Post Your Voter Fraud Evidence Here

#451
#451
evillawyer said:
Suppose a voter ID requirement will eliminate 10 fraudulent votes, but result in 100 fewer legitimate votes? Would you be in favor of it?
Click to expand...

All day long.

10 people who shouldn’t vote don’t

And 100 people who are too ignorant to figure out how to vote legitimately don’t vote.

Sounds like a win win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO, BigOrangeD, Orangeburst and 3 others
#456
#456
Orange_Crush said:
So, your argument is that a person not taking personal responsibility to exercise a right is suppression of that right? That's a HUGE stretch.
Click to expand...

How is that a stretch? If I say you have to pay $5 for a birth certificate, take time off of work and wait in line at the DMV before you're allowed freedom of speech, that's definitely suppression
 
#458
#458
NashVol11 said:
How is that a stretch? If I say you have to pay $5 for a birth certificate, take time off of work and wait in line at the DMV before you're allowed freedom of speech, that's definitely suppression
Click to expand...
Now do my firearm permit. Take your selective outrage somewhere else.

Our elections are important enough to protect from illegal participation. If it costs someone $5 and a trip on the bus to validate that they are who they say they are, and they have the right to vote in our elections, then it's on them to do what they need to do to legally vote. It's not voter suppression to ask someone to prove who they are before allowing them to pull the lever.

I recognize that it's important to protect the public as best we can from shooters, so I don't cry about the time off work, fees, background checks, etc I went through to exercise my right to keep and bear. I'm responsible for my own exercise of my rights.

It's a stretch. A huge one.
 
#459
#459
NashVol11 said:
How is that a stretch? If I say you have to pay $5 for a birth certificate, take time off of work and wait in line at the DMV before you're allowed freedom of speech, that's definitely suppression
Click to expand...
Oh geez. If everyone has to do it? How much do you want to be a citizen and vote? I bet if there were government handouts at the end of that "gauntlet" many, if not all, would find the wherewithal for running it.

Why not just have "volunteers" vote for them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#460
#460
Orange_Crush said:
Now do my firearm permit. Take your selective outrage somewhere else.

Our elections are important enough to protect from illegal participation. If it costs someone $5 and a trip on the bus to validate that they are who they say they are, and they have the right to vote in our elections, then it's on them to do what they need to do to legally vote. It's not voter suppression to ask someone to prove who they are before allowing them to pull the lever.

I recognize that it's important to protect the public as best we can from shooters, so I don't cry about the time off work, fees, background checks, etc I went through to exercise my right to keep and bear. I'm responsible for my own exercise of my rights.

It's a stretch. A huge one.
Click to expand...

Nah, a "stretch" would be comparing the right to carry around deadly weapons to the right to vote, or the dangers posed by those who abuse those rights (and kill tens of thousands of people each year) to the near-nonexistent evidence of voter fraud.
 
#461
#461
NashVol11 said:
Nah, a "stretch" would be comparing the right to carry around deadly weapons to the right to vote, or the dangers posed by those who abuse those rights (and kill tens of thousands of people each year) to the near-nonexistent evidence of voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Like OC said...selective outrage.

The list of things that require ID and hoops to jump through is long. Having to prove who you are to participate in an election is not an onerous burden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FREAKIN ORANGE, Orange_Crush and Orangeburst
#462
#462
37L1 said:
Oh geez. If everyone has to do it? How much do you want to be a citizen and vote? I bet if there were government handouts at the end of that "gauntlet" many, if not all, would find the wherewithal for running it.

Why not just have "volunteers" vote for them?
Click to expand...
It's a flawed argument. He/they are broadening the definition of "voter suppression" to mean "anything that may lessen voter turnout". The actual question is whether the ID requirement is a reasonable requirement.

In a system of one-citizen == 1 vote, it's by-definition that we must verify that each voter is a legal citizen, and only gets one vote. It's by no means an unreasonable requirement, any more than it's an unreasonable requirement to force someone to take time off work, go to the DMZ, pay processing and for a background check, to try to keep violent criminals from being licensed to conceal-carry.

He broke the comparison by bringing up free speech. Free speech does have limitations for the protection of society. You don't have the freedom to scream "fire!" in a crowded theater, make terroristic threats, incite/entice violence on a person, or incite violent overthrow of the government.

We don't have limitations that infringe the spirit of the right to free speech. You don't have to register to exercise free speech because our right isn't there to protect society from free thought. You should have to register to vote because we have to protect the right to free elections. If someone doesn't care enough to pay $5 and a bus ride for the birth cert, they don't care much about their right to vote.

And "equality of access" isn't an argument against registration for IDs. We all have the same access, and at the same cost. Just because someone has more money than me doesn't bear on the "rights" issue. Some people are rich. Some people are poor. That's life. It's no infringement on my right to free speech when Ted Turner buys/starts a cable news channel, and I can't afford to do the same. It's no infringement on a poor person's right to vote that the cost of an ID doesn't hit me quite as hard as it does them.

I still have the right to free speech. They still have the right to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#463
#463
NashVol11 said:
Nah, a "stretch" would be comparing the right to carry around deadly weapons to the right to vote, or the dangers posed by those who abuse those rights (and kill tens of thousands of people each year) to the near-nonexistent evidence of voter fraud.
Click to expand...
Bye. You just proved your selective outrage and selective care for constitutionally protected rights. You need to become a better loser. That was ugly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#464
#464
DC_Vol said:
Like OC said...selective outrage.

