What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How much Voter Fraud is Happening (2 Viewers)

Which is worse / which is MORE UNJUST?

  • An illegitimate vote being counted

    Votes: 73 27.4%

  • A legitimate vote not being counted

    Votes: 193 72.6%
  • Total voters
    266
timschochet said:
It fascinates me that many of the same people who are so concerned with potential infringements on liberty that they oppose background checks on gun sales are eager to demand that everyone possess exact up to date identification.
Click to expand...
Aren't there already background checks on gun sales?

 
Sarnoff said:
timschochet said:
MaxThreshold said:
Clifford said:
So still just a tool for suppressing poor/minority votes? Just checking...
Click to expand...
More drama-queen hyperbole on your part? Check.
Click to expand...
31 credible incidents out of a billion votes cast? And yet it continues to be a pressing issue, pushed by conservatives in every swing electoral state? What's the rationale, if Clifford is incorrect about this?
Click to expand...
Regardless of whichever study is correct, whether there have been 30 incidents or 30,000, if there exists a better system with fewer cracks to exploit, we should use it to prevent issues in the future. It's like discovering a bug in a website, you report it and patch it, because even if it was exploited only a couple of times before, once the word is out on how to do it, you want to stop future incidents.

It's closing the barn doors before the horses leave.
Click to expand...
So which analogy: tech or rural? I'm confused.

 
MaxThreshold said:
the problem here is that the "show that in-person voter fraud is actually a problem" is a moving target. No matter how much evidence exists that it's a problem it will NEVER be enough to convince the anti-ID crowd.
Click to expand...
In order to test whether your statement is correct, somebody needs to find some evidence that in-person voter fraud (of the type that voter-ID requirements would prevent) is a problem.

Until that happens, you're just speculating hypothetically.

 
I am sure the argument about the voter fraud numbers is split down party lines, sadly. The actually numbers aren't as important to me as the ultimate impact of these laws, which is to disenfranchise people. Very backwards approach.

Why not allow people a couple of days to vote, or vote online which I believe is already happening in some countries?

 
Look it does happen, about as often as orgies involving grizzly bears. So as soon as we get the grizzly orgy ban passed in all 50 states, we can start back on this.

 
Rayderr said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rayderr said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rayderr said:
tommyGunZ said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Walking Boot said:
Connecticut state representative charged with 19 counts of vote fraud.

The arrest warrant affidavit also alleges Ayala provided fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district, according to the release.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I missed in that article where she claimed to be someone other than herself?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Yet another example of fraud that "voter-ID" would not solve.
Click to expand...
Well aside from the whole ID having to have the person's current address on it.
Click to expand...
"having to have"?

Photo identification often does not reflect current information. For many of those who possess current, valid government-issued photo ID, the documentation does not reflect their current information. For example, survey results show that ten percent of voting-age citizens who have current photo ID do not have photo ID with both their current address and their current legal name. The rate is higher among younger citizens: as many as 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have photo ID with current address and name; using 2004 census tallies, that amounts to almost 4.5 million American citizens.
Click to expand...
And that is something that needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
Another solution being offered up in search of a real problem to justify disenfranchising voters.
Click to expand...
SO you think people should be allowed to have IDs that do not have their correct address or name? Interesting.
Click to expand...
Ever hear of college? Or marriage? Wtf

 
Rayderr said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rayderr said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rayderr said:
SO you think people should be allowed to have IDs that do not have their correct address or name? Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that people should be free to move. Or get married.
Click to expand...
And keep their old address and name on their ID for.... 6 months? 5 years? a couple decades?
Click to expand...
So what problems have been created by the 10% that don't have such current information on an otherwise non expired ID? The same problem created by the 11% that don't have an ID at all? Other than they may try to vote that is.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question there chief. But I'll be nice and answer yours. Gov't agencies tend to send out mail, a lot of it "Do not forward" When I moved one time, I did not bother changing my address. As luck would have it, I also changed car insurance. I was unaware that when you change insurance, the dropped insurance informs DMV but the new insurance doesn't. So DMV thought I no longer had insurance and sent me a letter, marked do not forward saying I needed to provide proof of insurance or my license would get suspended. Guess what happened? So that right there is a problem caused by not having correct info. There are plenty more examples.
Click to expand...
Actually I did answer your question. The government should never create solutions for problems that don't actually exist. And your example is not a societal problem that needs solving.
 
Nothing to do with this thread, but Clifford couldn't you have just used one post to say nothing at all instead of three? Especially when one of them quotes several posts and makes mobile viewing even worse.

 
Clifford said:
Look it does happen, about as often as orgies involving grizzly bears. So as soon as we get the grizzly orgy ban passed in all 50 states, we can start back on this.
Click to expand...
You can have my grizzly bear orgies when you pry them from my bloody, mangled ####.

 
Walking Boot said:
MikeIke said:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_candidate_busted_for_potential_voter_fraud_the_story_of_leslie_rutledge/

Arkansas Republican candidate for Attorney General committed voter fraud by registering in Washington DC, Arkansas, and possibly Virginia. She voted in Arkansas via absentee ballot AFTER she'd registered in Washington. She is now ineligible to vote in Arkansas, and may have to be removed from the ballot.
Click to expand...
When Democrats do it, everyone says it's not really a case of "Voter Fraud" we should be worried about.
Click to expand...
Link to a Democrat doing it? Especially one running for statewide office?

 
Walking Boot said:
MikeIke said:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_candidate_busted_for_potential_voter_fraud_the_story_of_leslie_rutledge/

Arkansas Republican candidate for Attorney General committed voter fraud by registering in Washington DC, Arkansas, and possibly Virginia. She voted in Arkansas via absentee ballot AFTER she'd registered in Washington. She is now ineligible to vote in Arkansas, and may have to be removed from the ballot.
Click to expand...
When Democrats do it, everyone says it's not really a case of "Voter Fraud" we should be worried about.
Click to expand...
Apparently the GOP is not worried about this kind of "voter fraud" either other than as examples to pursue their photo id policies.

 
Walking Boot said:
MikeIke said:
Walking Boot said:
MikeIke said:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/gop_candidate_busted_for_potential_voter_fraud_the_story_of_leslie_rutledge/

Arkansas Republican candidate for Attorney General committed voter fraud by registering in Washington DC, Arkansas, and possibly Virginia. She voted in Arkansas via absentee ballot AFTER she'd registered in Washington. She is now ineligible to vote in Arkansas, and may have to be removed from the ballot.
Click to expand...
When Democrats do it, everyone says it's not really a case of "Voter Fraud" we should be worried about.
Click to expand...
Link to a Democrat doing it? Especially one running for statewide office?
Click to expand...
Monday:

tommyGunZ said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Walking Boot said:
Connecticut state representative charged with 19 counts of vote fraud.

The arrest warrant affidavit also alleges Ayala provided fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district, according to the release.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I missed in that article where she claimed to be someone other than herself?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Yet another example of fraud that "voter-ID" would not solve.
Click to expand...
Edit: I could understand you missing it, because when a Republican does it they put it in the headline and then repeat her party in the story lead, but when a Democrat does it they only identify her party in the photo caption by noting the letter (D).
Click to expand...
What exactly does my copied post prove?

 
Just said on the news that the voter's info booklet in Santa Clara County, CA, has some blank spaces. Names of some candidates are missing. Seems no one proofs the booklet before it goes to full press production. Conspiracy or honest blunder? :ph34r:

 
CurlyNight said:
Just said on the news that the voter's info booklet in Santa Clara County, CA, has some blank spaces. Names of some candidates are missing. Seems no one proofs the booklet before it goes to full press production. Conspiracy or honest blunder? :ph34r:
Click to expand...
I'll need to know the political parties of the missing candidates and the board of election members before I decide.

 
Could non-citizens decide the November election?Washington Post; October 24, 2014

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.
Click to expand...
 
pantagrapher said:
meatwad1 said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund

More voter fraud uncovered in Colorado. It is pretty hard to believe that the state just mails out a ballot to anyone.....
Click to expand...
fail.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link to the far left web site of Mother Jones whose sole job is debunking stories that paint the left in a bad light and bashing conservatives. I'll be sure to add this to my list of trusted sources.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
pantagrapher said:
meatwad1 said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund

More voter fraud uncovered in Colorado. It is pretty hard to believe that the state just mails out a ballot to anyone.....
Click to expand...
fail.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link to the far left web site of Mother Jones whose sole job is debunking stories that paint the left in a bad light and bashing conservatives. I'll be sure to add this to my list of trusted sources.
Click to expand...
Yet you eat up the National Review story. LOL

 
pantagrapher said:
meatwad1 said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390893/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund

More voter fraud uncovered in Colorado. It is pretty hard to believe that the state just mails out a ballot to anyone.....
Click to expand...
fail.
Click to expand...
That guy's repeatedly attempting voter fraud, and it's known, but he's in no trouble for it? Oh that's right, he's trying to prove there's voter fraud. So there's good fraudin' and bad fraudin', and he's a good frauder for trying to expose bad frauders.

What we need to get rid of voter fraud is more and more good frauders.

 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

the science is in

AbstractIn spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
Click to expand...
 
FlapJacks said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

the science is in

AbstractIn spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think a reference to an abstract, with pay-only access to the underlying study, is going to have very limited value in the context of a discussion like this one. There is so much bias, misinformation and disingenuous point-scoring on both sides. Its a very interesting conclusion though - that non-citizen illegal voting not only changed election results, but gave senate control to the Democrats and was directly responsible for Obamacare becoming law, among other Obama "priorities."

 
CletiusMaximus said:
FlapJacks said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

the science is in

AbstractIn spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think a reference to an abstract, with pay-only access to the underlying study, is going to have very limited value in the context of a discussion like this one. There is so much bias, misinformation and disingenuous point-scoring on both sides. Its a very interesting conclusion though - that non-citizen illegal voting not only changed election results, but gave senate control to the Democrats and was directly responsible for Obamacare becoming law, among other Obama "priorities."
Click to expand...
Agreed. Without access to the source, this doesn't mean much.

 
Rich Conway said:
CletiusMaximus said:
FlapJacks said:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973

the science is in

AbstractIn spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think a reference to an abstract, with pay-only access to the underlying study, is going to have very limited value in the context of a discussion like this one. There is so much bias, misinformation and disingenuous point-scoring on both sides. Its a very interesting conclusion though - that non-citizen illegal voting not only changed election results, but gave senate control to the Democrats and was directly responsible for Obamacare becoming law, among other Obama "priorities."
Click to expand...
Agreed. Without access to the source, this doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...
I posted an article several posts above that has the data and the link to the source.

 
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.

 
He made it and you agreed with it is my recollection. Something about it combating pluralism which deemed detrimental to effective government.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily think that screening out low-income voters is the right thing to do, just the low-engagement ones. It just so happens that the same kind of people who can't handle the DMV are the same kind of people who can't hold down a steady job. But that's coincidence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Just because YOU think it's as plain as day doesn't make it so.

 
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
The only reason you oppose voter ID laws is because you are afraid your side would lose uninformed disengaged and detached from society voters that primarily vote democratic. You don't care about their rights or their representation.

Even if the evidence was overwhelming that voter fraud was rampant, you would still oppose voter ID laws or any laws that would curtail said fraud. You don't care about the integrity of the election process. You care about votes.

So lets cut the horse(poop) debate about you caring about a true representative democracy. You don't.

Hey look, I borrowed your brush there.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
The only reason you oppose voter ID laws is because you are afraid your side would lose uninformed disengaged and detached from society voters that primarily vote democratic. You don't care about their rights or their representation.

Even if the evidence was overwhelming that voter fraud was rampant, you would still oppose voter ID laws or any laws that would curtail said fraud. You don't care about the integrity of the election process. You care about votes.

So lets cut the horse(poop) debate about you caring about a true representative democracy. You don't.

Hey look, I borrowed your brush there.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?

I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
 
MaxThreshold said:
parasaurolophus said:
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
The only reason you oppose voter ID laws is because you are afraid your side would lose uninformed disengaged and detached from society voters that primarily vote democratic. You don't care about their rights or their representation.

Even if the evidence was overwhelming that voter fraud was rampant, you would still oppose voter ID laws or any laws that would curtail said fraud. You don't care about the integrity of the election process. You care about votes.

So lets cut the horse(poop) debate about you caring about a true representative democracy. You don't.

Hey look, I borrowed your brush there.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?

I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
Click to expand...
This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.

 
I am 100 percent confident that the only reason people are against ID laws is because they want the vote of illegal aliens to count so more Democrats can win. That is the only possible reason.

Q.E.D.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
MaxThreshold said:
parasaurolophus said:
Clifford said:
I can't believe after the surprising level of honestly of proponents of voter ID leglislation that we are still actively discussing it as some sort of deterrent to fraud. The intended purpose of every voter ID law in every state is to make it more difficult for lower-income/minority voting blocks to vote, and it is 100% pushed by Republicans who don't enjoy much support from these demos.

It's as plain as day and has been admitted to by several people in this thread as not only the primary and desired aim of the legislation, but furthermore than the voter ID initiatives enjoy their support primarily because the aim is suppressing votes in these demos.

If we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about what the laws are actually intended to do? Ivan and Tim both opined that having lower-income groups vote in smaller numbers is a desirable aim because such demos offer less in the way of contribution to the nation, and therefore should have less of a voice in the affairs of our government.

Others (including I) have opined that the lower income groups are already disproportionally underrepresented in our goverment due to the massive sway money has in politics, and there are no lobbying groups representing their interests. Their vote is their only vehicle for representation, and therefore in order to maintain a semblance of a representative democracy, we must protect the right to vote of the least influential in any way we can.

Let's leave off this silly debate about whether voter fraud exists in any significant way and whether these laws are either intended to or effective at stopping it. We all know the answer to both questions and the "debate" around them is utter horse-####.
Click to expand...
The only reason you oppose voter ID laws is because you are afraid your side would lose uninformed disengaged and detached from society voters that primarily vote democratic. You don't care about their rights or their representation.

Even if the evidence was overwhelming that voter fraud was rampant, you would still oppose voter ID laws or any laws that would curtail said fraud. You don't care about the integrity of the election process. You care about votes.

So lets cut the horse(poop) debate about you caring about a true representative democracy. You don't.

Hey look, I borrowed your brush there.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

I think if we are to have a continuing conversation on this topic, can we at least make the conversation about the reality of why the opponents of Voter ID laws oppose those laws in the first place?

I mean, seriously, it's as plain as day.
Click to expand...
This was all acknowledged 20+ pages and 6 years ago. Voter ID is exclusively a partisan issue. Any arguments regarding integrity of the election process or voter disenfranchisement are entirely manufactured and disingenuous. This issue is 100% driven by the perception that republicans generally do better with lower voter turnout and that Democrats do better with higher voter turnout. Republicans typically seek to limit access to the polls in a variety of ways, while Democrats typically go to great ends to increase voter participation.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. This topic has been beaten to death, and I'm firmly of the opinion that almost everybody would switch sides tomorrow if voter ID laws skewed the electorate slightly the other way.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?
110 111 112
Replies
6K
Views
204K
apalmer
apalmer
massraider
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
2 3
Replies
147
Views
4K
Roy L Fewks
R
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
925
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top