Perhaps by comparing actual voter fraud with the new voter registration fraud.
Hmmm. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but those two things only prove that voter fraud doesn’t exist if there’s nothing in either category for comparison.
I am not sure what you mean by that. You speak of a case here and a case there from both parties.
I don’t speak of “a case here and a case there.” I speak of a widespread systemic vulnerability where the system makes it difficult to figure out how many cases of voter fraud take place in reality.
By the law of averages these abberrations would tend to cancel out.
Really. Is that the same law of averages that helps ensure that machine voting errors affect voters from both parties equally?
I don’t buy the law of averages argument without some real data to back it up.
But I know of a recent massive voter registration case involving hundreds of non existent voters in a single location, which has been widely reported.
It always helps if you provide URLs to help make clear what you’re talking about. Is it a case of improper registration? Or something else?
I understand the point you made earlier that claims of low voting fraud in the past are suspect because there has been minimal control and verification. I can accept that as a valid argument. But given the time spans involved, it is unlikely that massive voter fraud over the decades would not have shown up statistically.
You’re contradicting yourself. Doesn’t the “law of averages” equal things out? So that it won’t show up statistically?
But let’s suppose it doesn’t equal out after all. Where do you read the discrepancy in the numbers to detect where the law of averages doesn’t equal things out?
Consider this, voting has gone down over decades and it is unlikely that regular voters would have stopped voting in such great numbers that even a massive fraud would not make an impact on the votes cast.
I’m trying to consider it, but your sentence rivals one of mine for convolution. Can I get a simplified version?
OTOH, within three months of the new voter registration laws we find an effort to commit fraud by the very people who are making these changes.
So you’ve found the guilty party, then? URL? Or at least just a name?
Gerrymandering in any form, IMO is a blatant insult to the notion of unbiased representative elections.
Huh. What about the law of averages? ;-)
I don’t think there’s any entirely neutral way to draw district lines, myself. And if you knew that minority representation in Congress often depends on racially gerrymandered districts then I don’t think you’d decry the practice so readily. Since both sides do it, I think it’s sufficient to simply enforce the same rules on it for both sides. Party in control draws the lines. The lines should avoid creating oddly-shaped districts with no discernible resemblance to natural boundaries or to shared constituent interests (the latter is typically the justification for the racial gerrymandering we’ve got). “Neutral” line drawing has an odd tendency to result in districts that favor Democrats more than state demographics seem to suggest they should.
These trends tend to make me question the motives of any party which rams through radical departures from previous, relatively trouble free voting at all levels from the smallest villages/cities to county, to state, and to federal elections.
A person is eighty and has voted for decades in the same precinct and no longer drives but has her old expired drivers license (with or without picture) and her SS number and a recent utility bill or even a letter verifying her address, why would that person now be ineligible to vote?
Depends on the individual case, I would say. If the person is not a legal citizen then that would be the reason. Or the state could pass a ill-crafted law that makes it too difficult for that person to exercise their legitimate voting privilege. I don’t suggest that every voter ID law is well crafted. The Georgia law seems like a pretty good model, from what I can tell.
She is already in the system! You cannot make that citizen disappear on an administrative technicality! She is in the Census as a citizen and therefore enjoys the rights of all citizens.
As a legal argument that’s fairly weak. But I agree with the sentiment that a legitimate citizen should have a reasonable avenue to pursue their right to exercise the franchise. Sometimes the hurdles are set too high.