You made it a point that you won't even deny Trump's claim of "millions." That's what I'd call widespread.
Voter Fraud Committee
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Are we making this too complicated? The question for objectors to Voter Id should answer this. IF its a crime to vote illegally, how many criminals voting in US elections is too many?
Well, to be clear, I said that I highly doubt his claim. But I also think he has roughly as much factual basis upon which to make it than those who say it almost never happens. And therein lies the problem.
There's a point to this: absent sound identification procedures, we really can't know. We can make a guess -- but that guess will still ultimately be made analyzing data obtained with an identification process that goes no farther than comparing two signatures....and, even then, operating on the premise that the registered voter is truly eligible to vote.
My thrust here is that we need to eliminate any doubt and any plausible reason to doubt. People can certainly claim that Trump's assertion is absurd. But the only thing they can really point to as supporting evidence are analyses made with the uncertain data I described above.
I'm certainly not wed to Voter ID laws, be they ones blessed by the courts or not. I'm very much open to new ideas on how to confidently address those 3 points I raised above -- particularly if they do so while making voting easier. But I have to say that I'm not terribly surprised that no critic of Voter ID laws have put forth any.
The closest we've come is your ridiculous "compromise" that you'll accept having sound identification mechanisms in place, but only if we (somehow?) make voting compulsory. We should keep the discussion clearly and indisputably within the Overton window, don't you think?
And how much of an added burden on legal voters is too much? You can't take issue with people dismissing voter fraud as minimal if you likewise dismiss the added burden on voters as minimal. You have to weigh both costs and benefits.
No one says it never happens. You are tilting at windmills again. I am saying we know that whatever fraud happens is relatively minor, because widespread fraud would leave behind clear traces.
I was thinking, if we dip voter's entire faces into indelible orange ink (chosen since it is the president's color), we would eliminate any possibility of double voting. None of the systems like Indiana's can say that. Steve Bannon could vote legally in multiple locations by showing his ID.
For a system to work, it has to account for multiple registrations by the same person. Indiana's does not. For some reason they decided only to try to tackle one part of any problem that exists and quite trying.
For a system to work, it has to account for multiple registrations by the same person. Indiana's does not. For some reason they decided only to try to tackle one part of any problem that exists and quite trying.
Well, legally speaking, I think you have to make that balance. SCOTUS certainly did in Crawford, as we'd expect them to.
But, to me, the far more important argument for having such protections in place goes beyond the actual incidence of voter fraud, whatever it is. It goes to promoting a nearly unanimous confidence in our electoral system and in the outcomes of elections.
We do not want to become a country where significant numbers of people on the losing end of elections regularly questions the integrity of the elections -- and, more importantly, has a giant unknown sitting there tied up in a bow upon which to do so.
It doesn't have to be a photo ID, necessarily. But it needs to be something more than what we've typically relied on.
I said "almost never happens" Goat. Is it really too much to ask that you actually respond to my actual words -- rather than lopping off ones that you want to ignore? Seriously. I won't do that to you, I promise. But I do ask that you extend me the same courtesy.
So, once again, I never (in this case, I'll use that term) said that anybody claimed it "never happens."
In fact, if you get right down to it, my primary reason for supporting Voter ID laws of some kind is that we shouldn't even have to have these kinds of discussions. Trump may say it happens "millions" of times in one election. Somebody else may say "Nah, it's only a handful." But the best anybody can point back to is data gleaned from a system that really doesn't require much in the way of people proving they are who they say they are (and are eligible to vote, and only vote one time and in one precinct, etc.).
Why in the heck wouldn't we want to take steps to remove all doubt that anybody might have? You may dismiss somebody else's claims and doubts, as is your right. But that doesn't really get us to where we want to be -- which is either that only people on the utter fringe would even have doubts....or that, for those reasonable people who may still have them, we have a sensible mechanism we can point back to that would address and assuage those doubts.
We should all want the losers of elections to be able to accept the results -- or, failing that, at least be able to quickly and convincingly quash their cases for sowing doubts.
Using biometrics would certainly address this, in addition to answering complaints (however specious I might think they are) that obtaining a photo ID represents an undue burden.
