Are republicans trying to suppress minority voting?

[Zeebadee]

Except that there's not even a problem with voter fraud and the infinitesimally small amount that does exist (0.0004 percent according to the Brennan for Justice) CANNOT effect any election outcome. Is that clear? So if it's not a problem and can't effect election outcome, why pass laws to curb it? We have an actual problem with gun violence but do basically nothing about it...

What crap. Brennan quotes "studies" to prove their point. Their obvious bias on the issue pretty much makes their claims suspect.

To actually document voter fraud, one would have to investigate a large number of real voters, an extremely costly and time and labor intensive effort. If you can find a link to such a study, I'd sure like to see it. Truth is, no one can really say how much voter fraud is occurring because no one has done a real investigation.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

What crap. Brennan quotes "studies" to prove their point. Their obvious bias on the issue pretty much makes their claims suspect.

Additional sources have been provided aside from the group of lawyers at NYU. It's telling that, rather than consider the issue, bring up an alternative source that disagrees, or contest any other points, you just attempt to dismiss the source in order to protect your own politically skewed view. Seems like someone's trying to stick their head in the sand rather than admit they're wrong.

To actually document voter fraud, one would have to investigate a large number of real voters, an extremely costly and time and labor intensive effort. If you can find a link to such a study, I'd sure like to see it. Truth is, no one can really say how much voter fraud is occurring because no one has done a real investigation.

What about: http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2012/08/...ve-overstated/
Or: http://www.projectvote.org/images/pu...raud_Final.pdf

People have done real investigations. In fact, its the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass to say that there have been ten cases of in person voter fraud in a decade. If you contest that number, find your own goddamned study - I'm not doing your homework for you.

[Zeebadee]

Additional sources have been provided aside from the group of lawyers at NYU. It's telling that, rather than consider the issue, bring up an alternative source that disagrees, or contest any other points, you just attempt to dismiss the source in order to protect your own politically skewed view. Seems like someone's trying to stick their head in the sand rather than admit they're wrong.



What about: http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2012/08/...ve-overstated/
Or: http://www.projectvote.org/images/pu...raud_Final.pdf

People have done real investigations. In fact, its the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass to say that there have been ten cases of in person voter fraud in a decade. If you contest that number, find your own goddamned study - I'm not doing your homework for you.

Lol, your "sources" are pretty bogus. One is from a local news station, the other displays an openly apparent bias with statements like, "Consequently, the use of baseless voter fraud allegations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of Republican party activists". It then quotes from a department of justice initiative (BAVII) with a footnote that says, "Very little information about the program’s overall scope and performance has been released by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section; annual press releases announce the numbers of investigations and convictions obtained, and the Public Integrity Section’s annual reports to Congress briefly discuss some of the cases, but efforts to acquire more information about the program have been stymied by the Criminal Division’s failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in July 2005.".

Sure, there have been only ten cases of voter fraud reported. But there's been nothing to show that any large scale investigation has ever been done.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Lol, your "sources" are pretty bogus. One is from a local news station, the other displays an openly apparent bias with statements like, "Consequently, the use of baseless voter fraud allegations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of Republican party activists". It then quotes from a department of justice initiative (BAVII) with a footnote that says, "Very little information about the program’s overall scope and performance has been released by the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section; annual press releases announce the numbers of investigations and convictions obtained, and the Public Integrity Section’s annual reports to Congress briefly discuss some of the cases, but efforts to acquire more information about the program have been stymied by the Criminal Division’s failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in July 2005.".

Sure, there have been only ten cases of voter fraud reported. But there's been nothing to show that any large scale investigation has ever been done.

Again, if you choose to disagree, please provide an alternate source that supports, in any way, the passage of these laws.

Consider, for example, that no evidence of voter fraud has been offered by any proponent of the law in Pennsylvania on public record.

Now, a rational person might consider that considerable evidence that there is nothing to back up claims of voter fraud - in Pennsylvania or elsewhere - because if the supporters did provide evidence, legal challenges and public opposition to these laws would vanish rather quickly.

But obviously you're far more interested in burying your head in the sand and toeing the partisan political line than in any rational line of reasoning.

