Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

[David42]

@Airbeck

My initial post in this thread was me directly replying to a challenge that you posed to elucidator regarding the need for proof that something being improper doesn’t mean that it is also fraudulent. You posed that challenge as if regardless of whatever else had been debunked about that cite and those figures, he still needed to show that the improper votes weren’t also fraudulent, and if he couldn’t then that proves voter fraud, and therefore wins the point and also the argument. I didn’t see it that way, so I decided to meet your challenge and show that this cite, and the word improper, does not prove voter fraud at all. So therefore the one thing that you were still taking from that cite to help your side disappears and the cite becomes irrelevant to the discussion, rather than the proof you are using to try to force elucidator to admit defeat. Thats the burden I was referring to. Defending your own challenge.

Do you not get through your head that this is NOT my effort to prove voter fraud, but my comment that elucidator’s attempt to prove there was no fraud in this case had failed?

I have no duty to prove voter fraud. It’s not my claim. Others have stood on it, but not me.

I did suggest an example I had heard of to elucidator because I simply do not believe his claim unless he can explain these state officials who say they’ve found voter fraud.

Please stop your strawman now that I was attempting to prove voter fraud by claiming all improper ballots must be fraudulent.

[Airbeck]

@David42

Do you not get through your head that this is NOT my effort to prove voter fraud, but my comment that elucidator’s attempt to prove there was no fraud in this case had failed?

I have no duty to prove voter fraud. It’s not my claim. Others have stood on it, but not me.

I did suggest an example I had heard of to elucidator because I simply do not believe his claim unless he can explain these state officials who say they’ve found voter fraud.

Please stop your strawman now that I was attempting to prove voter fraud by claiming all improper ballots must be fraudulent.

All I was doing was disproving your assertion and meeting your challenge. I never said that you were trying to prove voter fraud by claiming that all improper ballots must be fraudulent. That’s a strawman my friend. When did I claim that nonsense?

[David42]

@Airbeck

All I was doing was disproving your assertion and meeting your challenge. I never said that you were trying to prove voter fraud by claiming that all improper ballots must be fraudulent. That’s a strawman my friend. When did I claim that nonsense?

(my bold)

That would be post 388:

@Airbeck

I didn’t say that anyone made a burden of proof. I was trying to say that you guys haven’t made yours in regard to proving that this was indeed a case of voter fraud. I satisfied the condition that you layed out to elucidator, that’s all.

Don’t you have something better to do? Really I grow tired of this sort of quibbling.

Look either you agree with me that elucidator failed to prove the non-existance of voter fraud by showing improper votes, or you do not.

If you do not, we must agree to disagree, but I am not going to go on and on with you if you’re going to keep saying you haven’t said things you clearly have. I do not particularly enjoy searching the thread over and over.

Be done with it.

[Airbeck]

@David42

(my bold)

That would be post 388:

Don’t you have something better to do? Really I grow tired of this sort of quibbling.

Look either you agree with me that elucidator failed to prove the non-existance of voter fraud by showing improper votes, or you do not.

If you do not, we must agree to disagree, but I am not going to go on and on with you if you’re going to keep saying you haven’t said things you clearly have. I do not particularly enjoy searching the thread over and over.

Be done with it.

I don’t see “all improper ballots must be fraudulent” in that second quote though. Where do you see it?

But ok, we can be done if you like.

[Saint_Cad]

@Bricker

Which state’s laws don’t provide for free ID?

I’m on your side but . . .
I think the issue is I’m sitting here without a birth certificate or passport (Question? How do they work in a state that requires proof of legal residency?) then what is the process in it’s entirety (with cost) to get that ID?
For someoneborn in LA County I believe it was about $50 including stamps and two friends + the cost of the ID.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@elucidator

Just realized, to my horror, that you have sort of a point: we on the left have seriously undermined the confidence of the electorate! We have informed the people who are getting screwed by this that they are getting screwed! Thereby, we undermine what little confidence they may have had! Boy, is my face red!

