On another forum, there’s this discussion going on about Voter ID laws and how Florida governor Rick Scott is purging voters from the rolls and all kinds of things, and immediately, a right-wing fellow popped up. In referral to the original topic (a news story about how Florida is retracting the obscenely broken voter registration purges), he said this:
When pressured about why he thought that, he offered this answer:
And then this:
And then, after a while, this:
There is no middle finger big enough.
Guys, if you want to say “voter fraud is a real problem”, you don’t just get to say “there’s no proof that it isn’t”. Especially not when someone has already pointed out to you that numerous investigations have come up with rates that are miniscule to the point of unimportance. On one hand, I have to respect the balls of this guy to basically say “I don’t have any evidence that voter fraud is widespread”, then later turn around and say, quote:
That’s the issue. But I think the person the OP is discussing with could certainly start with all the dead people he claims who will be voting. Certainly it’d be easy enough to match up those who are dead and still vote for him to support his argument. Or point to elections in the last…10 years?..for it to be a valid position to hold.
Exit polls are generally somewhat reliable. Matching up the names of the people who voted with the names on the voting rolls, and ensuring that the voting rolls are kept up to date would generally work fairly well, don’t you think? I don’t presume to know how investigations into voter fraud work, but I do think it’s fair to assume that we’re not dealing with complete morons, and that there are methods in place. What has been found, however, is that most discovered types of voter fraud would not actually be caught by using voter ID laws.
Sure, but that’s not the argument that’s presented.
IF (and that’s a BIG IF) somebody said, “I support stronger voter ID to quantify the extent to which, if any, voter fraud occurs and to develop stronger mechanisms to address voter fraud”, that would be a reasonable position.
This ass appears to be taking the default position of, “Voter fraud is definitely occurring, and we need stronger voter ID to eliminate it. And it’s not happening in large numbers but I’m going to throw out large numbers anyway and assume it affects races”.
Thinking about ways to prove voter fraud is a problem and thinking of solutions is reasonable.
Assuming, in the face of available evidence, that it exists and disenfranchising actual voters to eliminate a potential non-issue is asinine and fuck-all stupid.
And while voter fraud may be a potential issue in narrow races, disenfranchising real voters by purging rolls is an problem with plenty of evidence to show it’s happening.
Well, you raise a good point. I don’t take the position that it’s definitely occurring in any statistically significant way. My argument has always been simply that voter ID laws make sense to strengthen the confidence of the electorate.
Elections always swinging on one side by a large margin would be a red flag, certainly. But I’m given to understand Floridian elections were a notably close thing every time ?
Nor do I generally favor these purges. in fact, I’d say that adopting a strong voter ID law eliminates the need for purges; we can use the voter ID to effectively identify who voted and if they voted illegally.
Next you are going to say that Obama has to prove that he is not really a Kenyan. Placing the burden of proof by the party that is asserting the absurd onto the party asserting the normal is the only way to debate a conspiracy theory. Said the guy who thinks Oswald was put up to it and was a CIA asset.
The federal and state governments routinely regulate things that are not “real” problems. Have you ever been to California? Every single thing in that state is publicly labeled as a potential carcinogen, despite the fact that I’m sure many of those substances have never demonstrably caused a single cancer (just to list one example).
If the government can identify a legitimate interest, and there is no violation of the constitution in doing so, then the legislature can go ahead and pass laws that address the issue.
If vote fraud IS happening what proof exists they’re disproportionately cast for democrats?
Cause it is certainly true that those voters most likely to be turned away for lack of proper identification would vote democratic (students, homeless etc.)
What’s the absurd? And furthermore, why should I have the burden of proof when someone else is actually making the claim? “There’s widespread, significant voter fraud, therefore we need voter ID laws.” I’m not making a claim. The burden of proof is on them – THEY have to show that voter fraud is happening.
Of course, that would likely be a purge of its own…