I suspect you and your ilk in this context refers to people who value Democracy. 
Well, given how hard your ilk have looked, and found nothing, why wouldn’t I say that?
I say vampires don’t exist, because there is zero evidence for them. I say large conspiracies of voter fraud doesn’t exist because there is zero evidence (aside from very, very small numbers of individuals) that fraud of any kind exists in significant numbers.
Now can I say beyond a reasonable doubt that the low income folks that were drumming up names like Mickey Mouse and John Elway to pad their registration numbers weren’t also putting the names of other people they knew the addresses of and then getting others to turn up to vote at their districts and risk federal convictions so that they would sway a few dozen votes? Yes, I can say that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your faith based belief in voter fraud is as commendable as your devotion to regenerating Jewish carpenters, but it is similarly well represented in terms of evidence.
But we have found evidence of voter fraud.
“In significant numbers” is the issue.
I disagree with out about what constitutes significant numbers. An election decided by a 100,000 vote margin is not an election that could ever be swayed by in-person voter fraud. If you’re talking about that election, then you’re right: there’s no reasonable doubt that in-person voter fraud never will produce significant numbers.
But how about an election decided by 130 votes?
For that election, I don’t agree with you that fraud in “significant numbers” could never happen.
“I disagree with YOU ABout about what constitutes significant numbers.”
Not sure how those letters failed to make the cut.
The funny part is when it is Republicans who are committing vote fraud, and then use that as “proof” that vote fraud exists so therefore they must put in regulations that disenfranchise the opposition!
Brilliant!
Accepted. Show us one hundred thirty falsely registered persons who voted.
Or would you like to lower the bar a bit more?
I can’t.
But… that’s my point about Ms. Coulter. Show me she voted improperly.
See what I’m saying? You are perfectly content to assume that even though there’s no proof, she did in fact vote improperly. But when the question is turned around, you suddenly demand to be shown proof.
Which is why I said so.
Could never happen isn’t a reasonable standard. Every proton in your body could decay at the same moment. Every person in the US could sneeze at the same moment.
I’d suggest it would how likely something is, not if it could ever happen.
What laws that would make it harder for Republicans to legitimately win elections was 'Luci suggesting be passed to stop Ms. Coulter?
Yes, that’s certainly true.
But other factors come into play.
I’ve been driving for years without a car accident. Yet I wear a seatbelt, which I contend is a prudent decision.
So it’s not simply a question of asking how likely the event in question is – it’s a balancing of factors which include how much damage would ensue if the unlikely event happened, and what the cost is of the remediative measures.
In the case of voter ID, I regard the cost as small when compared to the potential damage of the admittedly unlikely event of an election of national or state significance coming down to a three- or two-digit margin.
None. Why? Are the standards for truth different depending on the subject being discussed?
Chuckling with glee at a hypocrite is held to a lower standard than systematically manipulating voting laws so that you gain a permanent electoral advantage.
Coulter is a clownshoe. Of course people giggle when she does something that makes her look like a hypocrite. I doubt people really think that she voted twice. They are making fun of her being inept.
The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.
…
Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.
This is how Channel 9′s website summarized the case:
According to county documents, Richardson’s absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.
“There’s absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud,” said Richardson. . . .
The board’s documents also state that Richardson was allegedly disruptive and hid things from other poll workers on Election Day after another female worker reported she was intimidated by Richardson. . . .
During the investigation it was also discovered that her granddaughter, India Richardson, who was a first time voter in the 2012 election, cast two ballots in November.
That’s not at all the sense I got from the posts made:
That’s an outright declaration that she’s voting improperly, not a chucklefest at her ineptitude.
That, too, isn’t a yuck-yuck-yuck – it’s a post that denies she’s innocent and claims that no one cared enough to investigate and prosecute.
You don’t think it was said with a grin? Because that’s how I read it.
By that standard, I’ve said that Coulter is literally a clownshoe. Which is madness. A clown would find her both very difficult to fit in and uncomfortable to wear.
Which only underscores that absentee ballots are the problem.
No – because calling someone a clownshoe has no reasonable interpretation apart from hyperbole. Here, we’re dealing with commentary on a perfectly sober piece of news reporting, and that commentary carries with it a perfectly reasonable literal interpretation. There’s nothing absurd about the claim that Coulter is literally guilty; no ridiculous contradiction that signals humor or other disclaimer of a factual claim.
And just be to sure, the very first thing I asked was:
Even if the posts were meant as humor, my response clearly asks for a factual, serious answer. Notice the lack of replies to me that say, “No, no, I was just joking.”
On the contrary, this underscores why Voter ID is important. here we fortunately have the woman’s own admission that she voted in person in addition to voting absentee. If she denied having done that, it would difficult, if not impossible (without Voter ID), to prove she did.
Sure, and even though I’ve never had my house broken into a high-tech security system might be prudent. But I’d be a big waste of resources if my front door was actually a bead curtain. And I’d be pretty suspicious of the motivation a ‘security consultant’ who pushed hard for the security system before even suggesting I get a locking door.
I’ts not a choice between improving voter confidence/election security by spending X resources on voter ID or nothing. The question should be “I’m willing to spend X resources, what is the best bang for my buck”. And if my actual motives are to improve confidence/security I’d look auditable electronic voting or absentee ballots long before worrying about in-person fraud.
Why “long before?” Why aren’t they of roughly equal deterrent value?