I already claimed that I felt less confidence in our elections when Voter ID laws were put in place in my state. The problem is we are anecdotal. That and Bricker already dismissed studies from the likes of Harvard, Columbia, and MIT and a whole chapter of a book from a Loyola Law professor, so obviously even if we were to accumulate a sizable number of people like ourselves, this would still unlikely away him.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

I already claimed that I felt less confidence in our elections when Voter ID laws were put in place in my state. The problem is we are anecdotal. That and Bricker already dismissed studies from the likes of Harvard, Columbia, and MIT and a whole chapter of a book from a Loyola Law professor, so obviously even if we were to accumulate a sizable number of people like ourselves, this would still unlikely away him.

I don’t believe you understand my argument, since you keep repeating this business above.

Can you restate my argument in your words?

[crowmanyclouds]

@David42

… still haven’t addressed the South Carolina Attorney General’s claim of potentially 900 fraudulent zombie votes. …

So the South Carolina Attorney General has discovered that 900 dead people voted? Maybe somebody like the South Carolina Attorney General could use those investigative skills to find the dead people still on the poll lists before the election?

Dead people voting isn’t a good argument for voter IDs. It is proof that the procedures in place to deal with that problem aren’t working.

CMC fnord!

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Bricker

I don’t believe you understand my argument, since you keep repeating this business above.

Can you restate my argument in your words?

Your argument is that the studies that claim to show that Voter ID actually don’t do that.

You claim to have reasons against one of them (not going back to look at your argument but it is interesting to me that the Harvard Law Review would let such obviously shoddy work be published; you should contact them) and you also have yet to give your reasons for dismissing the other two studies or the chapter of a book (which admittedly you you might not be expected to read but you could, if you were not so sure you were right, contact the author who keeps an active Blog) which were cited, but I am sure you have a great reason for this.

So yes, I will keep repeating it. It bears repeating.

I also repeated that you have yet to submit any studies or other evidence for your position. Which you have not.

[David42]

@crowmanyclouds

So the South Carolina Attorney General has discovered that 900 dead people voted? Maybe somebody like the South Carolina Attorney General could use those investigative skills to find the dead people still on the poll lists before the election?

Dead people voting isn’t a good argument for voter IDs. It is proof that the procedures in place to deal with that problem aren’t working.

CMC fnord!

I agree that dead people voting is a narrower issue than voter fraud in general. But Voter I.D. does have an impact on zombie votes, plus it deals with other kinds of voter fraud too.

If dead people voting were the only issue, and a reasonable way to keep zombie voters out of the polls besides Voter I.D. is available, I would support that either instead or also.

I would point out that I raised the claim of S.C.'s A.G. in response to a claim that voter fraud does not exist.

So, while I realize something else could be done to combat zombie fraud, I’m still in favor of a measure that addresses that AND other aspects of voter fraud.
I see your fnord! and raise you two leviathans and an intelligent computer on board a submarine.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Over the last two weeks, Fox has repeatedly promoted the claim that voter fraud is indicated by records showing that more than 900 South Carolina residents were recorded as casting a vote after their reported death date.

These claims were always shaky, and have now completely dissolved.

On January 11, state Department of Motor Vehicles director Kevin Schwedo testified before the state legislature that his analysts had compared state Election Commission records with data from the Department of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Administration and found 957 people who could have voted after they had died. He subsequently turned the data over to law enforcement.
But the Columbia Free-Times’ Corey Hutchins reports that the Election Commission has examined six names from the list – the only six names Wilson’s office had turned over. At a hearing this morning, the agency revealed that none of those cases involved a ballot actually being cast in a deceased person’s name:
In a news release election agency spokesman Chris Whitmire handed out prior to the hearing, the agency disputed the claim that dead people had voted. One allegedly dead voter on the DMV’s list cast an absentee ballot before dying; another was the result of a poll worker mistakenly marking the voter as his deceased father; two were clerical errors resulting from stray marks on voter registration lists detected by a scanner; two others resulted from poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter above or below on the list.
The attorney general’s office had only given the State Election Commission six names off its list of 957 names to examine. The agency found every one of them to be alive and otherwise eligible to vote, except for the one who had voted before dying.
This was entirely predictable.

