Voter Fraud, Really?

[Sam]

A most impressive and thorough analysis that examines costs in only 3 states out of the 22 state legislatures that had passed Voter ID laws at time of writing by using anecdotal accounts of 3 individuals for each state.

You realize that the study that created this thread validated only five non-citizen votes, correct? If the OP study is valid, it's hard to argue that this study isn't valid.

If you disagree with the conclusion, you have to state a good reason why you disagree. Bad methodology? You can cite another study showing the costs to be truly negligible in most states. I think, however, you'll find that in most states, the cost of obtaining a photo ID for many people will be at least equivalent to cost of the now-unconstitutional poll tax. That's a huge problem for proponents of Voter ID, as they have not shown to date that such laws deter illegal voting.

[Sam]

Nonsense Sam, "education" is meaningless since most of those who are not eligible most likely know they are not. The fact is Sam, you wouldn't do anything of substance to prevent voter fraud. But why would you - I'm sure the majority will support your liberal policies.

The sad thing is that you didn't even read the article you linked to, let alone the study (can't blame you for that since it was only just published and you probably don't have university access to get the early copy). The authors make a pretty good case for why the voting was probably inadvertent and based on lack of education: no non-citizen with a college degree or higher voted and illegal voting was inversely related to education whereas activism is correlated to higher education.

This seems to be another example of someone grabbing a headline they think agrees with their position and not actually bothering to read the bloody thing.

Voter fraud doesn't occur with any significance. Inadvertent illegal voting — the apparent topic of this study — does happen to some degree but we don't know whether even that rises to the level of significance in elections. But, by all means — if you want to propose a balanced solution that prevents as much or more illegal voting as causes disenfranchisement, I'm listening.

[Cow Poke]

A most impressive and thorough analysis that examines costs in only 3 states out of the 22 state legislatures that had passed Voter ID laws at time of writing by using anecdotal accounts of 3 individuals for each state.

TOTALLY beside the point -- Sam can manage to find support for anything he wishes to believe.

[Sam]

TOTALLY beside the point -- Sam can manage to find support for anything he wishes to believe.

Keep your interests broad and read wide and you'll never be bereft of supporting evidence.

More of a problem, I believe, to have a strong opinion without also having a preponderance of evidence to back it.

[Cow Poke]

Keep your interests broad and read wide and you'll never be bereft of supporting evidence.

More of a problem, I believe, to have a strong opinion without also having a preponderance of evidence to back it.

BETTER to actually DO something about the poor than to bloviate on the internet with a bunch of "research" and advocate stealing money from one group of people to give to another group of people.

[seer]

Voter fraud doesn't occur with any significance. Inadvertent illegal voting — the apparent topic of this study — does happen to some degree but we don't know whether even that rises to the level of significance in elections. But, by all means — if you want to propose a balanced solution that prevents as much or more illegal voting as causes disenfranchisement, I'm listening.

Listen, I know from personal experience that it not insignificant if my polling place is any indication. And second, I do not "want" balance - I want clear eligibility. In my state you don't even have to prove citizenship, you just have to claim it. And that is just wrong. And that is why we don't pick up fraud - no one, and I mean no one cross checks for citizenship. Screw disenfranchisement, citizenship must be proven.

[phank]

When someone tells me you have to pay a thousand dollars for a government issued ID I will ad hominem the living crap out of them.

As opposed, of course, to presenting the facts. Which, for all you know, may even support you.

[phank]

Listen, I know from personal experience that it not insignificant if my polling place is any indication. And second, I do not "want" balance - I want clear eligibility. In my state you don't even have to prove citizenship, you just have to claim it. And that is just wrong. And that is why we don't pick up fraud - no one, and I mean no one cross checks for citizenship. Screw disenfranchisement, citizenship must be proven.

But this is apparently a somewhat different issue, so we're not all on the same page. Non-citizens voting is (1) apparently not much of a problem; (2) apparently not being addressed by any current policies either.

But anyway, you do not seem to grasp the issue here. Yes, we can turn the screws to make it prohibitively difficult for those to vote who are not supposed to be eligible to vote. But by setting the bar that high, we make it increasingly difficult for those who SHOULD be able to vote, to prove their bona fides. For example, the procedure one might have to undergo to PROVE beyond any possible doubt that their birth certificate is genuine, might (read: would definitely) disallow some possibly very large number of legitimate birth certificates that somehow fail to meet the established standards.

