Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
On this topic, I definitely lean much further left than right. I find no compelling evidence to suggest voter fraud is a serious problem. So if someone succeeds in preventing 100 instances of voter fraud by disenfranchising 65K people, I consider that a bad solution. It denies a basic right in order to prevent a very small number of instances of fraud. It is out of balance. The solution should not disenfranchise significantly more people than the instances of fraud it prevents.
So if you can show me that disenfranchising 65K people will prevent approx 65K instances of voter fraud - I'll probably say, OK - that's a reasonable swap. If you cannot show me that the fraud is happening at any significant level, then your solution should not disenfranchise people at any significant level.
Comment