Are you for Voter I.D. ?

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

So you're trying to say people who get "handouts" shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's in their benefit. This has no bearing on the actual right to vote. You're trying to argue voting preference vs the ability to vote. It's apples and oranges.

Ok you say its completely different. But how is it different than a judge excusing himself from a case where he has something at stake or a conflict of interest?

Both have something to lose or gain. If voting or being apart of something is beneficial shouldnt you choose to not make a decision on it?

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Ok you say its completely different. But how is it different than a judge excusing himself from a case where he has something at stake or a conflict of interest?

Both have something to lose or gain. If voting or being apart of something is beneficial shouldnt you choose to not make a decision on it?

This is about the right to vote and the ability to do so granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This cannot be denied except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation which is outlined in the 14th amendment. Some states enforce this by the way but it has been ruled legal. If you are a U.S. citizen and 18 years of age, and usually if you aren't a convicted felon, you cannot be denied the right to vote.

It's been said that you cannot force people to buy a voter ID, it violates the 24th amendment which is why FrugalNinja250 said it had to be free. Which pushes us back to the point of wasteful government spending.

If you follow your own logic then no one can vote because we all vote for our own self interest.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

This is about the right to vote and the ability to do so granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This cannot be denied except on the basis of "participation of rebellion, or other crime", will suffer a reduction in representation which is outlined in the 14th amendment. Some states enforce this by the way but it has been ruled legal. If you are a U.S. citizen and 18 years of age, and usually if you aren't a convicted felon, you cannot be denied the right to vote.

didnt say legally. I realize the legality of it.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

It's been said that you cannot force people to buy a voter ID, it violates the 24th amendment which is why FrugalNinja250 said it had to be free. Which pushes us back to the point of wasteful government spending.

right which is why I said its a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

If you follow your own logic then no one can vote because we all vote for our own self interest.

thats actually a great point, I guess I never thought of it that way.

[mrlmd]

It's been all over the news channels and reported in various locations online and in print, and in a study during the last election, only 86 voter fraud cases were found out of 33,000,000 votes. 0.0000026% of votes constitutes voter fraud? The Republicans in 34 states are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and deny voters their rights because Republicans are afraid to lose innumerable elections the next time around. And that is one of the reasons they will lose. Most intelligent people won't stand for that type of reasoning and behavior.

[kyrider]

Can someone show me where asking for i.d. is unconstitutional?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Then all efforts need to be made by government to provide those IDs free of charge to any who ask, including if necessary transportation costs from the residence of the ID seeker to the location where IDs are applied for. Would you agree with that? That ID seekers should bear no financial burden for obtaining the ID when the ID is mandated by the government?

Most of the voter ID laws proposed, including the ones that have passed, contain an avenue for those financially burden to get IDs. In some cases, without leaving their homes.

And again, I state, there is no evidence of meaningful or widespread voting fraud in this country. Opinions on conservative websites and blogs are not the same as evidence. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean it's true. That's one of the biggest problems with the internet, it somehow lowered folks credulity filters to basically zero.

Interesting you would say that as 4 Democratic officials in the state of New York have just recently pleaded guilty to voter fraud related felonies. Sounds like the New York courts feel that this is "meaningful".

The facts are there; voter fraud is real and does exist. And why wouldn't it? There is big big money in elections, and many groups have vested interests in seeing certain candidates win. It only makes sense to do what we can to prevent it. And requiring proof of who you are seems pretty basic, and downright reasonable.

Edit to add: When I vote I show my voter registration card. They check it against their printed log of registered voters in my various districts, then I go to vote. I don't have to drive downtown (gas), park (at least $5, more if I don't want to walk across town), stand in line, burn up time not at my employer getting paid (My employer doesn't pay when I'm not working), etc, just to get some ID that returns my right to vote to me. I do my registration all through mail.

So your saying you don't have a drivers license, but you ride a motorcycle? How does that work?

The fact is, the percent of registered voters who don't have some kind of government ID already is tiny. Most of the bills being passed also include measures to ensure that everyone who is qualified to vote, has the ability to get a government ID without going through the hassle that you list above. In fact, it is probably easier than actually registering to vote, and actually voting.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by mrlmd

It's been all over the news channels and reported in various locations online and in print, and in a study during the last election, only 86 voter fraud cases were found out of 33,000,000 votes. 0.0000026% of votes constitutes voter fraud? The Republicans in 34 states are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and deny voters their rights because Republicans are afraid to lose innumerable elections the next time around. And that is one of the reasons they will lose. Most intelligent people won't stand for that type of reasoning and behavior.

