Its also a fascinating concept in argument construction, rather like seeing one of the Great Pyramids built pointy-end down, resting on a square inch of “valid neutral justification” and then piling on the bricks.
Until you reach the goal of explaining away Mr Silver’s one to two per cent suppression of legitimate voters. Now, I can freely admit being a mathtard, but I will hazard a guesstimate that number is more than 100. A whole bunch more. Really, a lot.
And yet, by some metaphysics, the rights of those hundred to their “voter confidence” is held to outweigh the concerns of…a whole bunch…of their fellow citizens. Got my old slide rule here, lets check this out…1.7 to the sixth! Shit, 1.7 times 6 isn’t even twelve!
While you’re trying to figure out an estimate of the number of cases of in-person voter fraud Bricker, here is some evidence that someone has come up with of voter fraud in Maine:
Bottom line: The head of Maine’s Republican Party saw black people voting, and since he does not know any of the state’s 15,000 black people, then there MUST have been fraud. It’s just logical, right?
Sure. But if your first post in this little subthread had said, “In my opinion, there should be this penalty for Voter ID laws, but it’s never been enforced because the courts don’t agree with my opinion,” I would have not responded. You can have any opinion you wish.
By adducing evidence that the particular person was the one that actually voted. With no ID, the illegal voter can later simply deny he was the one casting the illegal ballot. (See Ramon Cue of Miami).
This has already been mentioned, but you have trouble forming long term memories when they rebut your bullshit beliefs. So allow me to repeat:
No one is going to be convicted when any defense attorney can say, “Poll Worker X, you checked in over a thousand people. Isn’t it true that you didn’t look very closely at each and every ID?” or “Do you have any training in spotting fake IDs?” or “Isn’t it possible that in the rush, someone with a fake ID fooled you?”
I also remain flummoxed by why Bricker thinks this is convincing evidence. He has associated it with check fraud, but unless there’s some kind of physical or electronic recording of the ID itself, I just don’t get why this would be any more convincing.
I think it’s because Bricker has seen this work as an attorney. He throws up bullshit that sounds right, but only if you’re talking and don’t have a moment to reflect on it or check into the logic behind it.
He doesn’t get that he’s writing shit down here, so bellowing bluster doesn’t carry a debate here.
Bricker, How many cases of in-person voter fraud (of the kind that could be prevented by ID) would you expect in a state the size of Wisconsin?
Would you expect 75 - 100 cases of in-person fraud in a state of that size?
50-74?
25-49?
1-24?
0?
What do you base this estimate on? Cite?
If there are (say) 26 cases of in-person fraud in a state of this size, would 13 be Democrat and 13 Republican? Or all Democrat? What do you base this estimate on? Cite?
Bonus Question: Would you agree with Charlie Wright, the head of Maine’s Republican Party, that if there are towns where “nobody in town knows anyone who’s black.”, if you see black people at the polls, it is good evidence of voter fraud?
My best guess is you’re wrong because you don’t really understand what legal sufficiency of the evidence means. But I admit I could be mistaken, which is why I asked you to share your understanding of the concept.
The notional figure cited from a study quoted earlier in this thread, which IIRC was offered up by Hentor, was 0.0004% fraud.
In a state the size of Wisconsin, with about 5.7 million people, I’d expect to see about 23 fraudulent votes. In your range, then, over 49 would surprise me. I have no idea how they might break out along party lines.
I’d say if there’s a small town, where everyone legitimately knows everyone else, then anyone you see at the polls that you don’t recognize, is, almost by definition, at least worthy of a second look, no matter their color.
I have no idea what size of town Wright was talking about and no way to judge how valid his perception of knowing everyone in town is. There certainly exist towns in which that perception would be valid.
Because the testimony of such a person, standing alone, if believed by the jury, would be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction.
So far as I can determine, you’re claiming that no jury would believe it. I don’t agree, but surely you can see that’s a matter for an individual jury to judge the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility. I – nor you – have any idea how convincing and believable a given poll worker witness would be.
But from the standpoint of law, that poll worker’s testimony is legally sufficient to convict.
I’ve been a doorman. I can guarantee you that people get away with fake IDs all the time. I was good at it, but many don’t give a fuck. And I suspect that some middle-aged volunteer isn’t going to be very difficult to paint as unskilled in ID checking.
Edit: I’m not saying that someone will vote with a fake ID. I’m saying that someone accused will say, “Someone pretended to be me and used a fake ID.”
Now if you wanted to add video of the people checking in, and we might be getting somewhere. That would work better than ID. Would you support video cameras behind the shoulders of the poll workers that film each person as their name is crossed off the list?
In any case, none of this changes the fact that suppressing many more votes than would have committed in-person fraud is absurd.
It’s possible that such a defense would be believed. But if it’s not, the testimony of the poll worker is sufficient to convict.
I’d support no IDs and just taking a fingerprint from each person who voted. That would be an even better way of tying the person to the vote.
My opinion is that those people who choose to not get a free photo ID in order to vote are not “suppressed” in any meaningful sense. For this reason, I don’t agree with you.
If you ever had done anything to *support *that opinion, anything at all to explain how you reached it, rather than simply repeat it like Rain Man, anything other than simply deny every explanation you’ve been given about how that view is factually and morally mistaken, you might not get as much criticism as you do, knowhamean?
But the fact that you still haven’t means you can’t, right?