The list of things that require ID and hoops to jump through is long. Having to prove who you are to participate in an election is not an onerous burden.
Click to expand...

It is if the nearest ID office is 150 miles away, and it certainly is when you compare the burden to the risk, which again is essentially nonexistent. There have been 31 documented cases of voter impersonation in the last 20 years, and most of them were accidents that only remotely fit that definition.

North Carolina's voter ID law, for example, eliminated Citizens Awareness Month in schools, along with the following:

*shortens early voting by 1 week,
*eliminates same day registration and provisional voting if at wrong precinct,
*prevents counties from offering voting on last Saturday before the election beyond 1 pm,
*prevents counties from extending poll hours by one hour on election day in extraordinary circumstances (like lengthy lines),
*eliminates state supported voter registration drives and preregistration for 16/17 year olds,
*repeals voter owned judicial elections and straight party voting,
*increases number of people who can challenge voters inside the precinct, and
*purges voter rolls more often.

Tell me with a straight face that the bolded measures, enacted the second there was a Republican majority in the state senate, were actually about "protecting the vote" in a state where there were two documented instances of voter fraud in the previous decade, and not about simply suppressing Democrat votes. It's a joke and it's transparent as hell to anyone remotely objective (EDIT: including the judge who eventually struck it down).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: evillawyer
#465
#465
NashVol11 said:
How is that a stretch? If I say you have to pay $5 for a birth certificate, take time off of work and wait in line at the DMV before you're allowed freedom of speech, that's definitely suppression
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges comparison.
 
#466
#466
I stood in line during the 2018 election and watched dozens of people pull out their wallets and show their drivers license before they voted. The thing I didn't see was any hispanics in line.
 
#467
#467
I'll save time, since I don't think anyone can or will defend the NC law, and just say that whatever you think of voter ID in theory, the laws in practice have generally been unabashedly political and utterly ridiculous, maybe to a slightly lesser degree than NC's. Politicians generally have not attempted to enforce these rules in any remotely reasonable way, instead viewing them as opportunities to re-draw the map in their favor similar to what gerrymandering has become, with "voter fraud" becoming the buzzword/phrase that gets those who aren't paying attention to buy in.

I just would suggest reading the actual laws to see how this works in practice before making a judgment.
 
#468
#468
NashVol11 said:
I'll save time, since I don't think anyone can or will defend the NC law, and just say that whatever you think of voter ID in theory, the laws in practice have generally been unabashedly political and utterly ridiculous, maybe to a slightly lesser degree than NC's. Politicians generally have not attempted to enforce these rules in any remotely reasonable way, instead viewing them as opportunities to re-draw the map in their favor similar to what gerrymandering has become, with "voter fraud" becoming the buzzword/phrase that gets those who aren't paying attention to buy in.

I just would suggest reading the actual laws to see how this works in practice before making a judgment.
Click to expand...

NC law didn’t go far enough.
 
#470
#470
In 2013, in Shelby v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a section of the Voting Rights Act that required North Carolina and other states with a history of voter discrimination to submit any voting-law changes to the federal government for approval.

A day after the Shelby decision, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina announced plans for an election law that, the federal appeals court has since found, restricted voting and registration in several ways, “all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court said that in crafting the law, the Republican-controlled general assembly requested and received data on voters’ use of various voting practices by race. It found that African American voters in North Carolina are more likely to vote early, use same-day voter registration and straight-ticket voting. They were also disproportionately less likely to have an ID, more likely to cast a provisional ballot and take advantage of pre-registration.

Then, the court, said, lawmakers restricted all of these voting options, and further narrowed the list of acceptable voter IDs. “… [W]ith race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans.
Click to expand...

Hog88: "Should have gone further, just don't let black people vote" lmao
 
#471
#471
I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest when people post "statistics" to prove how seldom an unregulated/undocumented event occurs in an effort to keep us from regulating and documenting the event. Without voter identification requirements, we can't know how often voter fraud happens. That's like blindfolding your wife and telling her she doesn't need to take the blindfold off because she's never caught you cheating on her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#472
#472
Orange_Crush said:
I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest when people post "statistics" to prove how seldom an unregulated/undocumented event occurs in an effort to keep us from regulating and documenting the event. Without voter identification requirements, we can't know how often voter fraud happens. That's like blindfolding your wife and telling her she doesn't need to take the blindfold off because she's never caught you cheating on her.
Click to expand...

Most of these voter ID measures were initiated in 2013, so the statistics largely capture the period before they existed. Good effort though
 
#474
#474
Orange_Crush said:
See the thread title and OP, dated Nov, 2018. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're talking about the 2016 statistics mentioned in the year-old post and not the post-2000 statistics I've cited repeatedly in the last hour. Makes sense, I would avoid those too
 
#475
#475
NashVol11 said:
Oh, you're talking about the 2016 statistics mentioned in the year-old post and not the post-2000 statistics I've cited repeatedly in the last hour. Makes sense, I would avoid those too
Click to expand...
What's there to avoid? They are a red herring to the discussion, as I've shown. The fact that an incredibly small % of people commit violent gun crimes in no way does away with the fact that we should demand background checks for concealed carry permits. It's a principle and protective requirement as opposed to a statistical risk calculation. You're having to rely on illogical red herring arguments.

Also, you should probably be careful of accusing people of "avoidance" in this thread. Your selective replies, logic, outrage, and rights protection is creeping up on you.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top