[Zeebadee]

Again, if you choose to disagree, please provide an alternate source that supports, in any way, the passage of these laws.

Consider, for example, that no evidence of voter fraud has been offered by any proponent of the law in Pennsylvania on public record.

Ok, I've considered that. So what?

Now, a rational person might consider that considerable evidence that there is nothing to back up claims of voter fraud - in Pennsylvania or elsewhere - because if the supporters did provide evidence, legal challenges and public opposition to these laws would vanish rather quickly.

Now, a rational person might consider that, because no one has made an effort to properly investigate the issue, there are very few instances of voter fraud on the record. Anyone getting caught seems to be caught purely by accident.

But obviously you're far more interested in enabling ineligible voters than in any rational line of reasoning.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Ok, I've considered that. So what?

So, rather than spend tens of millions of dollars to implement a law without any evidence that it will actually do anything productive, don't you think they would've bothered to investigate whether or not the law was needed? And if they found evidence that it was necessary to implement such laws, don't you think they'd publicly talk about that in order to lend weight to their argument?

That is, if they were actually interested in stopping voter fraud. They haven't even attempted to justify the necessity of the law, because they know that the law is not necessary to prevent voter fraud because voter fraud is incredibly rare.

Now, a rational person might consider that, because no one has made an effort to properly investigate the issue, there are very few instances of voter fraud on the record. Anyone getting caught seems to be caught purely by accident.

But obviously you're far more interested in enabling ineligible voters than in any rational line of reasoning.

Every source you've been provided, and every source I've been able to find (whether linked to or not) that provides any figures on voter fraud suggests that voter fraud is absolutely not an issue. If you disagree, find a damned source. Until you have any kind of reasoned argument, why should anyone bother to lend any credence to anything you say on the subject?

**Edit: I thought it might be appropriate to quote this yet again, as no one seems to be capable of grasping the point.

The lack of evidence of voter fraud is not due to law enforcement agencies ignoring their duties
Even if crime reports underestimate true crime rates because some crimes go unreported or undetected, or because criminal behavior is sometimes addressed by means other than prosecution, crime is still measured as a function of law enforcement efforts to address it. Under the rule of law, enforcement efforts establish the core evidence of crime. It is difficult to conceive of whole categories of criminal behavior that go almost completely undetected or ignored by law enforcement officials at all levels of government across the U.S. today. And yet, those who believe there is a lot of voter fraud despite the lack of evidence frequently fall back on this argument. When confronted they charge the paucity of evidence is due to the government’s failure to undertake the investigations and prosecutions that would produce it.15 A more plausible explanation is that voters are not committing fraud, leaving little to investigate or prosecute.

http://www.projectvote.org/images/pu...raud_Final.pdf

[Yarn]

Every source you've been provided, and every source I've been able to find (whether linked to or not) that provides any figures on voter fraud suggests that voter fraud is absolutely not an issue. If you disagree, find a damned source. Until you have any kind of reasoned argument, why should anyone bother to lend any credence to anything you say on the subject?

Because if they vote Republican and if Republicans are responsible in this case of doing something fundamentally evil and anti-democratic, they look like idiots for voting Republican. They are vain zealots, not explorers.

[Zeebadee]

So, rather than spend tens of millions of dollars to implement a law without any evidence that it will actually do anything productive, don't you think they would've bothered to investigate whether or not the law was needed? And if they found evidence that it was necessary to implement such laws, don't you think they'd publicly talk about that in order to lend weight to their argument?

That is, if they were actually interested in stopping voter fraud. They haven't even attempted to justify the necessity of the law, because they know that the law is not necessary to prevent voter fraud because voter fraud is incredibly rare.



Every source you've been provided, and every source I've been able to find (whether linked to or not) that provides any figures on voter fraud suggests that voter fraud is absolutely not an issue. If you disagree, find a damned source. Until you have any kind of reasoned argument, why should anyone bother to lend any credence to anything you say on the subject?

