'm pretty sure you didn't do it on purpose.

Yeah, there is proof of a problem. That 86 in 300,000,000 is proof. What we don't have, and won't until we put a system in place that lets us measure it, is any idea how widespread and severe the problem is.

That's what you're opposing. Finding out how severe and widespread the problem is, and putting a stop to the problem.

I still want to know why you don't want the problem stopped.

No, you're not keeping up. I'm not saying it would be that few. I'm saying it only have to be that few to make the problem worse than the 86 in 300,000,000 baseline you're using for currently assumed voter fraud.

I'm pretty sure the liberal screaming if voter ID is adopted, costing them all those fraudulent votes, would more than carry far and wide enough that everyone who's politically engaged enough to vote would know about the new requirement.

You're using the general principle of 'things going missing' to claim there are people who wouldn't know. But that comes up against the general principle of 'anyone engaged enough to participate is engaged enough that they will inevitably find out.'

Well, then we'll just have to disagree about that. I tend to think that it is more likely for one voter to miss out on this new bit of information, or forget about it, or forget to pack his ID, than for fifteen of his neighbours to get struck by lightning. Obviously, your world is populated with much more perfect media and memories, and much more thunderstorms than mine.