That's because democrats don't want the ability for illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead people and Disney characters taken away from them... And lets not forget how much they would miss multiple voting.
Do you have a shred of evidence to support the premise that Democrats cheat more than Republicans? Save yourself some time and start with Watergate.
Yep, and we all know that Repubicans would never cheat *cough*Watergate*cough*Bush v Gore*cough*photo ID laws. :lol:
Well it would help him stuff his strawman if you would pretend that you did say something like that. He is hard at work now trying to drag Watergate into a thread about voter ID. The hackery is strong with this one.No I don't... But since I never said that they did, exactly why would I want to post any evidence of it?
Nice try, but it still doesn't change the fact that the right wants an honest election, and the left will have none of it.
Begging the question again.....implied that that the elections are not "honest".Nice try, but it still doesn't change the fact that the right wants an honest election, and the left will have none of it.
In fact they make elections FAR less fair insofar as they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in order to stop a handful of fraudulent votes.
Begging the question again.....implied that that the elections are not "honest".
I would rather have a large number of eligible voters vote and accept a tiny fraction of fraud rather than a sizable number of eligible voters not voting...
And yet the Democrats that took the Indiana law to the Supreme Court in order to have it over turned, couldn't find as much as one person that had been disenfranchised... Imagine that.
As I mentioned above, photo ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with fair elections. In fact they make elections FAR less fair insofar as they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in order to stop a handful of fraudulent votes. Wait, I have an idea to stop 100% of election fraud! Let's just not have any more elections!
The scarecrow called he wants you to quit knocking him ass over teakettle so you can make a bad argument.
We dont know how much fraudulent voting goes on because there is very little effort made in prosecuting it unless its so blatant it cant be ignored. So how much fraud would be prevented is not something that is easily measured, despite what you may believe.
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all
And once again we return to your basic dishonest fallacy. You have been shown repeatedly in several threads that in the states where voter ID laws were passed, voter participation went up, not down. You would recall this if you were a stellar or even obtuse debater. This is due to you taking the pbrauer route and performing a mental enema upon yourself each time you have had that pointed out to you. You just rinse and repeat. Over and over.As I mentioned above, photo ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with fair elections. In fact they make elections FAR less fair insofar as they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in order to stop a handful of fraudulent votes. Wait, I have an idea to stop 100% of election fraud! Let's just not have any more elections!
I don't like Voter ID laws because they do not solve the real problem.
What you get is illegals with a photo ID voting.
The real solution is to allow all States to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. That along with a purge of voting records to weed out the dead (sorry Cook County) would go a long ways to solving a lot of this voter fraud.
Oh, yes, only voting on paper ballots would help too.
Having said this, till a real solution can be put into force, Voter ID is better than nothing.
Rinse and repeat.Again -- voter fraud is not a real issue in this country, at least in federal elections. But if anyone was actually serious about it, they would be addressing inconsistency and weakness in absentee ballot and polling procedures -- not voter imperonation.
And once again we return to your basic dishonest fallacy. You have been shown repeatedly in several threads that in the states where voter ID laws were passed, voter participation went up, not down. You would recall this if you were a stellar or even obtuse debater. This is due to you taking the pbrauer route and performing a mental enema upon yourself each time you have had that pointed out to you. You just rinse and repeat. Over and over.
This Essay supports previous studies in finding that voter ID laws
impose a real burden on voter turnout. Based on my finding that states with
voter ID laws experienced a 1.6 to 2.2 percentage point decline in 2006 voter
turnout, 3 to 4.5 million voters were disenfranchised by the laws. As Justice
Souter reasoned in his Crawford dissent,121 where a court finds evidence of a
real burden on voters, a state must advance stronger interests than those
relied on by Indiana in Crawford to defend its contested voting regulation.122
Otherwise, voter ID laws fail the Court’s balancing test and must be found
unconstitutional. In future as-applied challenges to voter ID laws, petitioners
should use studies such as this one to quantify the nontrivial burden of
disenfranchisement.
