Well, you don’t have any evidence that it isn’t not.
I’d think any attempted voter fraud would be required to be reported by polling locations. Since the polls are typically staffed by volunteers from the same area they could look for things such as voters complaining “hey, somebody already signed voted under my name”, spotting individuals entering the polls multiple times, observing individuals attempting to vote under names the volunteers personally know, etc.
I’m guessing they are instructed to report any and all attempted fraud and there is probably a record of these reports. I’m also guessing these reports would show they don’t find much of this happening.
But what about our right tovote early and vote often? 
Before we disenfranchise thousands of people, can we at least get an investigation? Some years ago, when Dems were bleating about Diebold machines being hackable, with poor paper trails, you didn’t accept shooting first and asking questions later. You wanted an investigation before suggesting anything amiss had happened.
Why not now? This isn’t some theoretical exercise, people WILL be denied their right to vote. We do that with no data of any kind suggesting that voter fraud happens in any significant amount.
How about we have an investigation, where the tiny amount of voter fraud uncovered strengthens the confidence of the electorate?
In a bass-ackward way, the “lack of evidence” argument has its merit, but in the “wrong” direction. The tighty righties have been on this case for years now, seeking it out, searching for it, and finding D for diddly-squat. So, whatever it may be, “rampant” it is not. “Marginal” is most likely a wild exaggeration. “Exceedingly rare” is most likely about right.
Is denying somebody who should legally be able to vote also considered a form of voter fraud? If so, you’ve got an easy test of whether or not a law in this area is good: does it reduce voter fraud? If, for example, a law prevents ten ineligible voters from voting but also prevents fifty eligible voters from voting, then the law increased voter fraud by forty voters.
And - relevant to the arguments the OP linked to - this shows that opposition to a voter law doesn’t equal support for voter fraud. Democrats might oppose the law not because they support ineligible voting but because they support allowing eligible voters to vote.
Well, that would take time, and could not be accomplished before the next election, and it must be done before all those illegal aliens and felons vote Democrat.
Not necessarily. A “D” behind the name does not mean “progressive”. It means its more likely, but not clearly a fact. A “blue dog” Democrat in a fairly conservative district that is trending more progressive due to demographic changes would have every reason to support this sort of crap, because he fears a move from his left in the primaries. Incumbents like things as they are, which makes them inherently conservative.
Pretty much this. As I said on that other forum: Get back to me once you’ve solved the problems of making sure that every citizen can and does get voter ID for free and without much time expenditure. Until either that happens, or considerable evidence is amassed that voter fraud is a serious, widespread issue, these laws are untenable.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone more conservative than a dead guy. Really entrenched in their positions, they are.
Sadly, no. They’ve pretty much won this one, and got away with it. If you admire cynical ploys, this was a beauty, they got to wrap themselves in civic virtue and weaken their opposition. And its legal! And constitutional! I have that on the very best authority.
I mean morally untenable. Not that that’s ever stopped the pubbies, but hey, you can try…
Oh, I do, I do.
Definitely. I’m not claiming the Democrats never engage in voter fraud. Hell, Lyndon Johnson proved that.
I was just pointing out that somebody opposing a voter registration act doesn’t necessarily prove that they want to have ineligible voters. (Using arguments like “Among the reasons Republicans believe that voter fraud is rampant, aside from anecdotal evidence is that the left’s fight against curbs on voter fraud, such as requiring photo id, seems crazy to us, IF, they are genuinely concerned with clean elections.”) There are other reasonable explanations.
The funny thing is, that’s also a strong argument against voter ID laws.
After several multiple investigations, no non-trivial voter fraud has been found.
The logistics of perpetrating a scheme sufficient to sway an election are so broad as to be not only extremely unlikely, but also much easier to identify.
The imbalance in the reach of ID laws (e.g. members of one party are more likely to have to take extra steps in order to retain their** pre-existing** and valid right to vote) means that the ID laws will benefit one party over another.
The voter roll purges and arbitrary and capricious limitations on voter registrants are a particularly egregious examples that stem from the same intent: take advantage of legislative power so as to reduce the number of people that could have legitimately voted for the opposition. Even if you set all intent aside and considered only the outcomes, things are the same.
Voter ID laws have severely undermined the confidence of the electorate.
Pretty wildly unlikely, given the percentage of people who normally vote in any given election, but if more votes were counted than there were registered voters, I think that should probably count as solid evidence of fraud.
Who cares if it’s a plum or not? If an action is virtuous (and reducing voter fraud is), why should it matter if it also benefits me personally? If a doctor treats African kids for malaria, does it matter that he gets paid for it? If Republicans reduce fraud and get more votes because of it, why is that bad?
Ahhh, there’s the SDMB we all know and love! When accusing Republicans of voter fraud, all of a sudden, evidence becomes unnecessary.
In the spirit of the OP…cite? How do you know these thousands of people won’t just get off their asses and get a photo ID?
Slight hijack, but I love it when people have this attitude and yet also think that voting is some civic duty. It’s like “Every citizen must do this or they’re a bad person (so long as it requires no time, money, or effort).” I don’t know if BPC does this or not, but it’s funny when someone does.
Of course, there wasn’t actually a lot of doubt in the electorate until people started making unsubstantiated claims of massive fraud.
…Huh?
Yes, voting is a civic duty, therefore we should make sure as many people as possible can perform it by removing whatever barriers we can, be they financial, geographic, or other. How is that an inconsistent position?
So legal things are legal. Because is allowed to do something no one has a right to object to it? Do you suppose your tautology is an actual policy argument in support of proposed legislation?