A bit misleading. Actual voter fraud is difficult to catch because we have no real method of catching it at the time of voting. It's not like they actually check to see if the person voting is who they say they are. Where there are cases, and a lot of them, is in voter registration fraud. People trying to register people who don't exist, registering thousands of people with the same address, a vacant lot, registering felons, and registering people who are no longer alive. But even these things are hard to prove and convict. For example, even though Acorn was caught red handed pulling these same tricks, very few people (if any) were actually charged with a crime, and found guilty. Acorn's excuse was that the people taking the registrations did not realize what they were doing.

People attempt voter registration fraud for one reason: to commit voter fraud. It would be a mistake to think that the authorities are actually catching it all, or even catching a big percent of it.

[kyrider]

revstriker(Scott)

There are people rolling over in their graves and voting in Chicago after those remarks!

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Most of the voter ID laws proposed, including the ones that have passed, contain an avenue for those financially burden to get IDs. In some cases, without leaving their homes.

Uhhh, that's not what I meant. When I said free and with ease, with no burden, I meant for that to apply to *all* applicants regardless of income status or financial ability. It has to be applied equally, without consideration to any other factors. Otherwise, what happens is you have a means test to determine eligibility, and the "grey" area at the edge will be where legitimate voters will have their rights revoked due to arbitrary rules created by whatever party is in power.

Besides, my voter registration registration already proves my right to vote, and I obtained it without having to leave home, go anywhere to get photographed and fingerprinted*, or having to pay for anything other than a stamp and envelope.

*Both requirements for obtaining a driver's license or government ID in this state, along with having to pay for gas and parking to go to a central location, stand in line for hours on a workday, and pay cash.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Interesting you would say that as 4 Democratic officials in the state of New York have just recently pleaded guilty to voter fraud related felonies. Sounds like the New York courts feel that this is "meaningful".

The facts are there; voter fraud is real and does exist. And why wouldn't it? There is big big money in elections, and many groups have vested interests in seeing certain candidates win. It only makes sense to do what we can to prevent it. And requiring proof of who you are seems pretty basic, and downright reasonable.

Never said it didn't exist, have you been reading my posts? It does exist, but not in levels that are meaningful. You say four Democrat officials, but the context is that there are tens of thousands of political officials of any party across this nation, and there are plenty of Republicans who have committed fraud as well. The fact is, and I stand by this as I always have, is that the trivially small percentage of fraud doesn't affect elections in any meaningful matter, and existing fraud detection and remediation systems take care of what little happens. Why create a whole 'nother costly bureaucracy to deal with a problem that isn't really a problem? Whatever the motives behind this latest legislative push, they clearly have nothing to do with the stated problem.

Originally Posted by revstriker

So your saying you don't have a drivers license, but you ride a motorcycle? How does that work?

I said no such thing. I don't appreciate your lie, revstriker, and would appreciate it if you would retract it.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I said no such thing. I don't appreciate your lie, revstriker, and would appreciate it if you would retract it.

Oh please. Come on clearly he was just kidding. If you cant take that kind of light jesting you need to get off your computer and throw it away. That or never post on forum again. That is the most absurd request I have seen in a long time.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Oh please. Come on clearly he was just kidding. If you cant take that kind of light jesting you need to get off your computer and throw it away. That or never post on forum again. That is the most absurd request I have seen in a long time.

I'm a bit intolerant of folks who say that I said something that I did not actually say. One of the few things that gets my goat is lying. I don't apologize for that at all.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

I'm a bit intolerant of folks who say that I said something that I did not actually say. One of the few things that gets my goat is lying. I don't apologize for that at all.

Sarcasm isn't really lying...

[ruben]

Originally Posted by kyrider

What happens where you all live if a policeman asks for some sort of identification?

they ask you for your info. when did it become illegal NOT to have an ID in your state?

[shiroganeshinobi]

I found this link which attempts to do a cost benefit analysis of voter id. It's pretty simple so he may be missing something but it has a good general conclusion.

Have a look.

