Level of individual enthusiasm is a lousy way to determine the outcome of elections. You end up with the extremes having more of a say. Also, different people face different hurtles in getting the required documentation. Unenthusiastic people who have a driver’s license and live near the polling place will be more likely to vote than more enthusiastic people who have difficulty getting the required documents.
Correct. You’re making my point for me.
So, the claim is that voter fraud is “exceedingly rare” but common enough to throw an election?
It seems to be that it’s rare but will be common enough to throw an election if there is less of it.
With any crime, the number of actual instances will surpass the number of proven instances.
That’s a complete misrepresentation of the study. The point of the study is that if you suppress the method of voting that is least amenable to fraud (in person voting), then the method that is more amenable to fraud (absentee ballots) will have a proportionately greater affect on the outcome. Voter ID laws reduce the number of otherwise eligible in person voters while having no effect on absentee voters.
If someone is truly concerned about fraud then they should be going after absentee balloting.
So what? This is what it’s all about and you know it.
Is your “key point” simply that “prosecution would be facilitated” [my paraphrase]? If so, then yes, you’re correct, it could be. But if your real point is “the threat of prosecution is generally regarded as a deterrent” then I disagree that you may conclude such here.
First, restrict this to the subset of people taking deliberate actions, not to those who by misunderstanding or through clerical error became registered voters. People who misunderstand their eligibility (e.g., thought a green card conferred voting privilege, or made them a temporary citizen, or whatnot), or who were approved in error by registration officials, would have no reason to be deterred, since they would not think their voting was an illegal act. They’re on the voter roll, why would they shrink from exercising their (apparent) right to vote? So we must remove from consideration some unknown number from the 13 cited.
Similarly, even those who knew in advance that their registration was not allowed, and who took active steps to become registered fraudulently, could be expected to take some comfort in that very process. They knew they had committed a fraud by registering, but they had already gotten away with it. What makes you think they would be deterred in exercising the granted privilege of voting, given their knowledge that their identification had been sufficient for the registrar? I’m just not buying that these couple/three hardened warriors in the campaign to bring a cornucopia of free stuff via Democratic largess through fraudulent votes comprising 0.0001% of the votes cast are going to be deterred at the fleeting possibility of having the incredibly bad luck to be discovered and targeted for prosecution someday later.
If you want to extend this into meta territory (“Well, once there are some prosecutions, then the next set of prospective careless or fraudulent registrants might think twice about it, especially if it happened in their jurisdiction, maybe not so much if it happened someplace else, but surely once we get some additional convictions the point will be taken and then – ta da! — DETERRENCE!) I’m just gonna call shenanigans on the whole idea. The numbers are tiny, and the deterrence is a hollow fantasy. Possible? Yes. Significant? Not so much. A distraction from the real intent and effect of “Voter ID”? Seems to be.
I was under the impression the thesis was that voter fraud is indeed rare, but while efforts to suppress it might reduce it by some amount, that amount will be tiny (because the problem overall is tiny to begin with) while simultaneously affecting and hampering a much larger number of legitimate voters who get caught as false positives.
I suppose it comes down to personal philosophy: we want to punish and prevent crime even at the risk of prosecuting innocents by mistake, but what level of false prosecution is sufficient to make one accept that the law isn’t worthwhile? If one believes that criminals must be chased no matter what, then I figure you’ve willfully abandoned reason. Unfortunately, the abandonment of reason is not a losing campaign strategy, though it certainly should be.
If a sports team protested loudly and vigorously for years against anti-doping tests - well, I’d be suspicious.
What if that team pointed out that due to environmental factors its players received false positives at a much greater rate than other teams’ players?
Such as what?
In the analogy, whatever you like. In the actual topic, things like Florida’s voter purges or the well-documented phenomenon that minorities and low income citizens are far less likely to possess ID.
I did not realize it was possible to defeat an argument by “calling shenanigans.”
But thank you for the introduction to this valuable tool. In a move that may not come as much surprise to you, I now intend to call shenanigans on each and every objection to Voter ID laws.
It may come as equally unsurprising that I don’t agree that deterrence is a hollow fantasy, or that there is a “ta da” associated with the analytical process.
In fact, it’s a completely straightforward and (in other contexts) unremarkable assertion: by providing a way to catch and convict lawbreakers, some people who previously risked breaking that law will forbear doing so.
You’re correct, of course, that this effect is minimal for people who genuinely believe they are eligible to vote – but even then, it’s not zero, because the knowledge that people go to jail over this kind of stuff will prompt a more careful examination of one’s ex-felon or non-citizen status.
Finally, you seem to believe that the crime happens only during the registration, and once that crime is completed, the malefactor may rest easy. But a crime happens BOTH with registration and with each vote.
What does Florida’s voter purge have to do with requiring ID?
Also: shenanigans.
Is someone against testing? I’ve never heard of anyone being against testing in person voter fraud. I would welcome testing, if only to prove how hilariously miniscule the issue is.
In Florida, the voter purges and (now adopted) voter ID legislation are intimately tied. Rick Scott called them the two prongs of the state’s election security campaign or something along those lines.
Now you get pistol whipped!
Plus doping is known to be widespread and there is strong incentive for it (indeed a view that it is necessary to stay competitive).
Vote fraud… not so much.
OK, I guess Rick Scott can defend the purge, then.
I have no comment on the purge. I support the Voter ID laws.
I don’t agree that any “intimate tie” exists to the extent that it means the two measures must be somehow non-severable.
Extra shenanigans!
Heck, treat it like the current “ISIS or STFU” in the Pit. If you want tighter laws on voter ID, agree to pay for the means to get said ID into the hands of voters at no cost to them or, y’know… STFU.