0
rushmc

Voter issues? Nah, they dont exist do they......

Recommended Posts

davjohns

***
Except that there really is no evidence of any illegals voting, or voter fraud taking place.

It appears very likely that the pecentage of voter fraud is significantly below the margin of error of the actual voting process.

Why then is so much effort (and money) being spent to fix a problem that doesn't exist? I don't think you have to be overly skeptical to come to the conclusion that there are other reasons to do this.



So, there's no evidence of voter fraud? I'll file appeals for all those people convicted of it. Thanks.

But then you say the percentage of it is below the margin of error? I guess if there is none, and zero is less than the margin of error, you are consistent here.

Then, you say the problem doesn't exist. OK. [:/]

I don't care what political party or theory it might or might not benefit. I want to protect individual liberties by preventing illegal voters from cancelling out legal voters. Plain and simple.

BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes?

I forgot to include the word significant in the first sentence. Rest of the post kind of made that clear.

Quote

BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes?



No, that logic makes absolutely no sense.

If somebody is in favour of the death penalty because they think it is a deterrent, it doesn't mean I am against the death penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

If somebody is in favour of the death penalty because they think it is a deterrent, it doesn't mean I am against the death penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent.



what about death penalty if you vote illegally?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think that requiring ID to vote is racist?
Lmao,the truth is that any US citizen can get ID, and as David Johns has pointed out,if you use banks or go to college you need a photo ID to prove who you are.
You talk about the GOP placing slow antiquated machines in predominantly minority areas,well if this is true then it is wrong,but it's also wrong for the new black panther party to intimidate people from voting for candidates they do not promote and not get jailed for voter intimidation.
Once again I do not see how requiring ID to vote is inconvienent in any way,since you need it to operate motor vehicles,or to open any bank account,or to get into college,or to get a legal job,or to get welfare, or get unemployment,or to rent anything,or to participate in activities like skydiving,and the list go's on,and on.....
So please enlighten me on why a US citizen would not have ID when it is so easy to obtain,and crucial for everyday life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Who do you want disenfranchised? A crapload of legal voters that get their votes
>cancelled? or a handful of people that just don't give a crap enough to get a free
>ID practically handed to them?

Neither. But given a choice, I'll take the tiny handful of voters who are currently disenfranchised by "cancelled" votes over a crapload of voters who would be disenfranchised by political operatives eager to secure a win for their candidate.

>though, honestly, Billvon, I don't think you've even sided with your buddies on
>that specific one.

It's almost like I am completely abandoning the safety of a predefined political position . . .

(And if you really want to bake your noodle - I support nuclear power and private gun ownership)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toolbox

Again, I have to wonder how the people cited in that scenario survive without a job or government benefits, but are registered voters. It doesn't strike you as odd?


It is very odd indeed! If you are a US citizen of legal age then it is no problem to get a state issued ID,even if you are on government assistance,since the government will provide you with ID free if you are in the welfare system.



Sure, no problem at all:

www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required-bureaucrat-tells/
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many of the voter ID laws would allow the registration offices to 'deny' even some state issued IDs.

So define what ID is acceptable. The whole point of these laws is to LIMIT the IDs that would be accepted, based on demographic race and a host of other vote-rigging criteria.

THAT is the problem. If you think a drivers license is acceptable ID to vote, then great for you. But the voter id laws out there are looking to stop that, or certainly limit it.

you think that these are all acceptable forms of ID, fine. Many people cannot get or do not have any of these forms of ID. Or they cannot get them without excess difficulty. THAT is the problem.

Legal citizens required to prove they are legal citizens to vote, using a narrow band of types of ID.

I dare you, right now, to prove to me that you are legal to vote.....that you are a citizen. Whatever you throw up there in the form of your god-given identification, I will shoot it down in seconds.