**Edit: I thought it might be appropriate to quote this yet again, as no one seems to be capable of grasping the point.

http://www.projectvote.org/images/pu...raud_Final.pdf

Then simply show me the results of a scientifically performed study that backs up your claim. Not a local TV station's poll, not a so-called study from an organization that starts out bad mouthing republicans, not a web site that quotes "studies", just a reasonably run investigation that shows voter fraud is a minor offense. All you've ever done is quote the small number of people caught. Of course that's a small number, there's no one really looking for them!

The problem is that a large number of voters would have to be extensively investigated to determine such activity. How would you go about conducting such an investigation? Fraudulent voters wouldn't just stand up and say, "Yes, I did it". They don't need to present an ID, we aren't allowed to question anyone at registration time, so how exactly would voter fraud ever be seriously investigated?

[Zeebadee]

Because if they vote Republican and if Republicans are responsible in this case of doing something fundamentally evil and anti-democratic, they look like idiots for voting Republican. They are vain zealots, not explorers.

And if they vote democrat, they don't give a shit about voter fraud as long as the illegal voting benefits them.

[Dodds]

Then simply show me the results of a scientifically performed study that backs up your claim. Not a local TV station's poll, not a so-called study from an organization that starts out bad mouthing republicans, not a web site that quotes "studies", just a reasonably run investigation that shows voter fraud is a minor offense. All you've ever done is quote the small number of people caught. Of course that's a small number, there's no one really looking for them!

The problem is that a large number of voters would have to be extensively investigated to determine such activity. How would you go about conducting such an investigation? Fraudulent voters wouldn't just stand up and say, "Yes, I did it". They don't need to present an ID, we aren't allowed to question anyone at registration time, so how exactly would voter fraud ever be seriously investigated?

Found by typing in "Voter fraud USA" into google.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...t_voter_fraud/

And just in case you think I am being bi-partisan or something.

http://www.brennancenter.org/pages/about/

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism.

Voter fraud is not a major issue, any attempts to claim it is is because the party doing so gains an advantage from it. Any changes to any election process is so a party can gain an advantage. Look at the boundary changes in the UK for a prime example.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Then simply show me the results of a scientifically performed study that backs up your claim. Not a local TV station's poll, not a so-called study from an organization that starts out bad mouthing republicans, not a web site that quotes "studies", just a reasonably run investigation that shows voter fraud is a minor offense. All you've ever done is quote the small number of people caught. Of course that's a small number, there's no one really looking for them!

The problem is that a large number of voters would have to be extensively investigated to determine such activity. How would you go about conducting such an investigation? Fraudulent voters wouldn't just stand up and say, "Yes, I did it". They don't need to present an ID, we aren't allowed to question anyone at registration time, so how exactly would voter fraud ever be seriously investigated?

Once again, because apparently someone is incapable of comprehending things they read: a lack of evidence of voter fraud does not count as evidence that voter fraud occurs.

Nevertheless, peruse the following sources. Unless, of course, you're going to say that USA Today, US News & World Report, the New York Times, the South Carolina elections commission, and a book published by the Cornell University Press by a professor of political science are all biased.
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Fro...NIBrd_ST_U.htm
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is...e-without-fire
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2012/...estigation.pdf
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/...80140100774960
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/op...ter-fraud.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...pagewanted=all

Yes, I'm aware that some of those are opinion pieces - but opinion pieces with cited studies on the subject of voter fraud. There is no evidence that in-person voter fraud the only type of fraud prevented by these laws is, in any way, a significant problem. If you disagree, find a source to back up your claims. That you've failed to do so only demonstrates the paucity of evidence to back up your argument - and then you are, in effect, making an argument from ignorance, claiming that an absence of evidence supports your case! Hardly.

[Dodds]

What crap. Brennan quotes "studies" to prove their point. Their obvious bias on the issue pretty much makes their claims suspect.

To actually document voter fraud, one would have to investigate a large number of real voters, an extremely costly and time and labor intensive effort. If you can find a link to such a study, I'd sure like to see it. Truth is, no one can really say how much voter fraud is occurring because no one has done a real investigation.

I seem to remember you attempting to rebut this exact same style of argument from myself, when you don't agree with the figures attack the source or something you said. Or would you like me to link you to a software developer who has blogged about voter fraud at some point? Surely thats a good source.