As a close analogy, think of the legal system. Are we willing to jail a thousand innocent people to ensure no guilty people get away, or are we willing to let a thousand guilty people go to ensure that no innocent people are jailed? Which is more important - punishing the guilty or protecting the innocent?

In other words, the tougher you make it for ineligible people to vote, the tougher you make it for EVERYONE to vote, since any of them MIGHT be ineligiblre. If you decide you're willing to disenfranchise a thousand perfectly legitimate voters to catch one non-citizen, you need to explain why this is BETTER than letting that one non-citizen and those thousand citizens vote.

[Cow Poke]

But this is apparently a somewhat different issue, so we're not all on the same page. Non-citizens voting is (1) apparently not much of a problem; (2) apparently not being addressed by any current policies either.

But anyway, you do not seem to grasp the issue here. Yes, we can turn the screws to make it prohibitively difficult for those to vote who are not supposed to be eligible to vote. But by setting the bar that high, we make it increasingly difficult for those who SHOULD be able to vote, to prove their bona fides. For example, the procedure one might have to undergo to PROVE beyond any possible doubt that their birth certificate is genuine, might (read: would definitely) disallow some possibly very large number of legitimate birth certificates that somehow fail to meet the established standards.

As a close analogy, think of the legal system. Are we willing to jail a thousand innocent people to ensure no guilty people get away, or are we willing to let a thousand guilty people go to ensure that no innocent people are jailed? Which is more important - punishing the guilty or protecting the innocent?

In other words, the tougher you make it for ineligible people to vote, the tougher you make it for EVERYONE to vote, since any of them MIGHT be ineligiblre. If you decide you're willing to disenfranchise a thousand perfectly legitimate voters to catch one non-citizen, you need to explain why this is BETTER than letting that one non-citizen and those thousand citizens vote.

Most people I know of are totally willing to do what it takes to help potential legitimate voters get their required ID. The idea that anybody wants, or wants to allow, the process to be prohibitively difficult for legitimately qualified voters to get IDs is simply goofy.

[phank]

Most people I know of are totally willing to do what it takes to help potential legitimate voters get their required ID. The idea that anybody wants, or wants to allow, the process to be prohibitively difficult for legitimately qualified voters to get IDs is simply goofy.

Not prohibitively difficult -- most of these laws only require one additional (if superfluous) level of verification.

As for the notion that anybody wants the process of obtaining additional (redundent) ID to discourage anyone, apparently this includes Republican legislators in about half the states. But I certainly would be the last to disagree that these people are goofy. Seems pretty self-evident.

[Cow Poke]

Not prohibitively difficult -- most of these laws only require one additional (if superfluous) level of verification.

As for the notion that anybody wants the process of obtaining additional (redundent) ID to discourage anyone, apparently this includes Republican legislators in about half the states. But I certainly would be the last to disagree that these people are goofy. Seems pretty self-evident.

If' you're going to try to be smug, at least spell REDUNDANT correctly.

[phank]

If' you're going to try to be smug, at least spell REDUNDANT correctly.

My error. But it's encouraging that this is the only objection you found worth mentioning.

[Cow Poke]

My error. But it's encouraging that this is the only objection you found worth mentioning.

What? I thought the spelling error was some of your BETTER work!

[seer]

In other words, the tougher you make it for ineligible people to vote, the tougher you make it for EVERYONE to vote, since any of them MIGHT be ineligiblre. If you decide you're willing to disenfranchise a thousand perfectly legitimate voters to catch one non-citizen, you need to explain why this is BETTER than letting that one non-citizen and those thousand citizens vote.

Actually I think it should be way more difficult to vote. Something like 40% of the polled population do not even know who the vice president is. These people are to stupid or unaware to vote intelligently. I think a basic civics test should be required before one can register.

[Sam]

Actually I think it should be way more difficult to vote. Something like 40% of the polled population do not even know who the vice president is. These people are to stupid or unaware to vote intelligently. I think a basic civics test should be required before one can register.

Also ruled unconstitutional.

ETA: Actually not. Learn something new every day. Quite probably illegal under the Voting Rights Act but not actually unconstitutional. Of course, such tests would undoubtedly come to be used as a cudgel against the poor and minorities, making them abominable.