Even a Texas state Drivers license does not guarantee that you are legal to vote, yet they accept it, since Texas already disallows felons for example, to vote.
ID's needed:
http://votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/need-id
few of which actually prove your legality to vote.....
requirements to vote from a different page:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml

It's all fucking wonderful....unless you are one of those people who is in fact a US Citizen, legal to vote, but you are denied your vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>
(And if you really want to bake your noodle - I support nuclear power and private gun ownership)



why on earth would that bake my noodle - i'm sick of people wallowing in stupid political stereotypes here

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******
Except that there really is no evidence of any illegals voting, or voter fraud taking place.

It appears very likely that the pecentage of voter fraud is significantly below the margin of error of the actual voting process.

Why then is so much effort (and money) being spent to fix a problem that doesn't exist? I don't think you have to be overly skeptical to come to the conclusion that there are other reasons to do this.



So, there's no evidence of voter fraud? I'll file appeals for all those people convicted of it. Thanks.

But then you say the percentage of it is below the margin of error? I guess if there is none, and zero is less than the margin of error, you are consistent here.

Then, you say the problem doesn't exist. OK. [:/]

I don't care what political party or theory it might or might not benefit. I want to protect individual liberties by preventing illegal voters from cancelling out legal voters. Plain and simple.

BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes?

I forgot to include the word significant in the first sentence. Rest of the post kind of made that clear.

Quote

BTW...if one party wants ID for political purposes, doesn't the other one oppose it for political purposes?



No, that logic makes absolutely no sense.

If somebody is in favour of the death penalty because they think it is a deterrent, it doesn't mean I am against the death penalty because I don't think it is a deterrent.

OK. You misspoke (so to speak). Fair enough. You mean that you don't consider the amount of voter fraud significant enough to require remedial measures that you consider overkill.

I don't think it is possible for us to find mutual ground on this. I don't consider it a terribly onerous thing to ask people to identify themselves before they vote. I guess you do. I do consider the voting process important enought to take certain reasonable measures to safeguard it. IMO, you don't.

As to your claim to failed logic, let me see if I can make it clearer... If one party wants voter ID because they think it eliminates voters who would vote for the other party, it is the flip side of that argument for the other party. They do not want voter ID because they think it benefits them at the polls to not have it.

The death penalty argument you present is not analogous. People for or against the death penalty have arguments that are based on ideological grounds. The voter ID issue can be based on ideological grounds (as in my case), or it can be for party gain. If it is for party gain, it is a win / lose scenario (the goal is to secure or deny a finite number of votes and the derivative power). Therefore, one party's argument is counter-balanced by the other party's argument and they are both going for votes / power by their arguments.

Parties want to include or exclude votes on the basis of power gained or lost.

I don't want to exclude any legal votes or include any illegal votes regardless of who it benefits. It's one of those fundamental pillars of democracy kind of things. I seem to be fairly lonely in this regard.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think it is possible for us to find mutual ground on this. I don't consider it a terribly onerous thing to ask people to identify themselves before they vote. I guess you do. I do consider the voting process important enought to take certain reasonable measures to safeguard it. IMO, you don't.



More faulty logic. You are starting from the assumption that it needs safegaurding. To get to that position, you have to assume that it has been a problem in at least the last couple of elections.

My standpoint is that there is no identified problem of any significance, hence there is no need for safeguarding. Prove to me there is an actual problem, and I agree with you.

Quote

As to your claim to failed logic, let me see if I can make it clearer... If one party wants voter ID because they think it eliminates voters who would vote for the other party, it is the flip side of that argument for the other party. They do not want voter ID because they think it benefits them at the polls to not have it.



Or the other party could simply think it is not the right thing to do.

(It being political parties, yes changes are it is all political. That still doesn't make your logic correct though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave, I know you hate to have your vote nullified.. but how much do you give a shit about the thousands.... who have had them nullified by the likes of Diebold... who control the software for counting votes on THEIR machines??