The Argument Against Voter ID That You Won't See in the Media

[massacremasses]

But keep in mind that only takes into consideration who theyve caught. How many more instances of it are there? I dont know? Does anyone?

[kyrider]

Raise your hand if you think you should have an I.D. to vote.





















Looks like a majority here wants it.

Thank you!

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

But keep in mind that only takes into consideration who theyve caught. How many more instances of it are there? I dont know? Does anyone?

You missed this part

The percentage of illegal votes under the current system = 34 / 1.26 million x 100 % = .0027%.

If you want to play with this more, increase the numerator 34 and the percentage goes higher. The fact that that percentage is ridiculously that low means voter fraud isnt an issue at least on the state level. Now that equation is for that particular state as an example.

If we say there are 1000 cases of voter fraud, replace the 34 by 1000 and it comes out to .079 %.

The only drawback is whether his analysis is sufficient enough because there could be other variables to account for. It's still a strong case against voter ID.

[kyrider]

Don't you read the Post Gazette!!!!!

Voter fraud is real
And voter ID laws are really needed; they are not racist
Sunday, December 18, 2011
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The state chairman of Indiana's Democratic Party resigned Monday as a probe of election fraud in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary widened.

State law requires a presidential candidate to gather 500 valid signatures in each county to qualify for the ballot. Barack Obama may not have met it. Investigators think 150 of the 534 signatures the Obama campaign turned in for St. Joseph County may have been forged.

Yet Democrats say that measures to guard against vote fraud are racist Republican plots to disenfranchise minority voters.

Republicans "want to literally drag us back to Jim Crow laws," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla, chair of the Democratic National Committee.

The NAACP has asked the United Nations to intervene to block state voter ID laws. It may have an ulterior motive for opposing ballot security measures. An NAACP official was convicted on 10 counts of absentee voter fraud in Tunica County, Miss., in July.

Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, who is black, said vote fraud is rampant in African-American districts like his in Alabama.

"The most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African-American community is the wholesale manufacture of ballots at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt," Mr. Davis said. "Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too mentally impaired to function cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights."

Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

"Concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing," concluded researchers at the universities of Delaware and Nebraska after examining election data from 2000 through 2006.

You need a photo ID to get on an airplane or an Amtrak train; to open a bank account, withdraw money from it, or cash a check; to pick up movie and concert tickets; to go into a federal building; to buy alcohol and to apply for food stamps.

Most Americans don't think it's a hardship to ask voters to produce one. A Rasmussen poll in June indicated 75 percent of respondents support photo ID requirements. Huge majorities of Hispanics support voter ID laws, according to a Resurgent Republic poll in September.

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats.

In none would the fraud alleged have altered a major election, Democrats note. But in the Illinois gubernatorial election in 1982, 100,000 votes cast in Chicago -- 10 percent of the total -- were fraudulent, the U.S. attorney there estimated.

Fraud of the magnitude which swings elections typically combines absentee ballot fraud and voter registration fraud. At least 55 employees or associates of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now have been convicted of registration fraud in 11 states, says Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center, who's written a book about ACORN.

Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes," wrote liberal Justice John Paul Stevens for a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding Indiana's ID law, the toughest in the nation.

In a speech Tuesday at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library at the University of Texas, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a full scale assault on the laws the Supreme Court said are constitutional and necessary.

Mr. Holder -- who apparently won't prosecute violations of the Voting Rights Act if the victims are white -- picked an appropriate venue for his attack on the integrity of the ballot. LBJ stole his first election to the Senate, according to one of his biographers.

A Gallup poll Tuesday indicates why Mr. Holder is trying so hard to gut ballot security measures. Mr. Obama trails in all swing states. Democrats fear they can't win next year unless they cheat.

Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412 263-1476). More articles by this author
First published on December 18, 2011 at 12:00 am


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11352...#ixzz1hIXwxTjK

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Standard conservative rhetoric

Stop raising my taxes to pay for your wasteful government spending program!

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Stop raising my taxes to pay for your wasteful government spending program!

Yeah, if the folks pushing this legislation that solves a non-existent problem wants to make it happen, they should pay for it out of their own pocket and not mine.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Uhhh, that's not what I meant. When I said free and with ease, with no burden, I meant for that to apply to *all* applicants regardless of income status or financial ability. It has to be applied equally, without consideration to any other factors. Otherwise, what happens is you have a means test to determine eligibility, and the "grey" area at the edge will be where legitimate voters will have their rights revoked due to arbitrary rules created by whatever party is in power.

