Voter fraud a myth or widespread?

[Billo_Really]

Since when? 1789? Just the US?

There have been only 10 voter fraud convictions in the United States since 1980.

 

[candycorn]

Since when? 1789? Just the US?

There have been only 10 voter fraud convictions in the United States since 1980.

Interesting....

FBI Reports More Than 1.5 Million Drug Arrests Last Year | StoptheDrugWar.org

So I guess using your logic, only 1.5 Million people used drugs in the US last year. Obviously, we've gotten every one of them...right?

 

[candycorn]

Since when? 1789? Just the US?

There have been only 10 voter fraud convictions in the United States since 1980.

Interesting....

FBI Reports More Than 1.5 Million Drug Arrests Last Year | StoptheDrugWar.org

So I guess using your logic, only 1.5 Million people used drugs in the US last year. Obviously, we've gotten every one of them...right?

Hmmmm.....got quiet in here all of the sudden.

 

[Billo_Really]

Interesting....

FBI Reports More Than 1.5 Million Drug Arrests Last Year | StoptheDrugWar.org

So I guess using your logic, only 1.5 Million people used drugs in the US last year. Obviously, we've gotten every one of them...right?

Drug arrests and voter fraud convictions are two completely different issues.

 

[Oddball]

Voter fraud a myth or widespread?

Vote fraud is widespread...Note I said "vote" fraud, not "voter" fraud.

The fraud that counts happens in the tabulation process, vastly more so than in the casting of the ballots.

Voter ID, much as it sounds like a halfway good idea, is a bug hunt....Best to concentrate on the fraudulent way that votes are counted.

 

[candycorn]

Interesting....

FBI Reports More Than 1.5 Million Drug Arrests Last Year | StoptheDrugWar.org

So I guess using your logic, only 1.5 Million people used drugs in the US last year. Obviously, we've gotten every one of them...right?

Drug arrests and voter fraud convictions are two completely different issues.

Yes but the statistical references are the same. You report stats (you don't cite them by the way) and the stats come from some presumably reputable source I suppose. But just because there have only been 10 convictions doesn't mean there hasn't been more instances...right?



So....can you give me a reason why we should not try to make the process as sterile as possible? I mean, would you be happy if there were doctors getting fraudulent test scores on their proficiency exams or should we just accept that a certain number will cheat their way through and not worry about their practicing medicine without credentials? Or surgeons...or nuclear engineers...or perhaps election officials....

What is your excuse for not trying?

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes but the statistical references are the same. You report stats (you don't cite them by the way) and the stats come from some presumably reputable source I suppose. But just because there have only been 10 convictions doesn't mean there hasn't been more instances...right?



So....can you give me a reason why we should not try to make the process as sterile as possible? I mean, would you be happy if there were doctors getting fraudulent test scores on their proficiency exams or should we just accept that a certain number will cheat their way through and not worry about their practicing medicine without credentials? Or surgeons...or nuclear engineers...or perhaps election officials....

What is your excuse for not trying?

There is absolutely no reason to waste time and energy on something that rarely occurs.

All this voter fraud bullshit is nothing more than the republican rights latest attempt at voter suppression.

 

[candycorn]

Yes but the statistical references are the same. You report stats (you don't cite them by the way) and the stats come from some presumably reputable source I suppose. But just because there have only been 10 convictions doesn't mean there hasn't been more instances...right?



So....can you give me a reason why we should not try to make the process as sterile as possible? I mean, would you be happy if there were doctors getting fraudulent test scores on their proficiency exams or should we just accept that a certain number will cheat their way through and not worry about their practicing medicine without credentials? Or surgeons...or nuclear engineers...or perhaps election officials....

What is your excuse for not trying?

There is absolutely no reason to waste time and energy on something that rarely occurs.

All this voter fraud bullshit is nothing more than the republican rights latest attempt at voter suppression.

According to whom does it "rarely occur"? Your stat which you have all but admitted is suspect if not, at least, debateable.

And you can't come up with a reason for not making the process as sterile as possible except for it being a "waste of time and energy" as if it were in short supply. We have elections about once a year. It won't draw much time or energy from dire tasks.

As for "bullshit", nobody would accuse me of being a republican in the first place. In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?

 

[Care4all]

This is the second thread on this video, there was one about a week ago....

Do you truly believe that absentee ballots and provisional ballots are not checked against the voter rolls? that the millions of absentee and provisional ballots are not compared to the voter rolls from the polls to make certain no one votes twice?

Seriously?

It is my understanding that a simple check is done, so that no voter within a state can vote twice because the provisional and absentee ballots have a data check run on them to make certain of this....

So if this woman did send in her provisional or absentee ballot, more than likely it did not make it in time as she stated that she thought it would not....because if it had made it in time AND she voted again, she would be charged already with voter fraud, for voting twice....there is a procedure to notify the State attorneys office if absentee and provisional voters are shown after their data check, to have tried to vote twice, once on paper and once in person.

