Wow. A whopping 164 votes out of 129,085,403 total votes.

We need to spend truckloads of money to fix this! A whole 0.0001% of the popular vote!

(04-24-2014 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  The issue isn't whether being opposed to so-called anti voter fraud legislation shows a disregard for the rule of law. Because this isn't anti fraud legislation. it is voter suppression legislation, and it is aimed 100% at people not likely to vote for Republicans. I get that. I understand why the GOP wants it. And I have no doubt that the Republicans who deny that it is are lying through their teeth. The irony, of course, is that such blatant dishonesty would be ample reason to believe that Republicans are more likely to cheat at the polls.

Can you back up this assertion?

I don't think so.

Only 10% of the population doesn't already have ID.... and only a portion of the population cares to vote.

Many of those who don't have ID also don't vote... The infermed... the incarcerated... the incompetent... How much of that 10% is these people? I don't know, but it's much more than zero. Of the rest of that group, you still have to take out the separatists and those who just don't care.

So you're really talking about a portion of the poor... and while certainly that is some liberals, that is also a number of what the left likes to call redneck white trash and unintelligent bible thumpers. Especially when you consider that most poor democrats live in large clusters in the inner city who are easily 're-enfranchised' and most poor republicans live in remote areas that are difficult to 're-enfranchise'.

Seriously, someone show me a study that shows that this would disenfranchise more democrats than republicans.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-24-2014 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  The issue isn't whether being opposed to so-called anti voter fraud legislation shows a disregard for the rule of law. Because this isn't anti fraud legislation. it is voter suppression legislation, and it is aimed 100% at people not likely to vote for Republicans. I get that. I understand why the GOP wants it. And I have no doubt that the Republicans who deny that it is are lying through their teeth. The irony, of course, is that such blatant dishonesty would be ample reason to believe that Republicans are more likely to cheat at the polls.

Can you back up this assertion?

I don't think so.

Only 10% of the population doesn't already have ID.... and only a portion of the population cares to vote.

Many of those who don't have ID also don't vote... The infermed... the incarcerated... the incompetent... How much of that 10% is these people? I don't know, but it's much more than zero. Of the rest of that group, you still have to take out the separatists and those who just don't care.

So you're really talking about a portion of the poor... and while certainly that is some liberals, that is also a number of what the left likes to call redneck white trash and unintelligent bible thumpers. Especially when you consider that most poor democrats live in large clusters in the inner city who are easily 're-enfranchised' and most poor republicans live in remote areas that are difficult to 're-enfranchise'.

Seriously, someone show me a study that shows that this would disenfranchise more democrats than republicans.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The statement I made is clearly my personal opinion. Considering the many criticisms Republicans have about the state of our economy, or how we conduct foreign policy, it's absurd that they would make voter ID laws a top legislative priority if fraud were the perceived problem. Yet they have.

If you are saying that Republicans can claim plausible deniability, I agree with you. They are good at that. I certainly don't expect them to come right out and say "we're lying through our teeth". On the other hand, they have also been caught on tape describing to other Republicans how they expect to benefit at the polls by passing such legislation. So, can I prove that is their motive in a court of law? Of course not.

But I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to question motives when a party that claims to be fiscally responsible to a fault would waste effort and resources to address a problem that only exists on a minuscule scale, and has no discernible effect on the outcome or fairness of our elections. The only conclusion that one can draw from any study or search for electoral fraud is that elections in the US are as fair as anywhere in the world.

ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

(04-24-2014 06:19 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Wow. A whopping 164 votes out of 129,085,403 total votes.

We need to spend truckloads of money to fix this! A whole 0.0001% of the popular vote!

Hmm looking at the national vote total in a US election.. Someone does not quite understand how our republic works..

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

Liar.

(04-24-2014 11:21 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

Liar.

not my fault you are unable to use critical thinking

(04-24-2014 11:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:21 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

Liar.

not my fault you are unable to use critical thinking

My first post did. You can't understand critical? Looks delusional to you?

(04-24-2014 10:57 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 06:19 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Wow. A whopping 164 votes out of 129,085,403 total votes.

We need to spend truckloads of money to fix this! A whole 0.0001% of the popular vote!

Hmm looking at the national vote total in a US election.. Someone does not quite understand how our republic works..