With no burden... except the burden of having to register to vote, and the burden of having to actually vote. What if someone doesn't have a computer to download the form? What if they don't have a phone so they can call and request a form? The fact is that there may be minor burdens when it comes to registering and actually voting does not mean that anyone is being disenfranchised, or having their rights taken away.

Besides, my voter registration registration already proves my right to vote, and I obtained it without having to leave home, go anywhere to get photographed and fingerprinted*, or having to pay for anything other than a stamp and envelope.

But it doesn't prove that the person who actually shows up at the poll is you. It also doesn't prove that you even exist.

Never said it didn't exist, have you been reading my posts? It does exist, but not in levels that are meaningful. You say four Democrat officials, but the context is that there are tens of thousands of political officials of any party across this nation, and there are plenty of Republicans who have committed fraud as well. The fact is, and I stand by this as I always have, is that the trivially small percentage of fraud doesn't affect elections in any meaningful matter, and existing fraud detection and remediation systems take care of what little happens. Why create a whole 'nother costly bureaucracy to deal with a problem that isn't really a problem? Whatever the motives behind this latest legislative push, they clearly have nothing to do with the stated problem.

Voter fraud is not a Democrat or Republican issue (although the people who are against it are mostly democrat). As for your comment about the levels not being meaningful, how do you know this? Because there is a small amount of people who have been caught committing voter fraud when we have practically zero measures in place to prevent it? Existing Fraud Detection methods? What are those?

I said no such thing. I don't appreciate your lie, revstriker, and would appreciate it if you would retract it.

Seriously? I thought it was pretty clear that the comment was sarcasm. This is just a discussion on political issue. I disagree with you, but I have nothing personally against you, and I don't even know you. I apologize if my comment was taken to be serious by anyone.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

You missed this part

The percentage of illegal votes under the current system = 34 / 1.26 million x 100 % = .0027%.

If you want to play with this more, increase the numerator 34 and the percentage goes higher. The fact that that percentage is ridiculously that low means voter fraud isnt an issue at least on the state level. Now that equation is for that particular state as an example.

If we say there are 1000 cases of voter fraud, replace the 34 by 1000 and it comes out to .079 %.

The only drawback is whether his analysis is sufficient enough because there could be other variables to account for. It's still a strong case against voter ID.

Again, this is incredibly misleading. First, there are differences between voter fraud, and voter registration fraud. There have been thousands of examples of the latter. All were attempts to commit voter fraud. The reason why the voter fraud number may be low is because we currently have no reasonable method to catch it. We also don't have great systems for catching voter registration fraud, so one can assume that what we do catch is only a tiny percent of the total.

Second, those attempting to scam the system are not targeting a significant number of nation wide votes. This is more than likely happening on the local level where a mere hundred votes can determine the difference in an election.

Even known voter fraud is hard to determine, and hard to separate from other votes. Lets say you know that there were 600 fraudulent voters in an election. Maybe their listed address don't exist. How do you determine who they are, and how do you determine which votes are theirs?

Finally, since you seem to be hung up on the small percent numbers... What percent of air travelers have been caught attempting to bring explosives on to a plane? Yet our government spends billions of dollars each year to try and prevent this.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Again, this is incredibly misleading. First, there are differences between voter fraud, and voter registration fraud. There have been thousands of examples of the latter. All were attempts to commit voter fraud. The reason why the voter fraud number may be low is because we currently have no reasonable method to catch it. We also don't have great systems for catching voter registration fraud, so one can assume that what we do catch is only a tiny percent of the total.

Second, those attempting to scam the system are not targeting a significant number of nation wide votes. This is more than likely happening on the local level where a mere hundred votes can determine the difference in an election.

Even known voter fraud is hard to determine, and hard to separate from other votes. Lets say you know that there were 600 fraudulent voters in an election. Maybe their listed address don't exist. How do you determine who they are, and how do you determine which votes are theirs?

Finally, since you seem to be hung up on the small percent numbers... What percent of air travelers have been caught attempting to bring explosives on to a plane? Yet our government spends billions of dollars each year to try and prevent this.

I had promised myself I wouldnt post until the next year but I can't contain myself.