My results do suggest a possible policy fix: states that adopted voter ID
laws most recently did not experience a decline in turnout. I posit that news
coverage and state-sponsored public outreach reminded voters to go to the
polls on Election Day with proper ID. However, when these efforts fade, the
disenfranchising effects of voter ID laws remain. States may be able to
counter the effects of ID laws with additional outreach.
http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...tent/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf
You've been ignoring every study that debunks your argument that voter ID laws will "disenfranchise" hundreds of thousands of voters for what, like a month now? Across three or four threads?I've posted three studies on this subject which you should read if you want to be taken seriously. I'm chalking up your nonsense to this point to ignorance rather than dishonesty, but you're on report.
I'll give you the nutshell version: generally voter participation does not fall immediately when these laws are passed because they are attended with a lot of publicity, education campaigns, and concerted efforts to register voters. But after a couple of years those efforts fade and the voter participation rate starts to slide.
You've been ignoring every study that debunks your argument that voter ID laws will "disenfranchise" hundreds of thousands of voters for what, like a month now? Across three or four threads?
The hackery is strong with you.
Can you point to even one case where it was proven that an illegal alien voted?
So now you want "long term" studies as versus realistic ones based upon as you said earlier, the "reality" that the only studies available owing to actual TIME in the real world, completely debunk you? So what, you can perform yet another mental enema upon yourself and just regurgitate your sad little shtick? How about we let you drag it out some more, pose as if you have not been shown these studies ever and there weally weally are not links or evidence of this at all? Is that what you want to do now? Do let me know, this is like clubbing baby seals.I have yet to see one study that shows that, long term, voter ID laws do not suppress the vote. You seem to spend a lot of time claiming to have made points that you have failed to make. But by all means, do post those studies and I'll be happy to comment on them.
opcorn2:
btw, it's quite funny that you continue to ignore the studies I've posted, including the quote above, while pretending that I've ignored something you posted. Bravo.
Sure....
Want more?
Sure....
Want more?
Here's another one with dead people voting. Now I'm not so concerned with the 900+ that were caught by officials. However there is also a segment where it wasn't the officials that caught it...but college students. Makes one wonder just how many dead people get away with voting.... The part with with college students starts at 1:19
The State Election Commission said Thursday that 95 percent of the 207 allegedly dead people who voted in the 2010 general election either were alive and cast ballots legally or did not vote.
But, citing limited manpower and money, the commission said its review of zombie voters did not include 696 other allegedly dead voters whom some state officials say cast ballots in elections before 2010.
...
Of its review of the 207 contested votes cast in 2010, the commission found:
• 106 votes were clerical errors by poll workers – mistakes like marking John Doe Sr. instead of John Doe Jr.
• 56 votes were “bad data matching” – meaning the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which raised concerns about zombie voters, was wrong in assuming the voters were dead.
• 32 votes were “voter participation errors,” meaning someone was credited as voting in an election when they did not, most likely because of a stray mark on the voter rolls that was electronically scanned to record a voter’s participation.
• Three ballots were cast absentee by voters who died before Election Day.
The Election Commission said it had “insufficient information” to explain the 10 contested votes because:
• In seven cases, the voters’ signatures on poll records could not be matched to “another voter.”
• In two cases, the poll list is missing “making it impossible to match the signature with another person.”
• In one case, the voter’s signature appeared to match a voter in another precinct “but could not be verified.”
The State | 02/24/2012 | Election Commission: No evidence of voter fraud
So now you want "long term" studies as versus realistic ones based upon as you said earlier, the "reality" that the only studies available owing to actual TIME in the real world, completely debunk you? So what, you can perform yet another mental enema upon yourself and just regurgitate your sad little shtick? How about we let you drag it out some more, pose as if you have not been shown these studies ever and there weally weally are not links or evidence of this at all? Is that what you want to do now? Do let me know, this is like clubbing baby seals.
Once again, in the second thread today, despite the fact you claim I am ignoring you and your various "arguments" the essential fact escapes your all seeing eye, that you are actually responding to and conversing with a person who is supposedly ignoring you and not calling out your hackish BS. I also find something funny, not only do you liberally borrow pbrauer's mental mind wipe enema penchant that resets your "hard drive" to baby like ignorant over and over, but you also are lifting his "I have not seen it" brain fart following your internal mental reset each time you exit a thread about this topic too. I think what you meant to say was you have yet to see "it" in this loop, ya know since you erased everything you were shown, linked and exposed to in the last one? Yeah, it gets kind of loopy spinning all the time huh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?