Plus, the technology is clearly becoming more ubiquitous (and, therefore, both better and cheaper). But, yeah, I agree that the measures we take must incorporate better protections against double-voting as well.
When government officials tell DMV workers to not tell people about the free IDs, I will voter suppression.
So, lets stipulate that the IN law strikes a reasonable balance.
What about NC? Texas? Can you concede that those states went too far, that they (intentionally or not) added an undue burden?
Also, Goat, if you want my guess about the actual incidence of voter fraud, my number would fall somewhere between the "almost never" and the "millions" -- but far closer to the "almost never."
I don't know how helpful that is to the discussion. And, again, my support for good Voter ID laws of one kind or another really isn't predicated on my belief of how rare or common fraudulent voting is. But it seems that, for many people, it's the Alpha and Omega of the debate....as if we should only concern ourselves with the provable integrity of our elections if we can demonstrate that, without Voter ID laws in place, vote fraud almost never happens.
How would biometrics stop this? If Bannon is legally registered to vote in multiple locations, there is no way of stopping that short of a real-time DB shared by all the states.
Possibly, yes. I'd have to read more about them -- and hear some arguments from both sides.
It certainly seems clear enough that the courts have come down that way. And that's just fine.
That's why I'd once again say that state legislatures wanting to have a Voter ID law really ought to just copy/paste the Indiana statute....because it's standing legal precedent.
Honest mistake. Brain skipped right over it.
Great, but none of that is responsive to my point. We know fraud is rare, because widespread fraud would be detected. You keep insisting it is practically undetectable, and you are wrong. I already described some examples of how it would be caught. There are others:
Any widespread registration of ineligible voters would be found in the audits.
People voting multiple times (i.e., by mail and in person) would be found in audits.
People voting for other registered voters without their knowledge would be noticed.
I can think of ways to pull off a massive voter fraud if I wanted to, but none of them involve anything Republicans are trying to address. As I have said, oh, maybe a billion times, my problem with voter ID laws is that they are partisan frauds. They address a problem that doesn't really exist in a way that mostly burdens the other party. It's a big effing scam. If you claim otherwise, you are either a fool or a liar.
Yep, you nailed it.
INRanger fretted this would make it a very juicy target for hackers. And I certainly understand that qualm. He's unquestionably right about that. But, if the system is designed with that in mind, I don't think that makes it a showstopper.....particularly given the fallback of provisional balloting (which any Voter ID law must absolutely offer...they aren't going to be able to make a definitive answer on the spot).
Of course, if anybody seriously put forth a proposal to develop a system that relied on fingerprints to ensure voting integrity, we'd probably start hearing complaints about the burdens placed on voters without arms.
And none of this is responsive to my argument -- because, as I've said a billion times, my argument doesn't rely on fraud being "widespread". So I guess we're even on that score.
As I said, if it's pertinent to the discussion here, my guess is that voter fraud isn't terribly prevalent (however we'd define that). I'd put it somewhere in between the "almost never" standards and the "millions" standard -- favoring the "almost never."
But this guess really doesn't have much to do with my position on Voter ID laws. We should have them even if we're pretty convinced that it "almost never" happens.
Then, rather than laboring to prevent them, just labor to make them better. I'm certainly not interested in anything that is a partisan fraud. I just think we can -- and very much should -- do more than we presently do now to ensure that people are who they say they are, are eligible to vote, only vote once, etc.
There's no particular reason this has to come with any actual burdens on people who want to vote. If there are ways to accomplish this without any such burdens, let's do it.
For this issue, ERIC is the answer. This was begun in 2011 and Indiana still has not joined, nor have a majority of states. If anyone is serious about vote fraud they should be contacting their state reps to demand Indiana join.
As I recall, and I might be wrong, at one time the feds looked into such a database but too many states refused under the guise of "state's rights".
So, this brings us back to topic of the original post in this thread...the President's voter fraud committee. Does anybody think that this committee is in any way going to make a positive contribution towards the goals most folks seem willing to agree upon here? Will this committee:
1) increase confidence in the integrity of our electoral system?
2) help insure that only registered voters are voting?