Voter registration is not voter fraud. Registration is qualifying people to vote. Actually fraud is when the vote is cast. Hence false registrations does not mean a vote is casted because you need to usually present ID to cast the vote. Your extreme example of catching a small irregularity is nice but you missed the point of the article. It was, is it worth it? The answer is no, hence against voter id. You are comparing apples with oranges to prove your point. I'll link you to the counterpoint which your sources loves to neglect. I'll give you warning of biases presented but the counter is valid by itself.

Keeping Students From the Polls

Propaganda and the Voter ID Campaign

Weekly Standard Pushes Voter Fraud Myth To Make Plans To Disenfranchise Voters More Palatable

Why the 'voter fraud' myth won't die

And the coup'de grace.

The most extensive analysis of voter fraud claims to date. The report finds that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless—and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct, rather than fraud by individual voters. The type of individual voter fraud supposedly targeted by recent legislative efforts—especially efforts to require certain forms of voter ID—simply does not exist.

Added one state ruling for bonus.

BREAKING: Justice Department Blocks South Carolina’s Voter ID Law

That's a knockout punch!

[FrugalNinja250]

I'm reminded of a parable by several posters in favor of voter ID in this thread. To paraphrase, a man offers to sell another a tiger repellent, which appears very much to look like an ordinary stick fallen from a tree. The buyer, having a deathly fear of tigers, buys the tiger repellent for an exorbitant price. Over the years the tiger repellent stick seems to work, as the man never sees a tiger. Oddly, no tigers had ever been seen in the area before, but that didn't matter to the buyer. All that mattered was that he believed in the power of his tiger repellent to repel tigers.

I think the parable is very apt here indeed, the only difference being that rather than the fearful folks paying for the tiger repellent the taxpayers are being fleeced instead.

Edit to add this paragraph copied from one of the links above:

Propaganda is a communications strategy that relies on specific rhetorical devices and methods of presenting information to persuade and influence the opinions of others in order to control their actions. Propagandists distort the truth through selective storytelling, logical fallacies, unwarranted extrapolation, and repetition of false conclusions, providing a basis for hidden political agendas and fear-mongering. In the contemporary discussions about voter ID, what could be more misleading than to go back 27 years to obscure events in Brooklyn documented in an almost impossible to find grand jury report? Unknowing readers could think von Spakovsky is plucking the example out of a vast trove of evidence when he's not.

[kyrider]

Well, I am going to do all I can to make sure that those who do vote have to show proof of I.D.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Voter registration is not voter fraud. Registration is qualifying people to vote. Actually fraud is when the vote is cast.

My point was that voter registration fraud is not counted as voter fraud. So when you post small numbers, they do not represent the entire picture. But yes, falsely registering someone to vote is committing a fraud, and usually forgery as well.

Hence false registrations does not mean a vote is casted because you need to usually present ID to cast the vote.

If people are successful in committing voter registration fraud, then this almost certainly leads to a fraudulent vote. That would be the whole purpose of it. As for presenting an ID to cast a vote, that is what the entire discussion is about. You are correct in suggesting that presenting an ID would help eliminate voter fraud.

Added one state ruling for bonus.

BREAKING: Justice Department Blocks South Carolina’s Voter ID Law

That's a knockout punch!

Hardly a knockout punch. South Carolina, as well as some other southern states, have to get approval from the Justice Department in order to enact any changes to their voting laws. Other states do not have to do this. It is no surprise, that the Obama Administration's Justice Department, led by Holder, would try to block this law. After all, this is the same Attorney General who didn't think that the black panthers standing in uniform with billy clubs at voting locations was voter intimidation.

This is a step in the process which will be decided in court.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Edit to add this paragraph copied from one of the links above:

Propaganda is a communications strategy that relies on specific rhetorical devices and methods of presenting information to persuade and influence the opinions of others in order to control their actions. Propagandists distort the truth through selective storytelling, logical fallacies, unwarranted extrapolation, and repetition of false conclusions, providing a basis for hidden political agendas and fear-mongering. In the contemporary discussions about voter ID, what could be more misleading than to go back 27 years to obscure events in Brooklyn documented in an almost impossible to find grand jury report? Unknowing readers could think von Spakovsky is plucking the example out of a vast trove of evidence when he's not.