 

[Billo_Really]

According to whom does it "rarely occur"? Your stat which you have all but admitted is suspect if not, at least, debateable.

And you can't come up with a reason for not making the process as sterile as possible except for it being a "waste of time and energy" as if it were in short supply. We have elections about once a year. It won't draw much time or energy from dire tasks.

As for "bullshit", nobody would accuse me of being a republican in the first place. In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?

The Bush Admin actually went looking for this shit and found only 86 cases in 5 years of elections.

The Bush administration spent five years (2002 to 2007) searching for voter fraud and found only 86 cases. The Brennan Center for Justice, as well as the ACLU, have also found infinitesimal instances of voter fraud.

This isn't even an issue worth talking about.

Actual voter fraud is rare.

There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%.

This is the bottom line...

Summary

•Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
•Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
•Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
•Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
•Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.​

 

[candycorn]

According to whom does it "rarely occur"? Your stat which you have all but admitted is suspect if not, at least, debateable.

And you can't come up with a reason for not making the process as sterile as possible except for it being a "waste of time and energy" as if it were in short supply. We have elections about once a year. It won't draw much time or energy from dire tasks.

As for "bullshit", nobody would accuse me of being a republican in the first place. In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?

The Bush Admin actually went looking for this shit and found only 86 cases in 5 years of elections.

The Bush administration spent five years (2002 to 2007) searching for voter fraud and found only 86 cases. The Brennan Center for Justice, as well as the ACLU, have also found infinitesimal instances of voter fraud.

This isn't even an issue worth talking about.

Actual voter fraud is rare.

At least you're now admitting to an 800% increase over the "10 prosecutions" plank you had earlier.

There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%.

This is the bottom line...

Summary

•Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
•Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
•Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
•Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
•Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.​

The citation above does point to a gubernatorial election. Would you admit that the smaller profile the race, the fewer votes are cast? Would that not inflate the importance of voter fraud? When you have 1 of 10 votes cast fraudulently, you have 10% fraud. If you have 1 in 100, you have 1% fraud. The point is that the more localized the elections, the more direct impact it has on your life.

And you never addressed this:

"In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Whether it's a myth, widespread or (as we say in truth-ville) something in between; there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the process as sterile as possible.

Have all voter IDs bear the photograph of the registered party.
Make them free of charge
Demand the ID when a ballot is cast

It's really not that hard.

Not necessary.

Once a citizen has registered to vote using the ID required by his state, he may continue to vote as long as his registration remains valid. His statement and signature on the registration roll is sufficient. There is no need to demand of him ID at each election, absent evidence the voter is attempting to commit fraud.

Consequently, elections officials may address suspected fraud on a case by case basis.

Voting is a fundamental right, and can not be restricted without a compelling governmental interest, where the burden of proof lies with the state, not the voter. Since there’s no evidence voter ‘fraud’ has altered the outcome of any election, the state would clearly fail to meet that burden.

 

[candycorn]

This is the second thread on this video, there was one about a week ago....

Do you truly believe that absentee ballots and provisional ballots are not checked against the voter rolls? that the millions of absentee and provisional ballots are not compared to the voter rolls from the polls to make certain no one votes twice?

Seriously?

It is my understanding that a simple check is done, so that no voter within a state can vote twice because the provisional and absentee ballots have a data check run on them to make certain of this....

So if this woman did send in her provisional or absentee ballot, more than likely it did not make it in time as she stated that she thought it would not....because if it had made it in time AND she voted again, she would be charged already with voter fraud, for voting twice....there is a procedure to notify the State attorneys office if absentee and provisional voters are shown after their data check, to have tried to vote twice, once on paper and once in person.

That is something else we should do, make absentee voting a compulsory thing across the nation--election "day" should become election "month"

 

[candycorn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6E2Ucv7S8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Whether it's a myth, widespread or (as we say in truth-ville) something in between; there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the process as sterile as possible.

Have all voter IDs bear the photograph of the registered party.
Make them free of charge
Demand the ID when a ballot is cast

It's really not that hard.

Not necessary.

Once a citizen has registered to vote using the ID required by his state, he may continue to vote as long as his registration remains valid. His statement and signature on the registration roll is sufficient. There is no need to demand of him ID at each election, absent evidence the voter is attempting to commit fraud.

Consequently, elections officials may address suspected fraud on a case by case basis.

Voting is a fundamental right, and can not be restricted without a compelling governmental interest, where the burden of proof lies with the state, not the voter. Since there’s no evidence voter ‘fraud’ has altered the outcome of any election, the state would clearly fail to meet that burden.

So since it has never happened, we should just assume it won't ever happen....is that the pathetic posture being assumed?

Isn't it a better idea to make sure that the people living in the first district elect someone who represents them? Or is it just fine if some one with devious intent were to "flood the zone" by bussing in people from the neighboring district to affect the outcome? Or should we just presume that no public official would be so devious as to perform something so dastardly?

