OK, I’m confused. But I gather your ultimate question was: Has voter ID fraud ever actually swayed an election?
And my answer is: We can’t know, because with no Voter ID, we can’t prove who did and didn’t vote.
There have only been a combined total of 35 fraudulent voter cases in Washington in all of the elections held since 2000. So if every fraudulent vote that has been cast in the state for the last six elections had been cast in that single election it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. cite
As an attorney you should know better than most there are light years of difference between what COULD have been and what happened.
Furthermore, the larger question regards efforts to minimize the chances for voter fraud to occur.
The first step, as you have done, is shown a case where the race was so close that voter fraud could easily have had a meaningful impact on the election.
All well and good but one would then have to suppose that the criminals knew it was going to be close so their efforts would pay off.
Historically the vast majority of elections are nowhere near close enough to be swayed by anything short of massive voter fraud (in particular, for this thread, we are talking about voter impersonation/voting more than once and so on).
Considering the penalties for voter fraud (which vary state-to-state) are pretty stiff with little upside for the people committing it one is hard pressed to see why anyone would try. The chances they will affect the election are miniscule and the chances of being caught are pretty good and the penalties severe for trying.
I am not saying voter fraud isn’t attempted but getting a bunch of people to do it at the polls is an exceptionally poor method.
There is a reason anytime this has been studied very few examples of actual, in person voter fraud is ever turned up.
Have illegal vampires secretly been voting in elections?
We can’t know. But as a precaution we should require all voters to pass a garlic test.
There have only been 35 confirmed voter fraud cases, meaning cases that were prosecuted.
As I have been mentioning, though, if there’s no Voter ID, it’s very difficult to prove an illegal voter actually voted. So that doesn’t mean there were only 35 cases — it means that of all the cases of voter fraud that happened, only 35 produced enough evidence to take to court.
Right?
Could you supply a link to the case of the fraudulent voter with the oh so amusingly Nordic name? Nope.
Here’s a real cite:
A Texas study cited on a Houston morning news show agreed. Voter fraud was extremely rare–but those rare cases were usually linked to absentee ballots. This “problem” is usually ignored by the vote restricting Republicans, probably because they think absentee voters tend to be old Republican farts. Old Anglo Republican farts…
Oh, it wouldn’t shock me, I just thought all the Sven’s would help even it out a bit. 
That’s your view. And the way our system works is this: if you garner enough support for your garlic plan, and get the legislature to pass it and the governor to sign it, then we’ll see.
But simply because you personally don’t agree that these concerns are worthy of addressing does not give you any particular power to thwart the attempts to address them.
No one gives a shit about vampires voting. People do give a shit about illegal votes cast by unqualified voters. That’s why the proposal I am discussing has become law.
You cannot argue against the validity of a law by imagining some other scenario and claiming that it, too, should be law. Because that’s not how it works.
All it means is that you’ve got 35 confirmed cases. What percentage of total votes would that be? If it were (being generous here) 10 times as many cases of fraud, what percentage of total votes cast would it be then? If it were(let’s just get silly here) one hundred times as many, what percentage of total votes would it be?
Ah! So you renounce, denounce and condemn?
And, yes, of course you are so entitled. But these further actions reveal an agenda, an agenda that no fair minded person should support. An agenda that is far more sweeping and destructive than “voter ID” issues.
I can certainly understand why you would be at pains to keep us focused on the part of this nefarious plot that you can offer a shred of justification for, however flimsy. I trust you can understand why I have no reason to let you get away with it.
From your real cite:
But of course, as I said above, we’re not talking about voter impersonation.
And:
But that’s the point, isn’t it? If they “technically” cast an illegal ballot, why isn’t their number added to the mix?
I’m not saying people voted knowingly illegally. I’m saying their votes shouldn’t be counted, even if they cast those votes confident, but mistaken, about their legal right to do so.
And those are just the ones they know about.
