DarronS - 04 September 2012 06:49 PM

Ten pages, and no one has pointed out the obvious: the number of proven voter fraud cases compared to the number of voters rounds to zero. Voter fraud is not a problem in this country, and these laws are obviously intended to keep registered Democrats from voting so Republicans can continue giving tax breaks to the rich and subsidizing private industries. Republicans know damn well that poor people overwhelmingly vote Democratic and have been doing everything they can to disenfranchise those voters.

I pointed it out early in the thread, but it bears repeating. And repeating. And repeating.

Glad you pointed it out already. I probably read that post a couple of weeks back and forgot. That is really where this thread should have stopped, or at least changed direction. All this talk about legality and spin is a waste of time when everyone knows these laws are not intended to stop voter fraud. The courts are starting to rule that way too.

asanta - 04 September 2012 08:03 PM

DarronS - 04 September 2012 06:49 PM

Ten pages, and no one has pointed out the obvious: the number of proven voter fraud cases compared to the number of voters rounds to zero. Voter fraud is not a problem in this country, and these laws are obviously intended to keep registered Democrats from voting so Republicans can continue giving tax breaks to the rich and subsidizing private industries. Republicans know damn well that poor people overwhelmingly vote Democratic and have been doing everything they can to disenfranchise those voters.

I pointed it out early in the thread, but it bears repeating. And repeating. And repeating.

It’s been repeated.  Argumentum ad nauseam is one of the methods your side is using to continue to distract from the fact it isn’t address the evidence we should expect in favor of voter fraud given the type of system we use.  I keep pointing that out, but instead of addressing it your side simply repeats the fallacy that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

It’s particularly amusing that Darron’s saying nobody points out what he finds supposedly obvious when, as you rightly point out, you’ve been one of the ones repeating it.

Great stuff.

Let’s try this again:  So that we don’t fall into the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, exactly what evidence of voter fraud should we expect to find in order to prosecute cases of voter fraud (based on our system as it now stands)?

As I said, Bryan, we’d need to see evidence that the amount of voter fraud rounds to more than zero. These voter fraud bills are not addressing a problem: they are designed to disenfranchise poor and elderly voters, which courts repeatedly confirm. You can play all the semantic games you want, but these bills are nothing more than an attempt to keep registered Democratic party voters from casting ballots.

DarronS - 08 September 2012 01:05 PM

As I said, Bryan, we’d need to see evidence that the amount of voter fraud rounds to more than zero.

Do you and I need to review the nature of the appeal to ignorance fallacy?  We can do that, if needed.

These voter fraud bills are not addressing a problem: they are designed to disenfranchise poor and elderly voters, which courts repeatedly confirm.

We went through the court evidence in this thread very recently.  The SCOTUS affirmed the constitutionality of voter ID laws.  Since then we have affirmations in Pennsylvania and one other state (maybe Arizona—you can look back over the last page or so and find it if you’re curious) and balanced against that we have one case that went against the state of Texas based on the findings of a three-judge panel in D.C.  That’s not exactly a good case for “repeatedly confirm.”

You can play all the semantic games you want, but these bills are nothing more than an attempt to keep registered Democratic party voters from casting ballots.

It seems to me that calling what I’m doing a “semantic game” (asking for reasoning that keeps you clear of the appeal to ignorance fallacy) is itself the semantic game.

Seriously, why resist a discussion of the evidence problem?

How is asking for evidence that voter fraud is truly a problem an appeal to ignorance? I’m not the one resisting the evidence problem, you are. Where is your evidence? Even Fox News recognizes what is going on with these laws.

And courts have overturned more than the Texas Voter ID law. Similar laws in Florida and Ohio were overturned within the past 10 days.

DarronS - 08 September 2012 01:49 PM

How is asking for evidence that voter fraud is truly a problem an appeal to ignorance?

You really want to play that game?

It works like this:  Under ordinary circumstances the government does not need any particular justification for passing a law.  The marriage amendment in California is a great example in that the judge issued a bizarre ruling that the a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman essentially could not have any reasoning in support.  That case very much went against the principles the courts use in deferring to statute. 

You say that proof is needed (you used the word “need”)  Why is that?  Because the law cannot stand without your approval?  Doubtful.  The fact is that no proof is needed where courts recognize court precedent.

Even more to the point, your side keeps saying that voter ID laws address a problem that doesn’t exist.  And how do you know it doesn’t exist?  Because I’m not giving you the evidence you “need.”  Isn’t that it?  And that is exactly the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

I’m not the one resisting the evidence problem, you are. Where is your evidence?

lol
That’s not the evidence problem I described, is it?  What evidence should I reasonably be able to present to you given the system we’ve got?  What evidence would fraud leave behind that we can check?  Address the question.