Maureen O'Connor, Ex-San Diego Mayor, Wagered Over $1 Billion Gambling, Misappropriated Funds

Jesse Jackson Jr. Guilty Plea: Ex-Congressman And Wife To Plead Guilty To Federal Fraud Charges

Rod Blagojevich corruption charges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ex-Rep. Jefferson (D-La.) gets 13 years in freezer cash case - Washington Post

Texas Court Issues Arrest Warrant for DeLay

Right...we can always rely on officials to look out for our best interests

 

[Billo_Really]

At least you're now admitting to an 800% increase over the "10 prosecutions" plank you had earlier.

Those were 10 convictions.

There's a difference between a case and a conviction.

The citation above does point to a gubernatorial election. Would you admit that the smaller profile the race, the fewer votes are cast? Would that not inflate the importance of voter fraud? When you have 1 of 10 votes cast fraudulently, you have 10% fraud. If you have 1 in 100, you have 1% fraud. The point is that the more localized the elections, the more direct impact it has on your life.

They're not finding 1 in 10. They're finding .06 in 10.

There is no evidence of an epidemic.

And you never addressed this:

"In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?"

Voter ID disenfranchises lower income people, many of which, do not have ID's. And it is a hardship for many of them, to actually go down to city hall, or a DMV, to get an ID card.

 

[candycorn]

At least you're now admitting to an 800% increase over the "10 prosecutions" plank you had earlier.

Those were 10 convictions.

There's a difference between a case and a conviction.

There are differences between cases and instances as well.

The citation above does point to a gubernatorial election. Would you admit that the smaller profile the race, the fewer votes are cast? Would that not inflate the importance of voter fraud? When you have 1 of 10 votes cast fraudulently, you have 10% fraud. If you have 1 in 100, you have 1% fraud. The point is that the more localized the elections, the more direct impact it has on your life.

They're not finding 1 in 10. They're finding .06 in 10.

There is no evidence of an epidemic.

Best to take the medicine before the epidemic takes place.

And you never addressed this:

"In the second place, how will it suppress votes if the voter ID card is provided free of charge (as they are in all fifty states)?"

Voter ID disenfranchises lower income people, many of which, do not have ID's. And it is a hardship for many of them, to actually go down to city hall, or a DMV, to get an ID card.

The cards are free. There is no injury to lower income people.

If they don't have ID's, we can't be sure of their residency; hence we can't be sure of what ballot they should receive when voting; certainly you're not making the case that we shouldn't register people to vote at all now are you?

As for the hardship of visiting a government office once in a few years to get a voter ID card, what percentage of people can't muster enough energy to visit such a place once every 3 years or so? What percent of the electorate are put through such a hardship do you reckon?

 

[Billo_Really]

Best to take the medicine before the epidemic takes place.

You take medicine to fight a disease. There is no disease of voter fraud.

The cards are free. There is no injury to lower income people.

If they don't have ID's, we can't be sure of their residency; hence we can't be sure of what ballot they should receive when voting; certainly you're not making the case that we shouldn't register people to vote at all now are you?

As for the hardship of visiting a government office once in a few years to get a voter ID card, what percentage of people can't muster enough energy to visit such a place once every 3 years or so? What percent of the electorate are put through such a hardship do you reckon?

What about those that have physical disabilities and cannot even leave their house or convelesence home?

 

[candycorn]

Best to take the medicine before the epidemic takes place.

You take medicine to fight a disease. There is no disease of voter fraud.

The cards are free. There is no injury to lower income people.

If they don't have ID's, we can't be sure of their residency; hence we can't be sure of what ballot they should receive when voting; certainly you're not making the case that we shouldn't register people to vote at all now are you?

As for the hardship of visiting a government office once in a few years to get a voter ID card, what percentage of people can't muster enough energy to visit such a place once every 3 years or so? What percent of the electorate are put through such a hardship do you reckon?

What about those that have physical disabilities and cannot even leave their house or convelesence home?

I will agree that there will need to be some measures taken for those persons. And you admit there is fraud...so there is a disease. And it's easily curable.

 

[Billo_Really]

I will agree that there will need to be some measures taken for those persons. And you admit there is fraud...so there is a disease. And it's easily curable.

Wasting time and energy to prevent something that rarely ever occurs, is like building an A-frame roof in the middle of the desert because you're worried about snow loads.

 

[candycorn]

I will agree that there will need to be some measures taken for those persons. And you admit there is fraud...so there is a disease. And it's easily curable.

Wasting time and energy to prevent something that rarely ever occurs, is like building an A-frame roof in the middle of the desert because you're worried about snow loads.

Preventative measures ensuring one of our most sacred institutions is a logical thing to employ. Seldom are counterfiet bills passed: should we stop trying to prevent it?