Did you mean “hundreds or thousands?” I’m sure that’s what you meant, otherwise you would have provided a cite.
Is there a problem with “yes” or “no”?
“Almost”? Suddenly, we get all fuzzy. How many is “almost”? Mr Holder, quoting South Carolina’s statistics, says upwards of eighty thousand. He’s lying?
And if these laws have been around as long as you say, and yet the dreadful scourge of voter fraud still haunts your fevered imagination…doesn’t seem like they’ve done much good, now have they?
I meant hundreds of thousands. I can give you a thousand of cites for absentee voter fraud. That’s discovered absentee voter fraud. For every such case there are hundreds of undiscovered fraudulent ballots.
Yes there is. You refused, upthread, to answer my question. Why should I extend that courtesy to you?
He does not show even one person who is a registered voter with no ID, no intention to get an ID, and wants to vote.
There are? I don’t suppose you have a…no, of course you don’t, if you did you wouldn’t make us drag it out of you.
Well, I would do it to support the integrity of my argument. Courtesy doesn’t enter into it, frankly. However, I am mindful of your limitations, in that my argument has integrity.
Is he supposed to? Is he supposed to talk about Ms. Jane Doe, of 1225 Apple St? Why would we assume that of 80,000 plus people who are likely to be impacted, not one of them fits your rather strict criteria? And how to we judge someone’s “intentions” to vote. Maybe today, they might not be inclined, maybe tomorrow, they are so inclined. So?
You didn’t care enough to support the integrity of yours.
It would certainly provide much more evidence than “statistics”. I gave you cites of documented cases of voter fraud. You know, where dead INDIVIDUALS voted. Not “statistics”.
Well, Heaven knows, we can’t rely on “statistics”. So, boiled down, he’s lying?
Oh, and so is the NY Times? And by the way, where did you get your numbers of “thousands” of absentee voter frauds for the hundreds “discovered”? Not “statistics”, I hope? Such a debased currency, “statistics”, especially with quotes around it.
Better we should rely on your intuition, and numbers you pull out of your ass.
No, he’s not giving any proof of even one person who was prevented from voting by these laws.
Why is he obliged to? Because Terr say so? As the Salon article noted, and we cited, SC has presented no evidence that voter fraud is a problem. How come he has to meet your standard, and they don’t? And note well, its their numbers! Perhaps they should have cited the dreadful cases in Oakland, CA. Or maybe they didn’t want to appear silly.
What documents do the poor have to show to get the “free” ID there?
The US doesn’t have a centralized records system. Someone born in Alaska will always have to deal with Alaska when getting a birth certificate, for example, and they won’t be able to get an ID in South Carolina unless they buy a birth certificate from Alaska first. But, as it happens, you can’t get an Alaska birth certificate without photo ID, which you can’t generally get without a birth certificate. It also costs $25, no exceptions.
Hundreds? Are you sure it isn’t thousands? Or millions? Or tens? Pick one and tell us exactly how you arrived at that order of magnitude.
Anyway, let’s take up residence in your imaginary world for a moment and presume this is true. Don’t you agree that it’s a huge waste of energy and expense for states to be pushing these voter ID laws that attack the smallest part of the fraud problem rather than the greatest? Why do you suppose they have their priorities backward? I’m sure we don’t need a whole new thread just to get your insights on these questions.
You demand much higher proof that voter fraud exists (as in “actual cases”) than you want from Halter (“potential cases”). Why is that?
Common sense. Is every case of absentee fraud caught? No. That means there are a lot of cases of absentee fraud that are not caught. Since the only way absentee fraud is caught is by accident or by someone tipping someone about it, it is reasonable to assume that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of such cases for every one that is caught.
No. But if you’d like, you can start a thread about absentee fraud and we’ll discuss it further.
Birth certificate if you were born before 2000 and now you get an underage version (yellow instead of blue) version of the adult ID card. All data is digital (and many municipalities are digitalizing the records (mine is and I was born in 1970).
You get a free birth certificate (even I, firmly in the upper reaches of midle class) when your baby is born. Poor people can get free copies if they need one.
Even in places were, because of terrorist attack, records were lost, you could get simple affidavits from, say, your school, college, work, parish priest of police chief to vouch for your data; and I’m talking about places with high illiteracy and dung-fueled ovens.
Just for starters, the law hasn’t taken effect yet, and, Goddess willing, never will. Hence, all cases are “potential” because, well, it hasn’t happened yet. Do try and keep up, won’t you?
“Voter fraud”, it would appear, and the cites offered bear witness, is the new “weapons of mass destruction”.
But again, you claim that these laws have been on the books for years, with no ill effects? How is it, then, that the dreadful threat of “voter fraud” hasn’t already been stopped in its tracks? If those laws didn’t ban unicorn meat, why will these do it?
And its “Holder”, by the way.
Similar laws have been in effect for almost a decade. Show me cases from other states.
The “dead voter voting” fraud has been, in those states that implemented Voter ID.
96-year-old Chattanooga resident denied voting ID
Bless her heart, she didn’t give up. Lastest word is that she will vote by absentee ballot. Oh, wait…
I win? You give up? Oh, wait, you said “cases”, didn’t you? So, one more and you slink away. That would be a shame, I was looking forward to your debunking of the NY Times article. Which would be any minute now, right? Or is that “statistics”?
Cool you found one.
I gave you hundreds. You gave me one.