[citation is needed]

You still haven't said how this voter fraud effects elections. How many fraudulent votes would be needed to swing a statewide election? How would they have to be organized? How about a nationwide election? How many people would need to be recruited to have a material affect on an election? Maybe it's so hard to get caught at because it's a stupid way to try and influence an election?

I mean it's pretty much an intellectual exercise because Republicans, just like in the healthcare debate, aren't interested in being good faith actors. Voting like all actions involving verifying the validity of what's occurring have two opposing issues, requirements to determine the veracity and the onus those requirements that puts on the people.

Republicans only ever put any effort in raising the number of possible disenfranchisements after the Courts order them to and then do they half assed jobs at it. That's because the number of disengranchments isn't a trade off for voter ID, it's the purpose, and if it's the purpose then no amount of discussion will ever persuade Republicans to make any good faith efforts to counter act the possible disenfanchisments because that would be counter productive to their goals.

Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore about the questions you ask. Voter fraud could change the results of an election.

The amount of votes needed to change an election is different for every election and is not known until after the votes have been counted. However, casting just one fraudulent vote increases one sides chances of winning.

Huey, what repubs do for the disenfranchised number is the same thing the dems do for the voter fraud number. They both close their eyes and hope nobody notices that the number they try to ignore exists. The dems are better at politicking in general and as noted one number is easier to throw widely inaccurate estimates at.

Can we just make [citation needed] mickey's signature? Literally everything in that post - every single point, all four of them - are things mickey made up and are wrong.

No, no, no. You aren't playing this "where's the burden of proof" game with me.

I said it's below the threshold for detectability, meaning it's at least infrequent enough that you can't figure out it's going on. We aren't in disagreement about that.

Oh yeah, you aren't a math guy. ::massiveeyeroll::

Of course, even at face value, the corollary is that disenfranchising just one member of the electorate can change the course of the election.

This has been going on a while so I think I should summarize the convo for others. In this convo the "left" is a group of posters ITT that are mainly liberals.

left: voter IDs laws are racist and they don't serve a purpose
hero: why are voter ID laws racist?
left: because they hurt a higher % of one race than another
hero: every law does that
left: omg, you are racist
hero: how is saying that racist
left: one time hero accidently posted a racist article and then apologized for it saying it wasn't the article he meant to post and it was an onion-esqe knock off of the real article he didn't bother to read. he also apologized for posting such racist rubbish. That means everything he says for now on is racist
mod: please move on from the personal attacks
left: voter ID laws don't serve a purpose as there is no such thing as voter fraud
hero: <link to study that talks about a government agency making 100+ people vote for someone else and only 2 get caught - 1 or both of which were people were trying to get caught/ did no research as to who they were voting for> just because we can't catch it doesn't mean it doesn't happen
left: there was hundreds of thousands of voters in WI that wanted to vote but couldn't
hero: <link showing that the article about WI voters being disenfranchised is fake as the author's methodology is stupid beyond belief>
left: you don't have proof there is voter fraud
hero: i just posted proof it is nearly impossible to catch so yeah you are right i don't have proof
left: if you don't have proof it doesn't really exist
hero: that isn't true
left: if a tree fell in the forest you probably believe that it still makes a sound. hint: it doesn't because you don't have proof

mickey literally nobody reading this thread is going to find that remotely accurate, why did you waste your time writing it?

I gave the short version. There were quite a few series of posts that were repeated along the way - I just decided not to show how often the liberals of this thread bring up **** that is already been proven false.

Oops - more voter fraud.

https://publicinterestlegal.org/blog...olls-virginia/

5500 non-citizens on voter rolls, 1,852 ballots cast.

Nothing to see here, move along.

I await others more knowledgeable on the subject to respond to the PILF Virginia report. My initial comments are:

(1) I am glad that the report provides specific information and counts on this topic

(2) the report is overly strident and clearly written from a particular point-of-view (however the information is presumed accurate)

(3) most votes cast by non-citizens in any Virginia election was in 2008 when 1,065 were cast

(4) looking it up on the internet, there were over 3 million total votes cast in the presidential election in 2008 in Virginia (of course, 1065 out of over 3 million is a tiny percentage)

(5) votes cast by non-citizens may or may not be evidence of "fraud" (unless one classifies it to be by definition)

(6) the report suggests that the Virginia problem is likely more pervasive than the 5,556 non-citizen registrants who have been removed from the Virginia voting rolls since 2011 since Virginia election officials do not fervently attempt to identify non-citizen registrants

(7) I cannot imagine that this amount of voting "fraud" would justify passing new voting laws which, by design or effect, would deny a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process

As for does it make a difference?

The 2000 Presidential election results were decided by 537 votes (.009% margin).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2000

One of the worst examples of "found votes" was in Washington State in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washin...election,_2004

The Republican was in the lead until the 3rd recount when oops, look what we found....enough to get a 129 vote lead. Hrmmmm.

I look forward to the day Blockchain fixes this. You can't even prove today that the vote you cast was tallied for the candidate you selected.

How would you vote fraud the 2000 election? How would you know where to send your voters? How would you get them in the first place?

It's not even clear if those 1000 votes were in the same election.

Is that the same line of reasoning against Russian influence on the election?

The principle remains - should you not have to prove who you are in order to cast a ballot? Do we not have a large enough population of people ineligible to vote in our country that we should ensure only legal votes are cast?

Canada has voter ID laws - are they also disenfranchising voters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws

Oh look, another poster who's been raised by wolves and wants to make a bunch of arguments that have already been discussed in this thread.
- if we take this group that made a report called "alien invasion" at face value, the problem here is clearly that Virginia allowed noncitizens to register to vote without proving their citizen status - WTF would ID laws have done when it came to actually casting ballots, are you under the impression driver's licenses aren't for noncitizens? As is always the case, ID proponents argue for ID laws based on cases where ID laws wouldn't even have helped. In poker, we call this a "tell" - kinda seems like "solving voter fraud" isn't the real goal here!
- re: Canada, it's possible to do ID laws in a way that doesn't disenfranchise - it's just so weird that none of the red states writing these laws appear to have any interest in doing that!

Is this what passes for discourse in your world?

Social security numbers in general are not. I think technology will mostly solve those problems - but until then, IDs are still better than nothing.

What method would you propose for validating authorized citizens are allowed to vote?

Have any states passed ID laws that don't allow driver's licenses? It sounds like you're in here proposing stricter laws than ones that courts have already tossed.

And re: discourse, lol you said in another thread that people who call others racist are the real racists and you've clearly done no research on the discussions that have taken place in this thread before your arrival. Why the **** do you think you're entitled to serious discourse, exactly?

Let's not answer a question with a question. Driver's licenses are fine - perhaps update them with citizen information (hide Social Security number, but a little check box, kind of like Organ Donor).

What would you propose?

I'm sure the racist history of the Democrat party has been equally discussed here, no research required. My criticism is still valid, without resorting to name calling.

Validate citizenship at the time of registration. Virginia, if you take the work of a group that made a report called "alien invasion" at face value, appears to need work on this part, but again I'll point out that ID laws would not fix this problem. It is a neverending tell of the true intentions of people like you that you keep talking about needing voter ID laws because of problems that they would not solve!

Like, pre-Southern Strategy? Yes, believe me, it's been discussed here a billion times. Your hot takes are not original.

What is Canada doing differently that doesn't disenfranchise? Maybe USA#1 can do it as well.

Mod, please remove "claims of" from the title of the thread. It has been well established that there is voter fraud.