^^^Describes way too many voters. The dude is missing the entire point.

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

I would have said that's what sarcasm sounds like. He's channeling his inner Colbert.

(04-25-2014 08:12 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:12 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID wouldn't disenfranchise anyone. People who claim it would are liars. Plain and simple. Liars everyone of you. Intentional liars. Blatant, wanton, passionate liars. Why you all want to lie? Compulsion? Joy? Mental? Liars, liars, liars.

^^^^
this is what delusion sounds like......

I would have said that's what sarcasm sounds like. He's channeling his inner Colbert.

No. Paul is actually that stupid.

(04-24-2014 09:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  The statement I made is clearly my personal opinion. Considering the many criticisms Republicans have about the state of our economy, or how we conduct foreign policy, it's absurd that they would make voter ID laws a top legislative priority if fraud were the perceived problem. Yet they have.

If you are saying that Republicans can claim plausible deniability, I agree with you. They are good at that. I certainly don't expect them to come right out and say "we're lying through our teeth". On the other hand, they have also been caught on tape describing to other Republicans how they expect to benefit at the polls by passing such legislation. So, can I prove that is their motive in a court of law? Of course not.

But I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to question motives when a party that claims to be fiscally responsible to a fault would waste effort and resources to address a problem that only exists on a minuscule scale, and has no discernible effect on the outcome or fairness of our elections. The only conclusion that one can draw from any study or search for electoral fraud is that elections in the US are as fair as anywhere in the world.

In other words, you see this world through an 'us vs them' lens and NOT one of right or wrong. That is certainly your prerogative, but it isn't helpful to actually solving anything nor is it healthy.

Your opinion that is has no discernible effect is demonstrably false. As I said, this isn't likely actual attempts to defraud the vote because it is relatively easy to catch. This is stupid people. If there are 164 people STUPID enough to knowingly vote twice under their own names, no doubt there are also many who are more sneaky. What percentage of murders are done by people using weapons registered to them? I'm betting it's small, and that is the functional equivalent here. I don't know about where you are, but last time I voted for President, there were about 50 other questions on the ticket.... and a meaningful number of each of those races was decided by fewer than 200 votes.

Besides, honest elections are and have always been integral to our process... and we have demanded it any time an election was held in an occupied country... regardless of your opinion of the motivations behind them.

There is one undeniable fact that when less people vote, it benefits Republicans and the more people vote, it benefits democrats.

That is what motivates both parties to do what they do.

(04-25-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is one undeniable fact that when less people vote, it benefits Republicans and the more people vote, it benefits democrats.

That is what motivates both parties to do what they do.

i would like to point out that keeping the pool of voters as small as possible has been a longstanding tactic with the conservative political base (especially the southern states with coastline) going back to the early 1800s on issues well beyond voter ID/race.

keeping the voting base small has always been to their benefit.

(04-25-2014 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is one undeniable fact that when less people vote, it benefits Republicans and the more people vote, it benefits democrats.

That is what motivates both parties to do what they do.

i would like to point out that keeping the pool of voters as small as possible has been a longstanding tactic with the conservative political base (especially the southern states with coastline) going back to the early 1800s on issues well beyond voter ID/race.

keeping the voting base small has always been to their benefit.

False. Show your data. You are regurgitating a lie.

(04-25-2014 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There is one undeniable fact that when less people vote, it benefits Republicans and the more people vote, it benefits democrats.

That is what motivates both parties to do what they do.

i would like to point out that keeping the pool of voters as small as possible has been a longstanding tactic with the conservative political base (especially the southern states with coastline) going back to the early 1800s on issues well beyond voter ID/race.

keeping the voting base small has always been to their benefit.

You're serious when you say that, aren't you.

(04-25-2014 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 09:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  The statement I made is clearly my personal opinion. Considering the many criticisms Republicans have about the state of our economy, or how we conduct foreign policy, it's absurd that they would make voter ID laws a top legislative priority if fraud were the perceived problem. Yet they have.

If you are saying that Republicans can claim plausible deniability, I agree with you. They are good at that. I certainly don't expect them to come right out and say "we're lying through our teeth". On the other hand, they have also been caught on tape describing to other Republicans how they expect to benefit at the polls by passing such legislation. So, can I prove that is their motive in a court of law? Of course not.