						  When DMV director Schwedo originally testified, he [made clear](http://mediamatters.org/research/201201120014) that the discrepancy could be explained by voters casting absentee ballots before their deaths or by data errors. Indeed, such deceased voter claims are almost always revealed as unfounded for those very reasons. But these facts never made their way to Fox, which has a [long history](http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=voter+fraud&from=&to=&tags=&tags=fox_news_channel&tags=&tags=) of trumping up voter fraud allegations and pushing voter ID requirements as the only possible solution.

Hutchins further reported of Election Commission director Marci Andino’s testimony:
“Characterizing this as an established fact threatens our confidence” in the election process, she said. “This is not a question that needs to linger in the minds of voters … the truth is out there.”
Media Matters

There was a subsequent, more robust investigation as well:

As was suspected from the beginning, the fevered stories of “zombie voters” turned out to be fantasy. This week, state elections officials reviewed 207 of the supposed 950 cases of dead people voting, and couldn’t confirm fraud in any of them. 106 stemmed from clerical errors at the polls, and another 56 involved bad data – the usual culprits when claims of dead voters have surfaced in the past.
Facing South

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

You can read the actual South Carolina State Election Commission report here.

So what say we put this to rest? Fox News and proponents of the state’s Vote ID law loved it… They both don’t say much about it now that the truth was discovered. Funny about that.

[David42]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

You can read the actual South Carolina State Election Commission report here.

So what say we put this to rest? Fox News and proponents of the state’s Vote ID law loved it… They both don’t say much about it now that the truth was discovered. Funny about that.

I apopreciate the claim being addressed. It is helpful in evaluating the merit of your claim.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@David42

I apopreciate the claim being addressed. It is helpful in evaluating the merit of your claim.

What claim is this? I didn’t specifically say anything about South Carolina unless it was one of a handful of cites used against the OP in general. In which case, yeah, much ado about nothing. Same with registration issues which is also much ado about nothing.

[David42]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

What claim is this? I didn’t specifically say anything about South Carolina unless it was one of a handful of cites used against the OP in general. In which case, yeah, much ado about nothing. Same with registration issues which is also much ado about nothing.

Do you not have a claim that the Republicans are up to no good with a fake issue because voter fraud is not happening?

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Your argument is that the studies that claim to show that Voter ID actually don’t do that.

You claim to have reasons against one of them (not going back to look at your argument but it is interesting to me that the Harvard Law Review would let such obviously shoddy work be published; you should contact them) and you also have yet to give your reasons for dismissing the other two studies or the chapter of a book (which admittedly you you might not be expected to read but you could, if you were not so sure you were right, contact the author who keeps an active Blog) which were cited, but I am sure you have a great reason for this.

So yes, I will keep repeating it. It bears repeating.

I also repeated that you have yet to submit any studies or other evidence for your position. Which you have not.

So you’re not even going to go back and look at my argument.

You can’t accurately restate my argument in your words.

But you’re nonetheless confident that you understand my argument enough to keep repeating the summary of it that I’ve already said was inaccurate.

OK, then for you, and only you, I have a better argument:

Ha ha ha. Voter ID laws exist and there’s nothing you can do about it!

This seems about your speed.

[IntelliQ]

@Airbeck

Doesn’t matter. Something can be improper without being fraudulent. That’s the point. Improper does not imply fraudulent at all. Improper ballots doesn’t mean that anyone committed fraud, or even that anyone knowingly did anything wrong. Could just be not filling it out correctly, or punching 2 holes instead of one. So the phrase “improper ballots” does not imply anything sinister having happened, and does not necessitate passing new laws. Unless you have something more that sheds light on what was meant by improper in this context, it can’t be used as definite evidence of voter fraud.

