5 ms·

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

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
        > 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. No. A voter ID law would solve the problem of, "any known invalid voter registration can allow untrackable voter impersonation because the impersonator will never be verified." That is in-person voter fraud. It takes place after fraudulent voter registration, and voter ID stops it. There's no rational interpretation that it doesn't. > 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 it doesn't, and even that implies no mistakes or corruption takes place. If even a single one does, that's decades of scot-free voter impersonation that can be done. It also assumes fraudulent voter registration hasn't already happened (!!) which is also unverifiable (particularly since states legally can't require voters to verify their citizenship). > If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, [...] I'm not muddling them at all! I can't get you to follow logic rationally without claiming racism. Clearly Voter ID would stop impersonation of fraudulently registered voters. That doesn't mean it's the best way to stop it, but it verifiably would, so it's dishonest to claim otherwise. To give you credit, though, this is a totally fair argument: > we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups. I mean, it's a stretch to claim intent, but if you state it like this, it's totally reasonable: > Voter ID laws are unnecessary, onerous, and disproportionately affect minorities. Enacting them would cause more problems than it'd solve. There it is! Just, you know, leave out the unfair parts: > In-person voter fraud doesn't happen. Voter ID laws wouldn't fight it. Anyone who disagrees must be racist. These are the parts that make it tough to have a rational discussion.

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
        > 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. No. A voter ID law would solve the problem of, "any known invalid voter registration can allow untrackable voter impersonation because the impersonator will never be verified." That is in-person voter fraud. It takes place after fraudulent voter registration, and voter ID stops it. There's no rational interpretation that it doesn't. > 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 it doesn't, and even that implies no mistakes or corruption takes place. If even a single one does, that's decades of scot-free voter impersonation that can be done. It also assumes fraudulent voter registration hasn't already happened (!!) which is also unverifiable (particularly since states legally can't require voters to verify their citizenship). > If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, [...] I'm not muddling them at all! I can't get you to follow logic rationally without claiming racism. Clearly Voter ID would stop impersonation of fraudulently registered voters. That doesn't mean it's the best way to stop it, but it verifiably would, so it's dishonest to claim otherwise. To give you credit, though, this is a totally fair argument: > we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups. I mean, it's a stretch to claim intent, but if you state it like this, it's totally reasonable: > Voter ID laws are unnecessary, onerous, and disproportionately affect minorities. Enacting them would cause more problems than it'd solve. There it is! Just, you know, leave out the unfair parts: > In-person voter fraud doesn't happen. Voter ID laws wouldn't fight it. Anyone who disagrees must be racist. These are the parts that make it tough to have a rational discussion.