Their promise to deliver elections for conservative politicians should put up HUGE red flags for Americans who believe as I do that voter fraud is not an American value. Others here seem to not care as long as their conservative guy wins by any means... its all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

Dave, I know you hate to have your vote nullified.. but how much do you give a shit about the thousands.... who have had them nullified by the likes of Diebold... who control the software for counting votes on THEIR machines??

Their promise to deliver elections for conservative politicians should put up HUGE red flags for Americans who believe as I do that voter fraud is not an American value. Others here seem to not care as long as their conservative guy wins by any means... its all good.



Clearly, I find it abhorrent that ANYONE's vote is nullified. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that. I think this is the third time in this thread alone. I don't like either party and don't fit in the category liberal or conservative.

I don't recall the Diebold story. I'd certainly like to read about it if you have a link. I would very much like to see criminal charges against anyone involved.

I've kind of given up on Skydekker (sorry buddy). There is no reasonable doubt that voter fraud happens. There is no logical way to tell how extensive it is or in who's favor it is committed the most. However, he continues to argue that it is not significant even though it is impossible to make that declaration. Some people have made up their minds and don't need facts.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

Clearly, I find it abhorrent that ANYONE's vote is nullified. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that.



get used to it. over and over and over again.

you are only allowed Position A and Position B. If you argue Position C, the A's will accuse you of being extreme B....and vice versa. the others will pull some tangent out of the air and accuse you of hating baby seals

why do you hate children and minorities?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

***Clearly, I find it abhorrent that ANYONE's vote is nullified. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat that.



get used to it. over and over and over again.

you are only allowed Position A and Position B. If you argue Position C, the A's will accuse you of being extreme B....and vice versa. the others will pull some tangent out of the air and accuse you of hating baby seals

why do you hate children and minorities?

I don't! I promise! I just put ketchup on most everything. It's not because I hate it.

Oh, wait...

I see what you did there.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns


I've kind of given up on Skydekker (sorry buddy). There is no reasonable doubt that voter fraud happens. There is no logical way to tell how extensive it is or in who's favor it is committed the most. However, he continues to argue that it is not significant even though it is impossible to make that declaration. Some people have made up their minds and don't need facts.



And that would be you. You've convinced yourself its not possible to estimate the level of fraud because it is more convenient to say 'it could be millions of votes!' But that's false. It is possible to evaluate, and it's also possible to evaluate the other error factors and see that they are more significant. It's also been revealed by GOP insiders as the hoax that it is. Ignoring that doesn't serve you well when you're talking about 'some other people who have made up their minds.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***
I've kind of given up on Skydekker (sorry buddy). There is no reasonable doubt that voter fraud happens. There is no logical way to tell how extensive it is or in who's favor it is committed the most. However, he continues to argue that it is not significant even though it is impossible to make that declaration. Some people have made up their minds and don't need facts.



And that would be you. You've convinced yourself its not possible to estimate the level of fraud because it is more convenient to say 'it could be millions of votes!' But that's false. It is possible to evaluate, and it's also possible to evaluate the other error factors and see that they are more significant. It's also been revealed by GOP insiders as the hoax that it is. Ignoring that doesn't serve you well when you're talking about 'some other people who have made up their minds.'

On the contrary. It is clearly not possible to know the extent of fraud. I do not claim and never have that it is millions. It clearly COULD be. Or, it is possible that every case of voter fraud is caught and prosecuted and there is no more. I will re-state that I do not know. That's kind of inherent in my statement that it is impossible to know. I will also politely point out that you do not know either (though you state that you do when you claim 'millions' is false).

If you would kindly read my posts on this subject and direct me to where I claimed to know the extent of voter fraud, I would be glad of it. I would like to correct whatever error I made before. Please? :D

You were very careful to re-state the issue. I said it is not possible to know the extent of voter fraud. You said it is possible to estimate it. Those are very different things. Estimates are a form of guess. I find guesses tend to be heavily influenced by what the person or group making the guess want the results to be. There are various methods to try to make those guesses more scientific looking. I find the best you can hope for from those methods is an indicator...if that.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns


You were very careful to re-state the issue. I said it is not possible to know the extent of voter fraud. You said it is possible to estimate it. Those are very different things. Estimates are a form of guess.



