4 ms·

>It's intellectually dishonest to claim something isn't happening while, in the same breath, fighting against any reasonable way to verify it. To be honest I'm

>It's intellectually dishonest to claim something isn't happening while, in the same breath, fighting against any reasonable way to verify it. To be honest I'm not sure what you're arguing. As a quick rundown, people register to vote and then they vote. If a person checks a voters id before voting, they are ensuring the person casting a vote is the same person who registered. This in no way prevents an illegal alien from registering to vote. Ensuring illegal aliens don't vote actually happens during the registering to vote, as most states require some proof before registering them. So as best I can tell you're advocating a solution that doesn't work and has nothing to do with a problem that doesn't exist. For a dose of reality, election fraud does actually happen, but again, the ways in which it happens aren't addressed by voter id laws - again, because voter id laws aren't being pushed to solve any real problems. """ This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop. Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens. """[0] [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...

moduspol 10y ago
> To be honest I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not talking about illegal aliens voting. My point was that it's unfair to claim voter fraud via impersonation never happens because we have little evidence of it happening, while acknowledging nobody has to verify who they are and fighting to ensure they never do. If movie theaters don't employ security to pat down people and watch attendees over security cameras, candy will continue to be snuck in. They choose not to, and that's fine, but by no means does that suggest nobody is sneaking candy in. It just means they've chosen not to enforce it, just like we've chosen not to verify people are who they say they are. If we were handing out money this way, it'd be abused instantly. If we verified identity this way before doing background checks for buying a gun, you guys would immediately point out how ridiculous it is. Yet voting is different.
- travmatt 10y ago
  I'm going to again avoid your analogies, again because I find them misleading in crucial ways. If your talking about voter fraud via impersonation, I find you have even less of an argument then you did when I assumed you were referring to illegal aliens voting. As I've cited frequently in this thread, stealing an election via in-person vote fraud is an extremely inefficient and difficult way to steal an election. It's ridiculous to suggest that you are concerned about voter fraud, and then focus solely on the types of fraud empirically proven to happen least. It's equally ridiculous to say that because the empirical evidence we do have disproves your opinion, then that research must be wrong and thusly you don't have an onus to provide any proof of your allegations. Much more voter fraud happens with absentee and mail-in ballots, but since these voters are typically white that is OK. In any case, you are trying to dress up the actual intentions of the laws to nobler causes than reality suggests. State GOP parties have already been found in court judgements to use Voter ID laws as weapons to suppress minority votes, and I quote 'with surgical precision.' They've weaponized DMV's toward this goal, by shutting down centers in minority areas, cutting hours, and directing employees to avoid giving out free voter ID's and not advertise such services. These laws are explicitly racist because they specifically target minorities to deprive them of their rights to vote, and this is why they have been, and continue to be struck down in courts of law across the country.
  - moduspol 10y ago
    I didn't argue for any voter ID laws, and I didn't argue that in-person vote fraud happens any more frequently than you think it does. I didn't argue your study was wrong, it's probably right. I'm surprised they even found 31 credible incidents when you have no way of verifying the person says who they say they are when they cast the vote. I also didn't even mention voter fraud via absentee or mail-in ballots. I'll take your word for it that it is a bigger problem, but it's not relevant to my point. I'll keep it short this time. Here's the point: > It's unfair to claim voter fraud via impersonation never happens because we have little evidence of it happening, while acknowledging nobody has to verify who they are and fighting to ensure they never do. Agree or disagree?
    - 10y ago

moduspol 10y ago

> To be honest I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not talking about illegal aliens voting. My point was that it's unfair to claim voter fraud via impersonation never happens because we have little evidence of it happening, while acknowledging nobody has to verify who they are and fighting to ensure they never do. If movie theaters don't employ security to pat down people and watch attendees over security cameras, candy will continue to be snuck in. They choose not to, and that's fine, but by no means does that suggest nobody is sneaking candy in. It just means they've chosen not to enforce it, just like we've chosen not to verify people are who they say they are. If we were handing out money this way, it'd be abused instantly. If we verified identity this way before doing background checks for buying a gun, you guys would immediately point out how ridiculous it is. Yet voting is different.

travmatt 10y ago
I'm going to again avoid your analogies, again because I find them misleading in crucial ways. If your talking about voter fraud via impersonation, I find you have even less of an argument then you did when I assumed you were referring to illegal aliens voting. As I've cited frequently in this thread, stealing an election via in-person vote fraud is an extremely inefficient and difficult way to steal an election. It's ridiculous to suggest that you are concerned about voter fraud, and then focus solely on the types of fraud empirically proven to happen least. It's equally ridiculous to say that because the empirical evidence we do have disproves your opinion, then that research must be wrong and thusly you don't have an onus to provide any proof of your allegations. Much more voter fraud happens with absentee and mail-in ballots, but since these voters are typically white that is OK. In any case, you are trying to dress up the actual intentions of the laws to nobler causes than reality suggests. State GOP parties have already been found in court judgements to use Voter ID laws as weapons to suppress minority votes, and I quote 'with surgical precision.' They've weaponized DMV's toward this goal, by shutting down centers in minority areas, cutting hours, and directing employees to avoid giving out free voter ID's and not advertise such services. These laws are explicitly racist because they specifically target minorities to deprive them of their rights to vote, and this is why they have been, and continue to be struck down in courts of law across the country.
- moduspol 10y ago
  I didn't argue for any voter ID laws, and I didn't argue that in-person vote fraud happens any more frequently than you think it does. I didn't argue your study was wrong, it's probably right. I'm surprised they even found 31 credible incidents when you have no way of verifying the person says who they say they are when they cast the vote. I also didn't even mention voter fraud via absentee or mail-in ballots. I'll take your word for it that it is a bigger problem, but it's not relevant to my point. I'll keep it short this time. Here's the point: > It's unfair to claim voter fraud via impersonation never happens because we have little evidence of it happening, while acknowledging nobody has to verify who they are and fighting to ensure they never do. Agree or disagree?
  - 10y ago