Thread: Voter Fraud

Originally Posted by adaher

Question for those who are against requiring ID: is receiving your Social Security check a right? Because the federal government wants to require seniors to get it direct deposit by 2013. And guess what you need to open a bank account...


TWO forms of iD!

Originally posted by Forplay...
OK, now I ask, how in the world did all these senior citizens make it though life without an ID...? I mean really. A condition of our society is you can't do anything without an ID. Yet now we all of a sudden we have senior citizens that can't get an ID because now they want to vote. Give me a break.

You know a lot of you folks who are advocating disenfranchising seniors are pretending that all of a sudden the elderly just upped and decided to vote en masse around 2010 when Republicans came into office. Did it ever occur to some of you that state laws changed that redefined what "id" is acceptable at around the same time Republicans came into office? I know it's hard for some people who want to disenfranchise voters to comprehend, but it is the most likely scenario.:rolleyes:

Ajax of course that isnt true but we know yoiu being a liberal dont care about facts. no one wants to disenfanchise voters but we want honest elections not stolen elections like liberals like.
this link shows every states voter id requirement and as everyone can see even the strictest ones are not that hard.
Voter ID: State Requirements
the disenfanchisment that liberals are talking about are the illegal voters.

I can't really keep up with this thread because it grows too quickly, but in a quick review of the past pages, I'm still not seeing that these ID laws would solve a problem that (to any meaningful degree) exists. Two points seem worth clarifying:

1) These laws only stop very specific sorts of fraud. Anything involving the officials themselves or tampering with ballots...etc. won't be at all hindered by these laws. Voter IDs will pretty much only get in your way if you are trying to impersonate someone else (living or dead) at the polls. That's the only kind of voter fraud that matters here because that's the only kind of fraud they'll stop.

2) Evidence for that kind of fraud should be really easy to get, even if we can't rely on people to report at the polls. Pick a state (or county for that matter) and look at the people who voted. Check and make sure they aren't dead (that will give you a count of all deceased "voters"). Then statistically spot-check the rest by contacting people and asking "Did you really vote?" If they say no, then you know someone fraudulently voted in their name. You don't have to call everyone; just a statistically relevant sample size. It's the same method every polling agency uses. In the end, you'd have an actual percentage representing (within a margin of error) the ID-related voter fraud in a given area. And it really wouldn't be that hard to get.

Originally Posted by adaher

Question for those who are against requiring ID: is receiving your Social Security check a right? Because the federal government wants to require seniors to get it direct deposit by 2013. And guess what you need to open a bank account...


TWO forms of iD!

And here is the heart of the matter, people will go to great lengths to get money.
They won't go to such great lengths to vote, and more importantly, people will go to great lengths to steal money, but they won't expend much effort to steal a vote, and the proof of that is that there are no stolen votes reported, but everyday people call the police to report that money has been stolen.

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I can't really keep up with this thread because it grows too quickly, but in a quick review of the past pages, I'm still not seeing that these ID laws would solve a problem that (to any meaningful degree) exists. Two points seem worth clarifying:

Most ID requirements don't solve a problem that actually exists. How many people have used fake ID to get on a plane in order to commit terrorism? The 9/11 plotters used their real names and real IDs. Same goes for access to public buildings. Security means not letting people get close to targets with arms and explosives. Knowing their real name doesn't contribute one iota to security.

2) Evidence for that kind of fraud should be really easy to get, even if we can't rely on people to report at the polls. Pick a state (or county for that matter) and look at the people who voted. Check and make sure they aren't dead (that will give you a count of all deceased "voters"). Then statistically spot-check the rest by contacting people and asking "Did you really vote?" If they say no, then you know someone fraudulently voted in their name.

the media has done that many times and found voter fraud. The authorities wave it off as "administrative error". If you've got that many votes being counted in error, then recounts are kind of pointless, aren't they?

Originally Posted by Forplay

Alright, alright, I removed you from the Goober list.

But when you say voter fraud is a non-issue, read this, and this is just for presidents. And then tell me it's a non issue.

RangeVoting.org - US Presidents and Election Fraud

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._hangover.html

The Goober is the list of rational actors, the Forplay list is the list of... well not so rational people.

Witness this post where Forplay links to things that refute his position .

Did he not read his link?
Did he not know that his link pointed to this article that shows that voter fraud is nearly non-existent?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...prod=permalink


And he links to a site that regurgitates a bunch of conspiracy theories, but leaves out the fact that in some of these (like Kennedy - Nixon) these allegations were actually investigated and no fraud was found.

Tax fraud is almost non existent. Therefore, we should stop making people prove their income and assets.

New York Times.. Please................

Even after not showing up on this site for some time, it is the same old same old name calling .

Fraud is Fraud.... very simple.

De-nile is not just a river in Egypt.

We will go along with the government on making the country safer when it comes to flying with one of the things needed.... Photo ID but when it comes to voting .. part of the country is in arms about how wrong the idea is.

Originally Posted by adaher

Tax fraud is almost non existent. Therefore, we should stop making people prove their income and assets.

Really, how do you explain the large number of convictions?
Don't go Forplay on me.....

There aren't many convictions. They get about 1000 per year. And that's with them looking hard for it. In any given state, you'll find more than 1000 felon and dead votes cast.

Of course, if we stopped having the IRS audit returns, it would seem that there is no tax fraud problem and conservatives could disingenously claim that there is no problem and you can't prove there's a problem.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

You know a lot of you folks who are advocating disenfranchising seniors are pretending that all of a sudden the elderly just upped and decided to vote en masse around 2010 when Republicans came into office. Did it ever occur to some of you that state laws changed that redefined what "id" is acceptable at around the same time Republicans came into office? I know it's hard for some people who want to disenfranchise voters to comprehend, but it is the most likely scenario.:rolleyes:

You wished not to answer my question, I ask again what did these all of a sudden seniors use for an ID to get by all their life? A simple birth certificate will get you any ID you want. You need a birth certificate to get a drivers license. But now because they are seniors they don't have an ID and no birth certificate.

Originally Posted by goober

Really, how do you explain the large number of convictions?
Don't go Forplay on me.....

Large numbers compared to what? And if they stopped convictions like they do in voter fraud, we can do away with the IRS. Then everyone can say "see there is no convictions for tax fraud" so there is no fraud. Right Goober

Oh and I'm glad to know that you say Bush won fair and square over Gore. At least your a stand up guy when it came to that vote.

Originally Posted by Forplay

Large numbers compared to what? And if they stopped convictions like they do in voter fraud, we can do away with the IRS. Then everyone can say "see there is no convictions for tax fraud" so there is no fraud. Right Goober

Oh and I'm glad to know that you say Bush won fair and square over Gore. At least your a stand up guy when it came to that vote.

Ahh, Voter Fraud was a priority, they went full tilt after everyone they could find.
They got 86 convictions in 5 years....