No, it is not. They are estimates. And if the estimate for one is an order or two of magnitude bigger than the other, you don't worry about it having a precision value of 1 vote. That's the situation we're in here. We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem, and that both are dwarfed by the problems around voting system accuracy in general.

And how do you make these counts? You have direct data, like numbers of people caught/charged/convicted, numbers of people who show up at the poll and see their name crossed off, number of dead people who subsequently voted, number of legal voters who get letters in the mail telling them their name is spelled like a felon and now have to spend tens of hours to fix, and numbers of people who show up at the polls and find their names missing. You may have actual numbers of the quantity of ballots tossed in each precinct due to hanging chads or other irregularities.

And then you have indirect data - the comparison of the results versus exit polls and pre election polling. You have the vote differences between precincts. The expectation is that the fraudulent votes are skewed to one side - any significant quantity will result in statistical outliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***
You were very careful to re-state the issue. I said it is not possible to know the extent of voter fraud. You said it is possible to estimate it. Those are very different things. Estimates are a form of guess.



No, it is not. They are estimates. And if the estimate for one is an order or two of magnitude bigger than the other, you don't worry about it having a precision value of 1 vote. That's the situation we're in here. We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem, and that both are dwarfed by the problems around voting system accuracy in general.

And how do you make these counts? You have direct data, like numbers of people caught/charged/convicted, numbers of people who show up at the poll and see their name crossed off, number of dead people who subsequently voted, number of legal voters who get letters in the mail telling them their name is spelled like a felon and now have to spend tens of hours to fix, and numbers of people who show up at the polls and find their names missing. You may have actual numbers of the quantity of ballots tossed in each precinct due to hanging chads or other irregularities.

And then you have indirect data - the comparison of the results versus exit polls and pre election polling. You have the vote differences between precincts. The expectation is that the fraudulent votes are skewed to one side - any significant quantity will result in statistical outliers.

Then please provide links to the estimates you use to come to your conclusions. You state that "We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem...". (Even though you admitted we only have estimates) Please provide these estimates that are accurate enough to make such clear conclusions of fact. I think this is the third time in this thread that I have asked for such clear cut facts. The only thing I've seen is one account that referenced a survey that said poor people have a harder time getting ID and then made the leap of inference that they would not vote and then added the personal judgment that the voter impact was 'significant'. Not even the 'estimate' that you cite.

It's very easy. Just show me the fact based estimates that show how hard it is for people to obtain ID and how little voter fraud there is in comparison. In order for an argument to be valid, the number of votes stolen by voter fraud must be less than the number of votes lost due to inability to secure ID with a minimal degree of effort...I would say about the degree of effort needed to register to vote in the first place.

Of course, therein lies a problem. Filling out a voter registration card is usually required to vote. And it could easily serve as a form of ID, couldn't it? Or are you advocating the elimination of voter registration as well?
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

******
You were very careful to re-state the issue. I said it is not possible to know the extent of voter fraud. You said it is possible to estimate it. Those are very different things. Estimates are a form of guess.



No, it is not. They are estimates. And if the estimate for one is an order or two of magnitude bigger than the other, you don't worry about it having a precision value of 1 vote. That's the situation we're in here. We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem, and that both are dwarfed by the problems around voting system accuracy in general.

And how do you make these counts? You have direct data, like numbers of people caught/charged/convicted, numbers of people who show up at the poll and see their name crossed off, number of dead people who subsequently voted, number of legal voters who get letters in the mail telling them their name is spelled like a felon and now have to spend tens of hours to fix, and numbers of people who show up at the polls and find their names missing. You may have actual numbers of the quantity of ballots tossed in each precinct due to hanging chads or other irregularities.