I have little confidence in the voting process today, thanks to repeated stories like this. And in Florida no less.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…OK, then for you, and only you, I have a better argument:

Ha ha ha. Voter ID laws exist and there’s nothing you can do about it!
…

Well, that falls short of the true Bricker experience, as it does not contain the crucial “It’s legal! And constitutional!”. Like Gallagher without watermelons, or Fox without lies.

Still, I commend your honesty in accepting that this is motivated by partisan advantage. It is unfortunate that you still insist that it is a worthy effort, and this unseemly little detail should be overlooked. I’m assuming that you still maintain that this will have a healthy effect on the confidence of the electorate. Surely, it will have a benign effect on the confidence of the Republican electorate. But what about the others?

What about the people who find that the road to the polling place is now steeper and more difficult? How might this benefit their “confidence”? Since we have no agreed upon metric for this somewhat nebulous concept, how can you assure us that the net effect is a gain? How can you assure us that the net effect will not be a decrease in the confidence of the electorate?

And if you cannot, on what basis would you continue to support this partisan exercise?

[David42]

@elucidator

Well, that falls short of the true Bricker experience, as it does not contain the crucial “It’s legal! And constitutional!”. Like Gallagher without watermelons, or Fox without lies.

Still, I commend your honesty in accepting that this is motivated by partisan advantage. It is unfortunate that you still insist that it is a worthy effort, and this unseemly little detail should be overlooked. I’m assuming that you still maintain that this will have a healthy effect on the confidence of the electorate. Surely, it will have a benign effect on the confidence of the Republican electorate. But what about the others?

What about the people who find that the road to the polling place is now steeper and more difficult? How might this benefit their “confidence”? Since we have no agreed upon metric for this somewhat nebulous concept, how can you assure us that the net effect is a gain? How can you assure us that the net effect will not be a decrease in the confidence of the electorate?

And if you cannot, on what basis would you continue to support this partisan exercise?

I see a direct relation to voter turnout and voter confidence; they logically seem related to me. And we know that voter turnout is low. But that doesn’t seem to be any kind of concensus here–If I’m not mistaken, not even Bricker, who is championing the confidence angle, has said so. Unless I missed it.

Since we have little means to discover facts about voter confidence, apply Ockham’s Razor. Which is simpler?

“A system that is designed to overlook voter fraud in several ways has decreased voter confidence.”

v.

“A system that is designed to overlook voter fraud in several ways has increased voter confidence.”

It could be framed the other way, however:

“A system designed to promote maximum participation in voting has increased
voter confidence.”

v.

“A system designed to promote maximum participation in voting has decreased
voter confidence.”

Somehow I can’t decide which way is more appropriate, perhaps they should be combined somehow.

[CannyDan]

@IntelliQ

I have little confidence in the voting process today, thanks to repeated stories like this. And in Florida no less.

So, is it things like this which caught your eye? (from your link)

So far, Florida has flagged 2,700 potential noncitizen voters and sent the list to county elections supervisors, who have found the data and methodology to be flawed and problematic. The list of potential noncitizen voters – many of whom have turned out to be lawful citizens and voters – disproportionately hits minorities, especially Hispanics.

This doesn’t undermine my confidence in the voting process, but it sure undermines my confidence in the fairness and neutrality of the efforts of our Republican governor.

Or this?

Under the Voting Rights Act, Florida needs federal approval before it makes changes to voting because five Florida counties – Monroe, Hillsborough, Collier, Hardee and Hendry – had minority-voting troubles decades ago
“Our records do not reflect that these changes affecting voting have been submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review or to the Attorney General for administrative review as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,” Herren wrote.

Or, as **Bricker **might say about the Justice Department stopping this purge, "It’s legal!! Neener! Neener!"