Most of them. I want everyone who is allowed to vote to feel they can vote without intimidation. I want no one who is not allowed to vote to cast even one ballot, thereby negating the vote of a legal voter.
Can we agree on that much?
“Negating” a vote? That’s a funny way to look at it – like real Americans vote this way, and non-real Americans vote this way.
I think we can also agree that none of us want unicorns stampeding through the polling places and goring voters regardless of their political persuasion.
I actually would like to see a unicorn stampede.
…Naw, too obvious. 
And goring voters? Skewered, impaled like civic shish-ka-bob, is that what you want, you bloodthirsty deev?
What?!! If voter A is a legal voter and voter B is an illegal voter, and they vote for opposing candidates, voter B negates the vote of voter A unnecessarily and unfairly.
What are you talking about with “real Americans” and “non-real Americans”?
It depends. There is no law in Wisconsin that outlaws carrying weapons on or near a polling place, banks, or churches.
However: around here there are a lot of polling places located in schools. It is a felony to carry a firearm in a school or on school property. The law doesn’t even make any exception for CCL holders or for off duty police officers. The law in Wisconsin only exempts on duty officers acting in official capacity. And this law is enforced pretty strictly.
So if these clowns take a firearm on school property they’ll quickly find themselves up to their necks in shit.
Everybody likes shishkabob!
Nope. Because for every illegal vote that you want to suppress, you’re going to wind up, intentionally or not, suppressing tens of thousands of legal voters. This vote suppression is the true intent of the voter ID laws, whether or not their backers admit to it.
What!!! Nothing is negated. Both votes - both the large numbers of legal and the tiny numbers of illegal votes - would be counted. The idea that the rare illegal vote cancels out something - either literally or metaphorically - makes as much sense as saying that every same sex marriage negates one traditional marriage. No, it doesn’t. One has nothing to do with the other.
I’m against voter fraud, but one can’t simply invent reasons to exaggerate why it is wrong.
I’m fascinated by some people’s continued belief in an imaginary horde of nonqualified voters changing election results, and in that it’s worth going to any extreme to prevent even one such theoretical vote. But of course it’s just their new mythology in order to justify vote suppression after they had all sorts of prior exclusion methods taken away from them.
Some people seriously can’t imagine that the other side might actually legitimately win elections.
You need to review the exchange. But for you to claim that your legal vote for Candidate A is not, in essence, negated by my illegal vote for Candidate B is ridiculous.
How? If there are 5 illegal votes in a given election, and 500,000 legal votes, which votes are cancelled out?
5 of them.
You’re assuming, of course, that all 5 “illegal” votes are for the same candidate.
Oops. Hit return inadvertently and then ran out of time. as I was saying…
5 of them. Does it affect the outcome? Of course not.
But lets say there are 251,000 votes for A and 249,000 votes for B. And lets say all 5 of those illegal votes were cast for candidate A. Clearly, B should have won. We have voting rules for a reason. They should be enforced so that only those eligible to vote do vote. Like they are in just about every other country. A position counter to this is utterly baffling. I agree that we don’t want to inadvertently prevent a legally eligible voter from voting, and I think we can do both. But let’s not turn this thread into one about voter fraud. There’s already a nice long thread about that.
The thrust of this thread is voter intimidation, which I condemn in the instance cited in the OP, just as with the incident with the New Black Panthers.
5 of them? I see what Magellan is saying, in that all sets of opposed votes cancel each other. In other words, if I support candidate A and oh suppot candidate B, the result is going to be the same if both of us vote as if brother of us did. Its the same principal behind legislative pairing.
So in that sense, every fraudulant vote penalizes legitimate voters, because it faces a candidate votes he shouldn’t have.
Man, you could do a running-of-the-unicorns thing that would make people forget all about Pamplona!