But I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to question motives when a party that claims to be fiscally responsible to a fault would waste effort and resources to address a problem that only exists on a minuscule scale, and has no discernible effect on the outcome or fairness of our elections. The only conclusion that one can draw from any study or search for electoral fraud is that elections in the US are as fair as anywhere in the world.

In other words, you see this world through an 'us vs them' lens and NOT one of right or wrong. That is certainly your prerogative, but it isn't helpful to actually solving anything nor is it healthy.

[b]Your opinion that is has no discernible effect is demonstrably false.[/b] As I said, this isn't likely actual attempts to defraud the vote because it is relatively easy to catch. This is stupid people. If there are 164 people STUPID enough to knowingly vote twice under their own names, no doubt there are also many who are more sneaky. What percentage of murders are done by people using weapons registered to them? I'm betting it's small, and that is the functional equivalent here. I don't know about where you are, but last time I voted for President, there were about 50 other questions on the ticket.... and a meaningful number of each of those races was decided by fewer than 200 votes.

Besides, honest elections are and have always been integral to our process... and we have demanded it any time an election was held in an occupied country... regardless of your opinion of the motivations behind them.

If it is demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, its just your opinion, same as mine, and proves my point. How do you know who any of those who voted improperly actually voted for? What reason do you have for believing that in the aggregate people who vote improperly, whether intentionally or through stupidity or just because they made an honest mistake, vote any differently than the entire population of people who voted properly in that election?

We demand fair and honest elections, and we get them. We don't have to fix what isn't broken.

(04-25-2014 12:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  If it is demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, its just your opinion, same as mine, and proves my point.

I can't possibly list all of the races where the outcome was decided by fewer than 165 votes...

however, a recent example, but hardly the only one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/pol....html?_r=0

A) it's in VA.
B) The original difference in votes was 165, almost exactly the number of people who WE KNOW voted twice.
c) somewhere on the internet that I can't find anymore is some pretty significant elections where literally ONE vote made a difference.

No, this doesn't prove that it made a difference in this election (because you're right... you can't tell how someone voted) but it certainly proves that a few votes CAN change the outcome of an election. The incidence of people voting twice isn't the only, or even the MAJOR source of wider potential fraud.


However, YOU said it had no discernible impact... and I've shown a fairly significant election (not to mention all of the smaller votes on those same ballots) where such a small number (of only the fraud we can detect) COULD have made a difference. If it COULD have made a difference, then it has a discernible impact. Add to this the fraud we cannot detect and the veracity of your claim (that it has no impact) has been disproven.

(04-25-2014 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 12:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  If it is demonstrably false, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, its just your opinion, same as mine, and proves my point.

I can't possibly list all of the races where the outcome was decided by fewer than 165 votes...

however, a recent example, but hardly the only one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/pol....html?_r=0

A) it's in VA.
B) The original difference in votes was 165, almost exactly the number of people who WE KNOW voted twice.
c) somewhere on the internet that I can't find anymore is some pretty significant elections where literally ONE vote made a difference.

No, this doesn't prove that it made a difference in this election (because you're right... you can't tell how someone voted) but it certainly proves that a few votes CAN change the outcome of an election. The incidence of people voting twice isn't the only, or even the MAJOR source of wider potential fraud.


However, YOU said it had no discernible impact... and I've shown a fairly significant election (not to mention all of the smaller votes on those same ballots) where such a small number (of only the fraud we can detect) COULD have made a difference. If it COULD have made a difference, then it has a discernible impact. Add to this the fraud we cannot detect and the veracity of your claim (that it has no impact) has been disproven.

We are arguing semantics here. To be "discernible" means that it must be more than merely possible. I don't question whether a few votes could change the outcome of an election. One vote can change the outcome of an election. One "hanging chad" can change the outcome of an election.

I don't believe absolute perfection is possible in the electoral process. I do believe that voter fraud is among the least significant things keeping us from approaching that perfection. I do believe that voter ID laws will keep more people from casting an honest ballot than it will prevent others from casting dishonest ones. I do believe that preventing some people from casting honest ballots is the primary intent of voter ID laws. And I believe that is wrong.