You already have such a system in place and according to all available research it does so with 99.999% effectiveness.
Your desperate need to win a point, any point, has touched my generous core. I concede the point, and will throw appropriate confetti for your victory boogie. It could only be improved by any actual mention of voter confidence, but i haven’t the heart to rob you of this triumph.
Bricker doesn’t seem to understand that 0.00004% is the same when the total votes cast are 126 million or 126.
Florida 2000 had nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with awful ballot design.
No, we don’t. The “research” is negative – since we cannot reliably prove that a particular voter actually voted, we cannot meaningfully prosecute voter fraud. You cannot, then, point to the lack of prosecutions as proof that the fraud does not exist.
For example, I have previously shown this case:
So here’s a guy who simply denies he voted, even though records show that someone using his name and address did vote. But without any way to prove that Cue was the actual person, a prosecution is highly unlikely to be successful.
But you point to the lack of such prosecutions as evidence there is no illegal voting. Instead, the lack proves nothing, since even if there were such illegal voting, prosecutions wouldn’t be in evidence.
Unquestionably awful ballot design played a part.
That doesn’t address the point, though – what of elections where ballot design is not an issue. Was the 2004 Washington election also a ballot design problem?
But it could! Assuming that voter fraud actually exists to any measurable extent, it then becomes possible that such a factor might have a measurable impact! Given a set of extraordinary events, at the very limit of the possible, it could happen!
I am reminded of a Warner Bros cartoon where Daffy Duck sells an insurance policy that only pays if the injury occurs as a result of an elephant stampede in a raging snowstorm on the 4th of July.
I have no idea where the figure “0.00004%” came from, and what its applicability to this discussion is. So, true, I can’t begin to parse out what you mean.
Quit intentionally conflating prosecution with identification, you weasel.
We’ve been all through this before, and you ultimately ran away from it when we were done. Count anyone who says they didn’t vote as a case of voter fraud. We’ll allow you to do that even when they are impaired in a manner that might mean their report is a false positive.
That has nothing to do with prosecution and everything to do with measuring the scope of the “problem.”
God, but you are a deceitful slimeball.
Washington State, 2004.
Indiana’s 8th congressional district, 1984.
United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 1974.
Alaska House of Representatives District 7, 2008.
United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008.
Connecticut’s 2nd congressional district, 1994.
Gee, how many elephants are there in snowstorms?
I don’t think he actually said anything about prosecutions.
About as many as there are links to support your suggestions.
I’m sure you cannot, because basic math properties appear to elude you.
It’s good you pursued a career where such skills are not needed.
I’m quite certain, by the way, that you’ve already been provided with the 0.00004% figure, and with at least one source for it. But see here, you lying weasel sack:
On the contrary, I haven’t run away from anything. You have laid out a method which, if used across the board, could indeed identify the scope of illegal votes. So far as you have shown, though, it hasn’t been done in anything approaching a comprehensive way, and yet you insist that we should assume the numbers are zero until proven otherwise.
Frustrated with that refutation of your claims, you resort to hurling insults my way, apparently hoping I’ll be cowed by your barrage of mean words and stop pointing out your lack of solid evidentiary support.
So far, though, I keep remembering the sticks and stones thing, so it’s not working.
BWAHAHAHA!!!
Hilarious. From a source that is obviously not neutral in the discussion, here is the source of 0.00004%:
So that figure comes from ONE election.
And yet here’s what you said:
Yes, I don’t understand: how is the illegal voter rate from one election “the same” as anything else, even if I accept it as the truth? That’s hilarious.
The Brennan Center does not cite precisely how they “closely-analyzed” the Ohio results, but if they used person of your analytical ability, I doubt the accuracy of thier number. In any event, even they don’t claim that “0.00004%” is anything more widely applicable than the rate of illegal voters in Ohio in 2004. Why should I care about that number?
Reading the Wikipedia page on the ‘fraud’ in the Washington 2004 elections is hilarious! Some highlights (Rossi is R/Gregoire is D):
Emphasis mine.
Finally! After you repeatedly insisted that it was impossible to measure voter fraud, I had to engage in a painstaking process of hiding you and educating you about your own state’s voter registration. We delved into the social security system in order to assess how we would identify your Nordic sleeper vote fraudster.
When finally we had reached the end game, I asked you in post 542:
You chose to respond by arguing that I had erred in accusing you of argumentum ad populum.
Now, some 550 odd posts later, you finally man up and answer the question. Congrats. You have cells that might some day form a spine.
Because almost every other election in the US where voter fraud has been measured produces results that are as minuscule as that one?
Damn; son! Asked and answered. Allow the bailiff to read from the transcript:
Lawyas gonna loy, I guess.
Seriously?
I have to type {url="jhsfdshebf387y5tuf for these because you can’t cut and paste into Google?
OK.
The Indiana 8th in 1984 is #2.
Washington State, 2004 is #6
United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 1974, is #1.
Alaska House of Representatives District 7, 2008 does not appear there, but here is a link to his four-vote win.
United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, is #7
Connecticut’s 2nd congressional district, 1994, is #4.
It took you fifteen seconds to demand the links, and me five minutes to provide it. Why didn’t you just Google them?