# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 94
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1861 "2012-07-26T02:52:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And how is that relevant? What inference should we draw from that number? I guess he could make the claim that there is no risk of computer viruses because only a few people have ever been charged with the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1862 "2012-07-26T03:04:13Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > But you did acknowledge that fraudulent votes can still be cast under your preferred system. Yes. And? I didn’t acknowledge that was “the problem.” in fact, I have specifically said that bot confidence was the problem. I didn’t acknowledge that the problem wasn’t solved. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1863 "2012-07-26T10:28:26Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I guess he could make the claim that there is no risk of computer viruses because only a few people have ever been charged with the crime. People have actually had direct experience with computer viruses. Concerted efforts to find fraudulent voters have turned up essentially 0. Otherwise, your analogy is spot on. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1864 "2012-07-26T10:31:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > And? > > I didn’t acknowledge that was “the problem.” in fact, I have specifically said that bot confidence was the problem. I didn’t acknowledge that the problem wasn’t solved. So, I’m the dishonest debater because I should have anticipated that you’d eventually give up on the issue of actual fraud and fall back to the issue of confidence? Jesus, you can’t even be honest in your accusations of dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1865 "2012-07-26T11:15:53Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Concerted efforts to find fraudulent voters have turned up essentially 0. Gee, could it be because it is so difficult to detect and to tie back to the perpetrator? Kind of like I was alluding to in my analogy? And the reason most people know about computer viruses is because of the anti-virus software that tells them there is a problem. Otherwise, they wouldn’t know there was one. Which could conceivably be the case with voter fraud because of the lack of a reliable detection method. It is possible, or are you so far over the edge that the possibility eludes you? ---
**Author:** ![Skip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@Skip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skip)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1866 "2012-07-26T11:28:42Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Gee, could it be because it is so difficult to detect and to tie back to the perpetrator? Kind of like I was alluding to in my analogy? It’s actually pretty easy to detect. You take a decent sample size of the electoral roll that were marked as having voted and survey them to ascertain if they really did vote. That won’t tell you exactly which votes were fraudulent but will indicate how many were. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1867 "2012-07-26T11:41:44Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Gee, could it be because it is so difficult to detect and to tie back to the perpetrator? Kind of like I was alluding to in my analogy? > > And the reason most people know about computer viruses is because of the anti-virus software that tells them there is a problem. Otherwise, they wouldn’t know there was one. Which could conceivably be the case with voter fraud because of the lack of a reliable detection method. > > It is possible, or are you so far over the edge that the possibility eludes you? You are thick, I guess. Dense. Stupid. We did all this in the first part of this thread. Even Bricker gave up on the idea that detection of fraudulent votes would be difficult. (Although who knows if he’s re-changed his position on that.) Rather than be repetitive, I suggest you re-read the thread. Or you could just stick with **Skip’s** post above. That might be less challenging for you, since it would reduce the amount of reading required. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1868 "2012-07-26T11:49:37Z")
> [@Skip](#): > > It’s actually pretty easy to detect. You take a decent sample size of the electoral roll that were marked as having voted and survey them to ascertain if they really did vote. That won’t tell you exactly which votes were fraudulent but will indicate how many were. Sure, it will tell you which votes were fraudulent - the ones cast by the people who say they didn’t vote! The problem is one of false positives, really. Some people may say they did not vote when they did, due to problems with cognition and recall. Your identified rate may be slightly inflated. When we’re talking in the range of .00004% to .0009%, it won’t make that much difference. ---
**Author:** ![Skip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@Skip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skip)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1869 "2012-07-26T12:11:31Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Sure, it will tell you which votes were fraudulent - the ones cast by the people who say they didn’t vote! In that particular sample yes, but not when extrapolated to the entire population of vote. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1870 "2012-07-26T12:38:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Or he’s implying that they’re more likely to be working three jobs and less likely to have a car and the time to go get an ID, especially where the place to get the ID is far away. Which is hardly an insignificant problem. If he hasn’t got time to get a photo ID, when will he have time to vote? > [@Gyrate](#): > > I would need to be convinced that getting the ID was not an onerous burden before I even began to consider this a reasonable requirement. You don’t quite understand. You need to prove that it is an onerous burden on a significant number of people. Citing a few bogus statistics from a lberal propaganda mill doesn’t come anywhere close to doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1871 "2012-07-26T13:09:59Z")
> [@Skip](#): > > In that particular sample yes, but not when extrapolated to the entire population of vote. Ah, yes, I see your point now. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1872 "2012-07-26T13:34:29Z")
> [@Skip](#): > > It’s actually pretty easy to detect. You take a decent sample size of the electoral roll that were marked as having voted and survey them to ascertain if they really did vote. That won’t tell you exactly which votes were fraudulent but will indicate how many were. Sounds great. Anyone doing it? It still doesn’t mean that people will be convicted as you have no idea who may have committed the fraud, so conviction rates are not a useful indication of prevalence. Which is where **Hentor the Idiot** fails in understanding when I said, “difficult to detect **and** to tie back to the perpetrator”. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1873 "2012-07-26T14:26:36Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Sounds great. Anyone doing it? It still doesn’t mean that people will be convicted as you have no idea who may have committed the fraud, so conviction rates are not a useful indication of prevalence. > > Which is where **Hentor the Idiot** fails in understanding when I said, “difficult to detect **and** to tie back to the perpetrator”. Yes, efforts to assess the level of voter fraud have been undertaken on multiple occasions in a variety of venues. I agree with you that conviction rates are not particularly germane to the issue of prevalence. In fact, if you’ll recall the beginnings of this thread, and the GD thread that sprouted around the same time, I repeatedly made this point to **Bricker** , who kept wanting to bring convictions into the discussion. As long as we agree that voter fraud would not be difficult to detect, we’re in accord. ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1874 "2012-07-26T16:49:11Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > If he hasn’t got time to get a photo ID, when will he have time to vote?. You’re under the impression that the two take the same amount of time and effort to accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1875 "2012-07-26T19:11:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I guess I was simply connecting dots ahead of schedule. > > Ok, fine. > > Yes, there have been no more than ten cases of prosecuted in-person voter fraud. > > And how is that relevant? What inference should we draw from that number? Gee, that’s a toughy! Howsabout that voter fraud is so insignificant that it does not require any major effort to deal with? That it certainly does not qualify as a “neutral justification” to support underhanded partisan skulduggery, as you have claimed. That the simple fact of its rarity is quite sufficient to answer hysterical claims of injury to “voter confidence”. Which, connecting the dots, would lead us to the realization that voter integrity and confidence have nothing whatever to do with what is a blatant attempt to bugger the Democrats at the polls. As well, your dreadful scenario of an election so close that voter fraud may reasonably have some effect is a rationalization posing as a reasonable argument, the attempt to elevate something just barely possible to the level of the plausible. And finally, that your so called “neutral justification” is little more than an effort to use a sophistic rationalization in place of a reasonable concern. And, realizing the putrid and disgusting partisan nature of these efforts, you would denounce, renounce and condemn them if you had even a smidgeon of integrity. About covers it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1876 "2012-07-26T19:29:58Z")
Sorta kinda an aside: Google Coleman Franken election fraud. It appears that there was an effort on the part of Republican supporters of Coleman (whom you may have forgotten, but is the only human known whom Garrison Keillor actually hates) to prove that votes cast by felons provided the difference in voting. Leads off with FoxNews, natch. The Google search provides an avalanche in a minor key, and I haven’t given it enough attention to give you a complete précis, but I live here, and don’t recall much of anything about this. So far as I know, there was no outbreak of voter hysteria about the confidence, etc. and it sank beneath the waves without so much as a ripple. So far, the most important point suggests that the Republicans poring over the voter rolls misunderstood sentencing, in that some persons convicted of a felony were sentenced to loss of voting privilege, but the sentence was later amended to probation without such loss. But I’m not going to pretend to having read very single report on this, as so many links lead to sites that make Fox Gnaws appear positively centrist, and I do not wish to soil my beautiful mind. Too much. A little is ok. At any rate, the skies did not fall and the supplies of Cream of Mushroom Soup were never at threat. (That last is an in-joke, trivial, and if you don’t live here, you most likely won’t get it, and aren’t missing much of anything…) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1877 "2012-07-26T20:06:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > …Not one person will be disenfranchised by these laws. Anyone entitled to vote can get ID, for free if they can’t afford it. There will be some people who choose not to vote because of this. That’s not disenfranchisement. Quite forgot I meant to answer this. Yes, “disenfranchise” has a very specific meaning, and if you intend to bricker it by sheltering in semantic precision, that is your right. But if the question isn’t actual disenfranchisement, if it is simply a matter of hindering a certain class of voters for a partisan benefit, does that somehow become legitimate, simply because it doesn’t actually forbid anyone to vote? For myself, using the power of the legislature to promote and ensure one party’s electoral success is disgusting and literally un-American. It ought not even be contemplated by men of integrity, much less acted upon. If the Republicans cannot win without stooping to such, they should not win. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1878 "2012-07-26T22:47:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But if the question isn’t actual disenfranchisement, if it is simply a matter of hindering a certain class of voters for a partisan benefit, does that somehow become legitimate, simply because it doesn’t actually forbid anyone to vote? Depends what you mean by legitimate. Certainly, it’s _legal_, which is one relevant meaning here. > [@](#): > > For myself, using the power of the legislature to promote and ensure one party’s electoral success is disgusting and literally un-American. It ought not even be contemplated by men of integrity, much less acted upon. If the Republicans cannot win without stooping to such, they should not win. Here, of course, you’re using another meaning of “legitimate”. The problem here is that most politicians aren’t “men of integrity” - that’s why we need laws that control their conduct. Most _people_ don’t have the level of integrity you suggest - to avoid doing something legal for the benefit of both themselves and the cause they support, even though it’s immoral. Don’t take this as being a “but they do it too” type post, as I think that overall the Democrats have more integrity than the Republicans, but still nowhere near enough to meet your standards. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1879 "2012-07-26T23:13:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Depends what you mean by legitimate. Certainly, it’s _legal_, which is one relevant meaning here. > > Here, of course, you’re using another meaning of “legitimate”. The problem here is that most politicians aren’t “men of integrity” - that’s why we need laws that control their conduct. Most _people_ don’t have the level of integrity you suggest - to avoid doing something legal for the benefit of both themselves and the cause they support, even though it’s immoral. > > Don’t take this as being a “but they do it too” type post, as I think that overall the Democrats have more integrity than the Republicans, but still nowhere near enough to meet your standards. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’re saying here, but… what does this mean as far as how we should actually react to the issue at hand? Throw up our hands and say “ah, well, people are corrupt, life sucks”? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/1880 "2012-07-27T00:45:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But I’m not going to pretend to having read very single report on this, as so many links lead to sites that make Fox Gnaws appear positively centrist, and I do not wish to soil my beautiful mind. Too much. A little is ok. That’s the problem I’ve been having as well. Trying to find a ‘neutral’ source amid the noise. ‘Voter Fraud’ ends up with so much paranoid ‘opinion’ that finding actual information is difficult. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=93) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=95)