Yes, Propaganda. And a great example of propaganda is the story that the requirement to prove your identity to vote will somehow disenfranchise minorities. This is certainly a "false conclusion" based on "selective storytelling", and certainly is "fear-mongering" as they try to drum up comparisons to things like segregation. And of course, there is a hidden political agenda considering that most cases of voter fraud and voter registration fraud has been to benefit democrats (ie: Acorn).

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by revstriker

My point was that voter registration fraud is not counted as voter fraud. So when you post small numbers, they do not represent the entire picture. But yes, falsely registering someone to vote is committing a fraud, and usually forgery as well.

If people are successful in committing voter registration fraud, then this almost certainly leads to a fraudulent vote. That would be the whole purpose of it. As for presenting an ID to cast a vote, that is what the entire discussion is about. You are correct in suggesting that presenting an ID would help eliminate voter fraud.

Hardly a knockout punch. South Carolina, as well as some other southern states, have to get approval from the Justice Department in order to enact any changes to their voting laws. Other states do not have to do this. It is no surprise, that the Obama Administration's Justice Department, led by Holder, would try to block this law. After all, this is the same Attorney General who didn't think that the black panthers standing in uniform with billy clubs at voting locations was voter intimidation.

This is a step in the process which will be decided in court.

You missed the coup'de grace. The study pretty much destroys the myth of voting fraud.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Another great point brought up I'd thought I like to share.

Why Isn't The Right Screaming "Fraud" Over Iowa Caucuses?

[kyrider]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Link to original page on YouTube.

[kyrider]

High Error Rate in Milwaukee County Election Day Registrations Found


http://maciverinstitute.com/2012/01/...rations-found/

[Domagoj]

I think these things filter itself out, with or without voter ID. At first, after reading your posts, I was a bit surprised that in some US countries one can just show up and vote. It seemed incredible.

Now when I thought of it a bit more, I believe there is no real practical way to organize a fraud on a scale large enough to make a difference. It simply involves too many people, and costs too much per vote. The more people you have in your scheme, the more probable it is to go wrong. Someone (by someone I mean more than one individual) is simply bound to expose some part of the plan to at least one person who cares, who will at least make enough noise to make things suspicious. And that's it.

On the other hand, if the scheme is too small to be exposed, it is also too small to have an influence.

Finally, if the elections were so close that a party or a candidate won by a very small percentage, which indeed could have been influenced by a fraud, it does not matter. It simply means that both parties have equal support in the population and that both have equal right to "rule". Even if their ideas and fundamentals are completely different, they should statisticaly be both equally right or wrong, and lead to the result which may be different, but carry the same "impact".

I'm not sure if I explained myself clearly enough.

Anyway, my conclusion is that voter ID is useless.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

I think these things filter itself out, with or without voter ID. At first, after reading your posts, I was a bit surprised that in some US countries one can just show up and vote. It seemed incredible.

Now when I thought of it a bit more, I believe there is no real practical way to organize a fraud on a scale large enough to make a difference. It simply involves too many people, and costs too much per vote. The more people you have in your scheme, the more probable it is to go wrong. Someone (by someone I mean more than one individual) is simply bound to expose some part of the plan to at least one person who cares, who will at least make enough noise to make things suspicious. And that's it.

On the other hand, if the scheme is too small to be exposed, it is also too small to have an influence.

Finally, if the elections were so close that a party or a candidate won by a very small percentage, which indeed could have been influenced by a fraud, it does not matter. It simply means that both parties have equal support in the population and that both have equal right to "rule". Even if their ideas and fundamentals are completely different, they should statisticaly be both equally right or wrong, and lead to the result which may be different, but carry the same "impact".

I'm not sure if I explained myself clearly enough.

Anyway, my conclusion is that voter ID is useless.

When you have organizations like SEIU that can organize all over the country and who work the polling areas you have the makings for mass voter fraud. When you have a situation where a few votes can sway a senate election and that Senator can cast a deciding vote, the fraud does not seem so little then.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by kyrider

High Error Rate in Milwaukee County Election Day Registrations Found


http://maciverinstitute.com/2012/01/...rations-found/

I looked over the data and you seemed to be focusing on registrations. That's not voter fraud. Registering is not the same as having the ballot to vote. Go read the link to my study or is that just still to much to comprehend?

And regarding your video, funny thing.

