The list of potential noncitizen voters – many of whom have turned out to be lawful citizens and voters – disproportionately hits minorities, especially Hispanics.
If “many of whom” have turned out to be lawful citizens and voters, does that mean that some have not?
Bogus, on so many levels. For starters, you have assumed something you haven’t proven, that voter fraud even exists to some meaningful degree. Perhaps more to the point, you haven’t actually defined what “voter fraud” is. Nor have you offered any real definition of voter confidence nor a means to reliably measure it. You simply assert that the presumptions most favorable to your argument are facts, and then move right along to the consequences of those “facts”.
Then, based on that unproven assumption, you assert that the system was designed to that end, without a shred of evidence to support that claim.
So what? If I picked out several thousand people totally at random as unlawful voters, and some of them actually were unlawful, does that mean that random selection may have some validity?
I do not think I need to prove voter fraud in order to state that the design of the system overlooks it.
In any case, the burden is on you and John_Stamos_Left_Ear to prove your claim that this is a right-wing shenanigan because voter fraud does not exist, not me to prove it’s above board because voter fraud does exist. I didn’t make that claim.
Strange that you harp on that one part of my post rather than discuss a better way to frame a question to which we could apply Ockham’s razor, since my post went on exploring other ways to look at it.
Frankly we don’t know. The cite does not include that information. What we do know is that
And even of those 2700, “many” have been found to be quite legitimate. So of the much ballyhooed purge list, the frighteningly huge possible number of illegal voters identified as 180,000, only a tiny fraction are still even questionable. I don’t know what number constitutes “many”, but 2,700 is 1.3% of 180,000 so the number of actual voting non-citizens must be less than that. So at the worst, barely 1% of a targeted list of supposed non-citizens who might illegally vote could be actually illegal potential voters.
Since Florida has over 11 million registered voters, it represents barely 0.02% of the voter rolls. That’s right, two one-hundredths of a percent. A worst case of less than 2,700 (and possibly much, much less than 2,700) registered noncitizens is hardly the alarming scenario that would justify either a loss of confidence or multiple cumulative efforts to authenticate voters.
I’m sure we can count on both Fox and certain contributors here to withdraw their allusions to the scandalous numbers of alien voters in Florida. We can, can’t we? Else I’m afraid my confidence in them will be seriously undermined. So much so that we should immediately pass laws addressing the situation. Or something.
Yes, it is.
When Florida’s 2000 election came down to less than 600 voters, then 2,700 is quite alarming. So is 270, for that matter.
No.
But it does mean we should be doing something, because you’ve proved we have unlawful voters.
Let’s see if I have this right. There were 2700 names of potential illegal names on the voter rolls. Many of the 2700 were found to be legitimate voters. Of those that weren’t legitimate voters, there is no evidence of them actually casting ballots. So the only way to cure this non-existent problem is to disenfranchise 180,000 people, and they just happen to be those that would tend toward voting Democratic. We’re going to tell 180,000 people that that they can’t vote because there is a potential that maybe a few hundred illegal ballots could be cast. It seems to me that we’d have better elections in Florida if we invite Castro up to run things.
Dare we hope that the “something” might not be skewed towards anyone’s political advantage? Because this ain’t it.
Gee, luci, sure seems to me like leaving all those felons and illegal aliens alone so they can vote is ALSO skewed to someone’s political advantage.
That was beneath you. Or, at least, it ought to be.
False equivalence.
No. You asked me to admit the underlying motivation of those on the right, and I did. I said they were almost certainly motivated by gaining an advantage. But, I said, I still supported the moves, because they were, independently, the correct thing to do.
Now it’s your turn: would Democrats be fighting this battle as hard as they are if they thought they were going to disadvantage themselves as a result? Isn’t it fair to say that they know that they are both “doing the right thing” AND gaining an electoral advantage?
Florida’s 2000 election didn’t come down to 600 votes. We actually do not know what the margin was, nor which candidate it favored. Remember that there were butterfly ballots and hanging chads, recounts and non-recounts, and the whole process was stopped in mid-whatever-count.
Even accepting, arguendo, 270 questionable votes, I cannot accept that this is sufficient to swallow the clear partisan advantage of the present purges nor of the voter ID schemes. You’re now using 2/1000ths of a percent (270 out of 11 million) as justification. And, even if those 270 “lean Democratic”, meaning more than 50%, we would be talking about a Democratic advantage of, what? a dozen votes? C’mon, Bricker, that’s not an election turner even in your book, is it?
I don’t have time to look for any possible cites right now, sorry, but my gut feeling is that even the whole 270 would be dwarfed by clerical and other errors.
Why so?
The State of Florida certified that by 537 votes, Bush won.
Then we need to fix the clerical and other errors. The 2000 election for president hinged on 537 votes.
Because Democrats are overwhelmingly supported in the felon and illegal alien demographic? Because that is the core substance of your slur. Now you want to change the discussion into two cock territory. Would you like to pretend you didn’t say it?
Well forgetting your straw man argument that Democrats actually seek votes from illegal aliens and other non-legal voters, which I seriously doubt is the case, the cure is orders of magnitude worse than the disease.
Lets assume that all 2700 voters, which we know not to be the case, are illegal and try to vote.
They want to disenfranchise 177,300 legal voters (that tend Democratic). That’s about 6,566% overkill. And you see the two sides as equivalent?
I claim that voter fraud is rare and the rare voter fraud that does happen would not be affected by Voter ID. I also claimed erroneously that “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Voter ID laws come up, they are always introduced passed by Republican-controlled state houses at the objections of the Democratic minorities.” I have now learned that I need to change the word “always” above to “almost always” and it would still be accurate.
I never took the hardline position that the only reasons Republicans were doing this was because it would subjugate Democratic voters, but it’s foolish to not see that it is happening regardless of motivations and I also think it’s foolish to not conclude that this is on the minds of some supporters as a “good thing” or some collateral benefit.
What’s the point? I and others already said that we felt your argument was specious and it was only against one study.
You have yet to comment on the rest of the evidence - two other studies and a chapter of a book specifically devoted to this very issue published by a Loyolla Law Professor, correct?
And you have yet to actually submit any studies or other evidence that bolsters your claim that Voter ID is good for voter confidence, correct?
I can refuse to rehash something we already discussed because we already discussed it. I can gloss over your reasoning because I, nor others, feel it’s particularly persuasive.
So you can either worry that my glossing it over is the same as ignoring it (even though it was already discussed) and whine about it or man up and say that you know better what affects voter confidence than the one study you did comment on and the others you did not.