And then you have indirect data - the comparison of the results versus exit polls and pre election polling. You have the vote differences between precincts. The expectation is that the fraudulent votes are skewed to one side - any significant quantity will result in statistical outliers.

Then please provide links to the estimates you use to come to your conclusions. You state that "We know that the solutions are much worse than the stated problem...". (Even though you admitted we only have estimates) Please provide these estimates that are accurate enough to make such clear conclusions of fact. I think this is the third time in this thread that I have asked for such clear cut facts. The only thing I've seen is one account that referenced a survey that said poor people have a harder time getting ID and then made the leap of inference that they would not vote and then added the personal judgment that the voter impact was 'significant'. Not even the 'estimate' that you cite.

It's very easy. Just show me the fact based estimates that show how hard it is for people to obtain ID and how little voter fraud there is in comparison. In order for an argument to be valid, the number of votes stolen by voter fraud must be less than the number of votes lost due to inability to secure ID with a minimal degree of effort...I would say about the degree of effort needed to register to vote in the first place.

Of course, therein lies a problem. Filling out a voter registration card is usually required to vote. And it could easily serve as a form of ID, couldn't it? Or are you advocating the elimination of voter registration as well?

As far as voter fraud issues go, I give you John F. Kennedy.

"Son, you only need to win by one vote - I can't afford a landslide." Joseph P. Kennedy

Stalin reputedly said (my Russian is weak) that who votes does not matter - who COUNTS the votes matters.

In the 1960 election cycle, Richard J. Daley, a good pal of JPK, worked on behalf of the Kennedy campaign. In Chicago at the time, whoever Daley backed won Cook County - regardless of quite who actually voted for whom.

Add to this Lyndon B. Johnson, the king of the stuffed ballot box. Votes for LBJ in Texas were routinely submitted in alphabetical order, in the same hand. His campaign manager confessed on his deathbed to voter fraud on an heroic scale (say it ain't so!), all of which was rather well known at the time.

According to various sources, Nixon did, in fact, receive more votes, and would have had more electoral votes without professional massaging of the results, than did our eventual 35th president.

JFK was a much more likable guy, while RMN was decidedly more competent. Odious though Tricky Dick may have been, there is a vanishingly small likelihood that we would have been embroiled in Southeast Asia if he had been in office.

It is also interesting to consider how Henry Cabot Lodge might have handled things if Nixon had been in the crosshairs in Dealy Plaza.

Luckily we do not have candidates being elected with 124% of the vote like some places do, but to pretend that irregularities in the polling process are not a factor in our fair Republic is inane.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is clearly not possible to know the extent of fraud.



Actually there is.....and it is done all the time. There are so many things wrong with your statement it is hard to know where to start.

Statistical samples are taken and analyzed and from those samples, VERY VERY accurate statistics come out. No, these things are not done by you nor I, because we are not smart enough to do those things. But it is there, for the very purpose of seeing if there is a problem.

Study after study is done by various government and private agencies to look into voter fraud. Why? Because again, people smarter than you and I are actually out there to attempt to secure the system and its integrity. NONE of these studies actually points towards a statistical problem with voter fraud worth fixing. Unless of course you have a source - go ahead and post it please.

And most of all "We cannot be sure" is the same argument that Christians make for the presence of their 'deity' as well as the spaghetti monster folks. We cannot and will not prove the non-existence of something.

If YOU are going to make the claim that something exists (voter fraud), then YOU have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is so. YOU and only YOU have that burden. So go ahead and prove that it exists, because it is already known that it does not.

Therefore any attempt to fix a problem that does not really exist is in fact up for a lot of criticism and debate. and rightly so. And the rules that are being put into place are not about fixing 'voter fraud', they are about eliminating voters from the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
winsor


In the 1960 election cycle, Richard J. Daley, a good pal of JPK, worked on behalf of the Kennedy campaign. In Chicago at the time, whoever Daley backed won Cook County - regardless of quite who actually voted for whom.