James O'Keefe could land allies in prison for voter fraud stunt

For the sake of humoring the voter id fraud paranoids, are you going to still waste my tax money on a statistically low proven event like you did when you wanted welfare people drug tested? Wasteful government spending indeed. Only when it's not what the other guy wants huh?

[Domagoj]

Originally Posted by kyrider

When you have organizations like SEIU that can organize all over the country and who work the polling areas you have the makings for mass voter fraud. When you have a situation where a few votes can sway a senate election and that Senator can cast a deciding vote, the fraud does not seem so little then.

Is SEIU "Service Employees International Union" ? If it is, according to the wikipedia article, they had 1,9 million members in 2010. If it is not, I apologize but I do not know what it is.
Point is, there is no way whatsoever to make it work with 1,9 milion people. Just try to keep a secret between 10 people and most likely you will find it impossible.

As I said previously, if only few votes decide the elections, the elections are close enough that both parties deserve equally to win or loose. If you voted for the defeated party you would feel wronged, but keep in mind that for each one of you who lost there is one who won, and that one would celebrate. And on a large scale, unbiased, and democratic point of view, you two are perfectly equal in importance.

If later on that government made a decision which had a great influence, even if you personally believe that it is the worst possible, there is one who thinks the opposite and all is well again.

I am not sure if I explained myself clearly. Again. lol.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

Is SEIU "Service Employees International Union" ? If it is, according to the wikipedia article, they had 1,9 million members in 2010. If it is not, I apologize but I do not know what it is.
Point is, there is no way whatsoever to make it work with 1,9 milion people. Just try to keep a secret between 10 people and most likely you will find it impossible.

As I said previously, if only few votes decide the elections, the elections are close enough that both parties deserve equally to win or loose. If you voted for the defeated party you would feel wronged, but keep in mind that for each one of you who lost there is one who won, and that one would celebrate. And on a large scale, unbiased, and democratic point of view, you two are perfectly equal in importance.

If later on that government made a decision which had a great influence, even if you personally believe that it is the worst possible, there is one who thinks the opposite and all is well again.

I am not sure if I explained myself clearly. Again. lol.

In the U.S. of A just one member difference on the Supreme Court could mean us Americans loosing our right to bear arms and many other issues.

[Domagoj]

Originally Posted by kyrider

In the U.S. of A just one member difference on the Supreme Court could mean us Americans loosing our right to bear arms and many other issues.

You don't get my point.

If a majority in the Congress is won by a difference of 5000 votes, in a country where 40 milion people vote, and that majority makes a decision to forbid guns or legalize cocaine, that means that 20005000 american citizens support those decisions, and 19995000 do not support those decisions.

That is, when looking at a total of 40 000 000, an equal number.
Meaning, the fact that you personaly believe that guns are good and cocaine is bad matters not, because there is another american citizen against each one of you, who thinks differently.

From an objective unbiased view, half of the country is happy and half is miserable, either way. Fraud or no fraud. The half you are in is just as important as the other, or not important as the other.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

You don't get my point.

If a majority in the Congress is won by a difference of 5000 votes, in a country where 40 milion people vote, and that majority makes a decision to forbid guns or legalize cocaine, that means that 20005000 american citizens support those decisions, and 19995000 do not support those decisions.

That is, when looking at a total of 40 000 000, an equal number.
Meaning, the fact that you personaly believe that guns are good and cocaine is bad matters not, because there is another american citizen against each one of you, who thinks differently.

From an objective unbiased view, half of the country is happy and half is miserable, either way. Fraud or no fraud. The half you are in is just as important as the other, or not important as the other.

Domagoj,

That is not how our system of government works.

We are not a democracy. We are not mob rule. We are a representative democracy. A republic.

[Domagoj]

Originally Posted by kyrider

Domagoj,

That is not how our system of government works.

We are not a democracy. We are not mob rule. We are a representative democracy. A republic.

Damn. And here I was, thinking that US democracy is the same as ours; that at a given time a random mob is let into the parliament, and that they shout at each other and throw rotten fruit.

Seriously now,
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I did not mean to imply anything negative about US citizens or government. In fact my opinion is very positive.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

Damn. And here I was, thinking that US democracy is the same as ours; that at a given time a random mob is let into the parliament, and that they shout at each other and throw rotten fruit.

Seriously now,
I am sorry if I offended anyone, I did not mean to imply anything negative about US citizens or government. In fact my opinion is very positive.

I am not offended the least bit!