5 ms·

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

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?
- travmatt 10y ago
  Disagree. Voter fraud would be noticed when a person goes to the polls and finds out that they have already voted.
  - moduspol 10y ago
    What if the person(s) being impersonated were known ahead of time to not be voting?
    - travmatt 10y ago
      Do you feel an onus to actually propose a mechanism by which these fraudulent voters can predict the future? I can't tell if you're trying to drag your argument into the absurd or if that actually seems logical to you.
      - moduspol 10y ago
        > Do you feel an onus to actually propose a mechanism by which these fraudulent voters can predict the future? Actually, yes. It's called voter registration fraud, and it works by registering people who don't actually exist or are not eligible voters. If you'll accept that we have no way of verifying if someone votes as someone else, and no way of even noticing if that impersonated voter doesn't vote, then any fraudulent voter registration is essentially open season for anyone with the knowledge of it. We wouldn't know about it, and we couldn't know about it unless we actually verified people are who they say they are. This essentially means the argument that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist needs a big asterisk next to it that says, "assuming no fraudulent voter registration, but if there is some, we have no way at all of measuring how much in-person voter fraud is occurring."
        travmatt 10y ago
        So now you're shifting the conversation to voter registration fraud, not voting fraud. So it seems you're agreeing with me that the voter id laws are again a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Fortunately, voter registration is a process that can be tightened as is needed, and registrants can be made to show proof of identity, proof of citizenship, and every other proof needed. But to intentionally do a poor job at voter registration so that you may then pass draconian voter id laws is pernicious. But the crucial difference is again the time needed to register voters happens independently of elections, and these results can be contested by all parties well before elections actually occur, not the day of elections. If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups.

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?

travmatt 10y ago
Disagree. Voter fraud would be noticed when a person goes to the polls and finds out that they have already voted.
- moduspol 10y ago
  What if the person(s) being impersonated were known ahead of time to not be voting?
  - travmatt 10y ago
    Do you feel an onus to actually propose a mechanism by which these fraudulent voters can predict the future? I can't tell if you're trying to drag your argument into the absurd or if that actually seems logical to you.
    - moduspol 10y ago
      > Do you feel an onus to actually propose a mechanism by which these fraudulent voters can predict the future? Actually, yes. It's called voter registration fraud, and it works by registering people who don't actually exist or are not eligible voters. If you'll accept that we have no way of verifying if someone votes as someone else, and no way of even noticing if that impersonated voter doesn't vote, then any fraudulent voter registration is essentially open season for anyone with the knowledge of it. We wouldn't know about it, and we couldn't know about it unless we actually verified people are who they say they are. This essentially means the argument that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist needs a big asterisk next to it that says, "assuming no fraudulent voter registration, but if there is some, we have no way at all of measuring how much in-person voter fraud is occurring."
      - travmatt 10y ago
        So now you're shifting the conversation to voter registration fraud, not voting fraud. So it seems you're agreeing with me that the voter id laws are again a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Fortunately, voter registration is a process that can be tightened as is needed, and registrants can be made to show proof of identity, proof of citizenship, and every other proof needed. But to intentionally do a poor job at voter registration so that you may then pass draconian voter id laws is pernicious. But the crucial difference is again the time needed to register voters happens independently of elections, and these results can be contested by all parties well before elections actually occur, not the day of elections. If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups.