|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 19, 2021 4:07:06 GMT -8
Why do Republicans want to make it more difficult for poor people to vote? Is it because they mostly vote Democrat? I see you don't have an answer to my previous question about how voter ID would have "stopped the steal". I'm not surprised since it would have no effect at all.
- how voter ID would have "stopped the steal" You don't believe any fraud happened at all, so I don't believe this is a serious question (I don't speak for him, but I imagine this is probably why he didn't answer you the first time).
- HOWEVER, if a person votes more than once, or votes using someone else's name, or if someone stuffs ballot boxes with fake ballots, I believe it is fairly easy to understand how a Voter ID (or requiring ID to register and to vote) would short-circuit such attempts.
You still didn't answer the question...how would mandatory voter ID have "stopped the steal" you guys are complaining about?...It would have done absolutely nothing. Yes, a strict voter ID law would prevent some forms of fraud that are very, very rare...so why bother? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 19, 2021 4:42:24 GMT -8
- how voter ID would have "stopped the steal" You don't believe any fraud happened at all, so I don't believe this is a serious question (I don't speak for him, but I imagine this is probably why he didn't answer you the first time).
- HOWEVER, if a person votes more than once, or votes using someone else's name, or if someone stuffs ballot boxes with fake ballots, I believe it is fairly easy to understand how a Voter ID (or requiring ID to register and to vote) would short-circuit such attempts.
You still didn't answer the question...how would mandatory voter ID have "stopped the steal" you guys are complaining about?...It would have done absolutely nothing. Yes, a strict voter ID law would prevent some forms of fraud that are very, very rare...so why bother? I'm not complaining about it. However, a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it: That portion that was represented by "...a person votes more than once, or votes using someone else's name, or if someone stuffs ballot boxes with fake ballots" A voter ID would not have impacted the reprograming of the voting machines. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 20, 2021 2:57:50 GMT -8
You still didn't answer the question...how would mandatory voter ID have "stopped the steal" you guys are complaining about?...It would have done absolutely nothing. Yes, a strict voter ID law would prevent some forms of fraud that are very, very rare...so why bother? However, a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it: That portion that was represented by "...a person votes more than once, or votes using someone else's name, or if someone stuffs ballot boxes with fake ballots" And how many instances of this type of fraud were there in the last election? How much effort was spent trying to pass voter ID laws to combat this non-existent problem? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 20, 2021 4:19:32 GMT -8
However, a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it: That portion that was represented by "...a person votes more than once, or votes using someone else's name, or if someone stuffs ballot boxes with fake ballots" And how many instances of this type of fraud were there in the last election? We don't know. Democrats consistently block efforts to find out.How much effort was spent trying to pass voter ID laws to combat this non-existent problem? Just a little less than the amount of effort spent to defeat voter I'd legislation.But you didn't address the comment I made: "...a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it" Does that mean you accept the explanation? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 21, 2021 7:00:47 GMT -8
And how many instances of this type of fraud were there in the last election? We don't know. Democrats consistently block efforts to find out.But you didn't address the comment I made: "...a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it" Does that mean you accept the explanation? Yes I did. I accept your claim that having strict voter ID laws would cut down on the type of fraud you described...it's just that this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. So rare it's hard to believe this is the reason you want to make it more difficult for people to vote. Could there be another reason? Thank you for admitting you have no idea how much voter fraud actually exists. Are there any other problems you wish to solve before you determine that there's an actual problem? |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on May 21, 2021 9:13:41 GMT -8
...it's just that this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. Thank you for admitting you have no idea how much voter fraud actually exists. It's entertaining how you often straddle both sides of any issue. Yes, nobody knows how much voter fraud actually occurs because it is (a) incredibly difficult to prove, and (b) any investigation into it is strongly resisted by some political interests. Yet somehow you are the one person in America who can state that "this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent." You prove every time you post that you must be the most intelligent and best-informed person in the country, given you know things that nobody else does...whether they're true or not. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 21, 2021 10:21:10 GMT -8
But you didn't address the comment I made: "...a voter ID would only have prevented, or seriously curtailed, a portion of it" Does that mean you accept the explanation? Yes I did. I accept your claim that having strict voter ID laws would cut down on the type of fraud you described...it's just that this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. So rare it's hard to believe this is the reason you want to make it more difficult for people to vote. Could there be another reason? Thank you for admitting you have no idea how much voter fraud actually exists. Are there any other problems you wish to solve before you determine that there's an actual problem? Regrettably, you're talking through your hat. Since our vehement leftist legislators refuse to let accurate audits happen, we simply do not know how widespread it is or isn't. I have long advocated updating the woefully out-of-date voting system to allow for accurate vote counts... but, again, the left (and, inexplicably, many legislators on the right) won't pursue that. "more difficult for people to vote" is a straw man: No basis in reality. There would be no curtailment of any legal voter by asking for an ID... none. Although, now that I think on it, you're probably talking about making it more difficult for ILLEGAL voting to take place. THAT, I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 22, 2021 3:45:22 GMT -8
...it's just that this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. Thank you for admitting you have no idea how much voter fraud actually exists. It's entertaining how you often straddle both sides of any issue. Yes, nobody knows how much voter fraud actually occurs because it is (a) incredibly difficult to prove, and (b) any investigation into it is strongly resisted by some political interests. Yet somehow you are the one person in America who can state that "this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent." You prove every time you post that you must be the most intelligent and best-informed person in the country, given you know things that nobody else does...whether they're true or not. Seriously? There are any number of websites with good information on the subject of voter fraud. Your attempts to insult me are ridiculous, but predictable. You don't want good information, you just want to act like a child and insult people. Well, you prove every time you post that you must not be the most intelligent and best-informed person in the country. Here's some information about voter fraud. You might learn something but I doubt it. www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 22, 2021 3:48:24 GMT -8
Yes I did. I accept your claim that having strict voter ID laws would cut down on the type of fraud you described...it's just that this type of fraud is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. So rare it's hard to believe this is the reason you want to make it more difficult for people to vote. Could there be another reason? Thank you for admitting you have no idea how much voter fraud actually exists. Are there any other problems you wish to solve before you determine that there's an actual problem? Since our vehement leftist legislators refuse to let accurate audits happen, we simply do not know how widespread it is or isn't. Yes we do. As I said to MDDad there is a wealth of info on voter fraud, but it's better for your argument if you pretend there isn't. I don't suppose you could even find one reputable website that documents the widespread problem of voter fraud. Try the Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org/voterfraud |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 22, 2021 5:58:21 GMT -8
Since our vehement leftist legislators refuse to let accurate audits happen, we simply do not know how widespread it is or isn't. Yes we do. As I said to MDDad there is a wealth of info on voter fraud, but it's better for your argument if you pretend there isn't. I don't suppose you could even find one reputable website that documents the widespread problem of voter fraud. Try the Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org/voterfraudYou puzzle me. You reject the veracity of my comment, but then link to a website I usually trust THAT VERIFIES WHAT I SAID. Temporary insanity? An aneurism? Sudden conversion to rational conservative? or just did not read the opening paragraph of that web page? to wit: I KNOW, me responding calmly and rationally to you has thrown you: You simply do not know what you're doing, is that it? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 24, 2021 2:50:08 GMT -8
Yes we do. As I said to MDDad there is a wealth of info on voter fraud, but it's better for your argument if you pretend there isn't. I don't suppose you could even find one reputable website that documents the widespread problem of voter fraud. Try the Heritage Foundation: www.heritage.org/voterfraudYou puzzle me. You reject the veracity of my comment, but then link to a website I usually trust THAT VERIFIES WHAT I SAID. No, it really doesn't. It shows that there have been very few instances of any type of fraud over the past decade or so. But hey, I tried. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 24, 2021 5:27:18 GMT -8
You puzzle me. You reject the veracity of my comment, but then link to a website I usually trust THAT VERIFIES WHAT I SAID. No, it really doesn't. It shows that there have been very few instances of any type of fraud over the past decade or so. But hey, I tried. I disagree (that you tried), and I question your definition of "very few," for a couple reasons: first, this doesn't sound like "very few" to me,  but even if it does, the website points out three things: - The database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list; and
- they update the list regularly as new instances come to light.
- The database only shows events that "each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome"
You can believe it supports your argument all you like, but from my perspective, it does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 25, 2021 3:11:13 GMT -8
No, it really doesn't. It shows that there have been very few instances of any type of fraud over the past decade or so. But hey, I tried. I disagree (that you tried), and I question your definition of "very few," for a couple reasons: first, this doesn't sound like "very few" to me, View Attachmentbut even if it does, the website points out three things: - The database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list; and
- they update the list regularly as new instances come to light.
- The database only shows events that "each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome"
You can believe it supports your argument all you like, but from my perspective, it does not.
1. When you consider that hundreds of millions of votes were tallied over more than a decade and only 1,300 or so instances of fraud were committed during that same time, your "problem" fades into statistically insignificant obscurity. 2. Your claim that the list is NOT comprehensive yet then state "they update the list regularly as new instances come to light" is self contradictory. 3. Yes, the fraud was committed with the perpetrator "hoping to affect the outcome"...how many elections were wrongly decided? How many candidates were ushered into office on the backs of fraudulent votes? Zero. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 25, 2021 4:40:12 GMT -8
I disagree (that you tried), and I question your definition of "very few," for a couple reasons: first, this doesn't sound like "very few" to me, View Attachmentbut even if it does, the website points out three things: - The database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list; and
- they update the list regularly as new instances come to light.
- The database only shows events that "each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome"
You can believe it supports your argument all you like, but from my perspective, it does not.
1. When you consider that hundreds of millions of votes were tallied over more than a decade and only 1,300 or so instances of fraud were committed during that same time, your "problem" fades into statistically insignificant obscurity. 2. Your claim that the list is NOT comprehensive yet then state "they update the list regularly as new instances come to light" is self contradictory. 3. Yes, the fraud was committed with the perpetrator "hoping to affect the outcome"...how many elections were wrongly decided? How many candidates were ushered into office on the backs of fraudulent votes? Zero. I KNOW you can give me a reasoned argument, unless you really DID post that website without really understanding it. - We often see his Lying with Statistics fallacy in this context. Your "votes cast" does not rescue your error, because, as I pointed out: The database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list; and they update the list regularly as new instances come to light (so those numbers continue to grow), and The database only shows events that "each and every one ended in a finding that the individual had engaged in wrongdoing in connection with an election hoping to affect its outcome" (meaning fraud that did not influence an outcome is not included)
- You're just making crap up to suit your pretense: The list, itself, claims it is not comprehensive (which means not all proven cases of fraud are included, for example, those that did not influence an outcome), and that they update it when new cases (of fraud that DID influence an outcome) come to light. Not contradictory in the slightest.
- You lack the authority to assert that claim. You have no idea how many were wrongly ushered into office. This is your preference bias at work here. HOWEVER, at least I have gotten you past the concept that fraud doesn't exist. That's progress.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrright on Jul 7, 2021 19:18:33 GMT -8
one problem is that a vote is supposed to be pvt. the only way that would work is to make it all written paper ballots at the polling place. which is how it should be
|
|