Windsor - you're citing an election 54 years ago....yet not also discussing the substantial voter suppression of the times that lead to the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

and back to Dave - no shortage of evidence has been provided in these discussions. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in facts, that you've made up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

Quote

It is clearly not possible to know the extent of fraud.



Actually there is.....and it is done all the time. There are so many things wrong with your statement it is hard to know where to start.

Statistical samples are taken and analyzed and from those samples, VERY VERY accurate statistics come out. No, these things are not done by you nor I, because we are not smart enough to do those things. But it is there, for the very purpose of seeing if there is a problem.

Study after study is done by various government and private agencies to look into voter fraud. Why? Because again, people smarter than you and I are actually out there to attempt to secure the system and its integrity. NONE of these studies actually points towards a statistical problem with voter fraud worth fixing. Unless of course you have a source - go ahead and post it please.

And most of all "We cannot be sure" is the same argument that Christians make for the presence of their 'deity' as well as the spaghetti monster folks. We cannot and will not prove the non-existence of something.

If YOU are going to make the claim that something exists (voter fraud), then YOU have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is so. YOU and only YOU have that burden. So go ahead and prove that it exists, because it is already known that it does not.

Therefore any attempt to fix a problem that does not really exist is in fact up for a lot of criticism and debate. and rightly so. And the rules that are being put into place are not about fixing 'voter fraud', they are about eliminating voters from the polls.



OK. You are once again claiming that voter fraud does not exits. Again, I am firing up my computer to file appeals for all of those people who have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly, it DOES exist. I have provided quite a few examples in this forum before.

I have to put you in the category of those who have made up their minds and don't need facts. The fact is that it does exist. The prevalence is a subject of dispute because the extent can not be truly known. But you continue to claim that it does not exist at all, despite the clear evidence. Comparing it to religion just kind of drives home the point. The existence of God is an either/or proposition. The existence of voter fraud is a question of extent, not existence...except to you and a few others who ignore it.

(Still waiting for the evidence I asked of you. I have searched. Everything I found started out with ideological drivel before skewing numbers and twisting facts...on each side of the spectrum. But none of them claimed there was no evidence of voter fraud as you state.)

On the flip side...prove that people can't get an ID or would not vote if they had to get one? THAT would be hard to quantify. I don't deny that it can and will happen. I just recognize that it is hard to quantify...like voter fraud.

As to your comments on statistical analysis and my ability to work with it...care to guess what I do for a living? You are reminding me of someone else who recently declared that I clearly have never held a security clearance. You guys might want to ask more questions and make fewer declarations of fact.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns


OK. You are once again claiming that voter fraud does not exits. Again, I am firing up my computer to file appeals for all of those people who have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly, it DOES exist. I have provided quite a few examples in this forum before.



So how many do you have...single digits? double digits? There are over 100 MILLION votes in a general election. You have to stretch just to get to 100. Whereas Florida alone tried to eliminate several thousand legal voters. And a 0.5% vote count error is 500,000.

Quote


As to your comments on statistical analysis and my ability to work with it...care to guess what I do for a living?



it's not statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong, I never said it does not exist. and have never said that, but I have in fact consistently maintained that it does not exist to any statically significant amount.

And I understand the right wing zealots want ZERO voter fraud and feel that this is a valid goal to achieve, but in fact CANNOT be achieved through any process that might be developed, nor can it be achieved by stricter voter ID laws,

Does the definition of voter fraud also include a governments efforts to stop legal voters from voting?

And we already have proven that people who should be legal to vote are in fact getting denied their right to vote, examples posted earlier. Apparently you have chosen to ignore the 'facts', just as you have accused me of ignoring the 'facts'.

I am still awaiting your sources that demonstrate that a) voter fraud exists, and b) that it is a statistical problem.

Go ahead, I can afford to wait.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+voter+fraud+exists&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
simple searches, - narrow it down to news, then narrow it down to research articles, then narrow it down any way you want....but again just TRY to find the article that says voter fraud is a statistical problem, or a problem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0