Jeff Manza, Christopher Uggen, and Marcus Britton
Abstract
As incarceration levels have risen in the United States, an ever-larger number of citizens have temporarily or permanently lost the right to vote. What are the political consequences of such franchise restrictions for convicted felons? To estimate expected turnout and vote choice among disfranchised felons, we combine legal sources with data series from the National Election Study, the Current Population Survey Voting Supplement, Surveys of State Prison Inmates, and National Corrections Reporting Program. To assess political impact, we examine two counterfactual conditions: (1) whether removing disfranchisement laws would have altered the composition of the U.S. Senate; and, (2) whether applying contemporary rates of disfranchisement to prior presidential elections would have affected their outcomes. Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disfranchisement laws tend to take votes from Democratic candidates. Our results suggest that felon disfranchisement played a decisive role in several U.S. Senate elections, contributing to the Republican Senate majority of the early 1980s and mid-1990s. Moreover, at least one recent Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disfranchisement prevailed during earlier periods.
This working paper has been published in the
American Sociological Review (2002, 67, December: 777-803).
How about arguing the validity of a law via popularity instead of necessity? :dubious:
Look, guys, if you really want to make absolutely sure no noncitizen or felon ever votes illegally, there’s only one way: A national ID card (issued free of charge so there’s no question of it being a poll tax) combined with a national database. Your file on this database would be referenced and accessible by any of your ID numbers (national ID, SSN, DL, passport, etc.). It would include scanned copies of every documentary record of every personal interaction with American government you ever have had on any level – birth certificate, school records (“I hope you know this will go down on your permanent record.” It will! :)), DL applications, welfare or unemployment applications, any records of arrest, conviction, restoration-of-rights, naturalization record if applicable, military record if applicable, etc., etc. Any time you interact with government, the paperwork will be emailed to the agency running the database automatically. Including, at the last, your death certificate, and then your file will be marked “DECEASED.”
This would eliminate the need for voter registration. If you are legally eligible, your ID – any ID – would be your registration; everyone who is in this database is registered to vote automatically. Just walk in and show it to the poll workers. They’ll slide it through a credit-card reader and be able to see any disqualifying points right in front of them; if it turns out you can’t vote, you will not be arrested but simply be politely turned away, no harm, no foul. If the system is done right, you’ll be listed on the precinct-rolls already, just because government has a record of your current address. A problem arises only if you have not interacted with government since the last time you moved; that would be the only case where a “provisional ballot” might be in order.
Otherwise, the only purpose of voter registration is to let you register as D, R, or I, and the only point of that is which party’s primary you get to vote in; but that could be an election-day choice, why not. If you maliciously want to vote in the other party’s primary for strategic reasons – well, you can do that now, just register for that party.
This database would also make identity theft much harder, and fugitives or anyone under an arrest warrant easier to catch. Undocumented immigrants, too – and those who employ them. And, of course, the database would be an important source of accurate statistics. Heck, it might even substitute, to some limited degree, for the Census.
Apart from the expense, I see no objections to such a system. “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”
But I think some will object. It just doesn’t sound American, y’know? "Are hyour paperz in order, mein Herr?"
But, look, we’ve already gotten used to a system where, when you’re driving, a cop can pull you over for any reason that seems good to him, and demand to see your DL, and check it against a database with his onboard computer, and if you have any arrest warrants you’ll be arrested.
And here’s the biggest problem you guys on the Left have in fighting this issue:
Well, basically, in a representative democracy, this is how it works: we select representatives to enact the wishes of the people, and those represen…
You know, maybe you should just review this link and get back to me with any questions.
See post #54. How would that poll, do you think?
Well, not exactly. We elect them to do what they think is best by their own lights (knowing any decision too unpopular will cost them at the next election).
Yes, good point.
I still say my fingerprint idea would be cheaper than this, but i have no real objections to it, other than cost.
And I think the cost problems would be offset by the various advantages you outline. I’d agree to this.
Well, you know the result of the Bricker poll:
AGREE: 100% DISAGREE: 0%
For the public at large, I think there’d be a bare majority approving it.