3) help insure that legally registered voters are only voting once, in the precinct of their legal residence?
4) do the above without attempting to suppress the rights of legally eligible voters?
5) encourage more participation in voting by legally eligible voters?
I see almost no chance of #1, so the rest of them seem like only the faintest of possibilities.
Honestly, it's emblematic of what I'm talking about in the absence of good identification measures inadvertently creating an opportunity for people to foment doubt about the integrity of elections.
No, this commission won't do a thing to help instill confidence...and I doubt it was designed with this genuinely in mind.
Agree. Wish we could come up with a committee with buy-in across the states that actually addressed those goals. That would be unusual.
There are ways. Automatic registration. Increased locations. More early voting. All sorts of things could be done in conjunction with these laws to also make it easier to vote. But again, the GOP doesn't want to make it easy to vote. Because they know that, statistically, the first voters to drop out in the face of even minimal difficulty tend to be Democrats.
If the goal is voter suppression, are you saying that Indiana's (Republican, mainly) legislators screwed it up?
The very first election they put it in place, Barack Obama won the state (the first Dem to do so in more than 4 decades), propelled by -- you guessed it -- unusually high turnout from black voters.
Wait....are you saying that you're OK with laws that ensure voters' identities, but only if they're coupled with these other changes?
I mean, we can certainly talk about these other ideas. But they don't have anything to do with ensuring voters are who they say they are, are eligible to vote, only vote once in the appropriate precinct, etc.
They're two separate topics -- making voting easier and ensuring the integrity.
Well, go ahead.
But just remember that you'll be arguing that minority voter turnout was suppressed....even if, in that particular election, it spiked so much as to propel the Dems to a rare victory in the Hoosier state.
Talk about silly arguments: "Yeah it was higher than it had been...but it would've been even higher!!"
They are only two separate topics because people on both sides make them so. They could easily fall under the umbrella of one voting reform concept if WE chose it that way.
This is not an actual argument. Regardless, do you know how many early voting locations there were in Marion vs Hamilton County?
No they're separate topics because they're separate topics.
Now, I do think that enhancing the convenience of voting and ensuring the integrity of elections are both worthwhile ideals. And I also think that something like the biometrics measures we've discussed can address both of them simultaneously.
But they're still separate and distinct.
Not really. You continually conflate different arguments in this area. That minority turnout was higher than it had been previously doesn't exclude the idea that minority turnout was suppressed by a law/rule.
No, they're artificially so because you've chosen to make them that way.
I do agree that something like biometrics could be helpful in addressing the topic.
Well, you go ahead too.
Don't come here and just wave it away without actually engaging it with particulars. If you want to shoot holes in anything I say, then do it. But just saying it's got holes doesn't do the trick.
You're the one who said that the goal was to suppress voters, not me. The 2008 election in Indiana was a real world result with this policy fully in place. So you're going to have to defend your hysterical assertion in the context of that reality.
Nope -- but it certainly makes for a hell of a data point to overcome, doncha think?
Not really...this law doesn't exist in a vacuum. But I'm glad that you finally admit that A doesn't prove B here.
But here's what I predict you'll see if things head in that direction. Democrats -- at least elected ones, and thought leaders, etc -- will still oppose it just as vehemently.
And the reason I feel confident in predicting that is because I do not believe that the actual reason they bitterly oppose Voter ID laws is that they fear what it will mean for turnout and "voter suppression."
Time will tell, I guess.
Finally? I never said it constituted "proof" of anything. What I'm saying is that it throws a helluva monkey wrench into the standard gripe about suppression and turnout.
That result lends credence to something -- and it's not the contention that requiring ID will suppress the vote (and among minority voters, no less).
The only thing you could say is that, but for the Voter ID law, the unusually high minority turnout would've been even higher in Indiana.
What would you do next? Compare the turnout spike to other states that did not have such a requirement, right? Well, go do it. FTR, I have already done so.
No. 2008 was the first real chance to elect a black president. Turnout was obviously going to be high no matter what. This isn't rocket science.
by "criminals", do you mean like elected lawmakers who take bribes, or those doing the bribing?
oh wait, sorry, forgot that was all legal now.