Even Fox News recognizes what is going on with these laws.

Ah, yes, that unhinged right-winger Juan Williams.  How dare he turn against his conservative comrades and write ... an op-ed essentially following the spurious reasoning we’ve already seen ad infinitum in this thread.  Excuse me while I yawn.

And courts have overturned more than the Texas Voter ID law. Similar laws in Florida and Ohio were overturned within the past 10 days.

Now would be a great time for you to produce evidence of court decisions against Florida and Ohio voter ID laws.

I think you’re probably confused over an issue of early voting (not voter ID) in Ohio, and confused over an issue of restriction sn organizations doing voter registration in Florida.  But I’ll be delighted to inspect whatever evidence you produce.

Bryan, the facts are these laws are politically motivated. Voter fraud that rounds to zero is a not a serious problem. Disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters per state so Mitt Romney can get elected is a serious problem.

BTW, you’re right about the early voter laws versus voter ID. Too bad the intent is the same.

Bryan, no one is arguing that “voter ID” or “early voting” or “provisional ballots” are in any way unconstitutional. However we need only look at history to find that many states did have election requirements which were unconstitutional and deprived segments of the population the “de jure” or “de facto” right to vote.

The thread topic asks if installing these laws this close to elections are “politically motivated”, not if they are intrinsically legal. IMO, such changes in the law on such an enormous scale (hundreds of thousands) tends to place a burden on many otherwise qualified voters (as Souter observed).

Ok, change the laws and tighten up voter registration, but do it during the Two years between local and congressional election times, don’t wait until the presidential election time is in progress. And while we are at it why not change the gerrymandering of districts to favor one party or another.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

So let’s cut to the chase and examine as much evidence as possible in order to answer the question posed, does enough voter fraud exist to be a major hinderance in our democratic system, or is this a mere chimera with a hidden political agenda? One point that I believe everyone will agree on is that there will always be a flaw in the system nationwide until a law is passed standardizing the voting procedures in every state and that is NOT likely to happen, given our tradition of state’s rights. Also, no politician will vote to outlaw gerrymandering ( in my view it should be because it gives an unfair advantage to one party over the other) as an advantage to their party. If you’re looking to “clean up the system” there are bigger issues to tackle anyway. Cronyism is alive and well at the local level as well as nepotism, just two holdovers from the era of the political bosses. You don’t hear much about this because these under-the-table tactics are usually winked at by the higher ups. The problem here is what’s known as the “Peter Principle” and the interlocking system of trading favors by local, state and national representatives. In short, issues that would benefit us all, rep. And dem. are lost in endless debate, watered down bills with riders attached that generally go nowhere as a result, and gridlock, no compromise. IMO if voter fraud does exist, and so far I don’t see any compelling evidence of a tidal wave of illegal voting, the bigger problem here is voter ignorance and voter apathy. Jefferson foresaw this when he pushed for educational institutions in the Northwest Territory. We need more skeptics who would pay no attention to the hype and go straight to the facts. Bottom line, what would benefit all of us in every economic class?

Cap’t Jack

DarronS - 08 September 2012 02:17 PM

Bryan, the facts are these laws are politically motivated. Voter fraud that rounds to zero is a not a serious problem.

This makes it look like you’re deliberately skirting the issue of the type of evidence our current system gives us for the rate of voter fraud.  It’s an important issue.  I specifically asked you to address it.

Disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters per state so Mitt Romney can get elected is a serious problem.

How are those numbers produced?

BTW, you’re right about the early voter laws versus voter ID. Too bad the intent is the same.

Right.  Forty-seven percent (actually 43 percent—I regret the error) of poll respondents identifying as Democrats want to disenfranchise legitimate voters.  It’s all political.

I asked you to provide evidence that voter fraud is a problem. You have not done so. I will not address you further until you can provide such evidence.

Thevillageatheist - 08 September 2012 04:27 PM

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

So let’s cut to the chase and examine as much evidence as possible in order to answer the question posed, does enough voter fraud exist to be a major hinderance in our democratic system, or is this a mere chimera with a hidden political agenda?

And by all means, let’s keep from addressing the issue of how much evidence we should expect if the incidence of voter fraud was high, given our current system.

We’re right back playing the appeal to ignorance game.

DarronS - 08 September 2012 07:17 PM

I asked you to provide evidence that voter fraud is a problem. You have not done so. I will not address you further until you can provide such evidence.

It’s not easy carrying on the conversation once the appeal to ignorance is taken away, is it?

Bryan - 08 September 2012 07:14 PM

Right.  Forty-seven percent of poll respondents identifying as Democrats want to disenfranchise legitimate voters.  It’s all political.

Source please. Otherwise, you’re just pulling it out of your nether regions.