Meh, this is all entertaining but what you have to realize is that all these facts and statistics are beside the point. Kris Kobach got elected on the back of promising to root out the thousands of illegal immigrants that he was sure had voted illegally. He was giving sweeping powers to prosecute that surety of fraud that he said existed. In the end he found 9 cases, 6 of which were Republicans, BUT in the process he disenfranchised 20,000 voters, THAT'S what he was really elected to do.

It's not about logic or studies, it's about power and the necessity to cling to it and once you realize that then you realize that this whole thread is really just a mental exercise. What really counts is who has power and who gets to wield it and how to stay in power. Voter fraud is just a convenient excuse. To remedy it is going to take something more than simply knowing facts and statistics, because ultimately those don't matter. It's going to take organizing, solidarity, maybe getting your skull cracked, maybe cracking some skulls, strikes, etc.

Seems like the Supreme Court did not buy the we're gerrymandering based on politics and not race defense.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05...ent=1495493319

I said one party could be more likely to commit voter fraud. We of course have no proof as voter fraud is too difficult to catch. Is that what you are talking about?

It sounds like you are claiming the number of people who would have voted if a law made it impossible for them to vote is greater than the number of times voter fraud was committed. Do you have any proof of this?

For someone who bases a good portion of your arguments on 'it's common sense, you can imagine it, right?', are you really asking this?

I'll leave it to the audience to decide if I've provided enough proof. Remember bahbahmickey, I'm not here to convince you, I'm using you as an example.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04...-id-confusion/

Well considering ITT there has never been any proof of how many cases of voter fraud there really are that should answer the question if you have provided enough proof. I don't think there has ever been a study posted ITT about how many people would have voted if there weren't laws making it impossible for them to either.

You realise you're asking him to speculate on the number that you're supposed to be providing evidence for, right?

Or are you hoping people won't notice and just play along?

Why should I be tasked with the impossible task? He, and many others ITT, are the ones claiming that voter fraud isn't a significant issue. I am making no such claims.

You are so ****ing stupid it's painful bbbbbb. Before you can justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters via racist voter registration laws in order to fight the scourge that is voter fraud you HAVE TO PROVE THERE IS ANY VOTER FRAUD TO FIGHT. If you can't show that there is then why should we spend any money or effort fighting it? If you have a fireproof house why would you pay for sprinklers to be installed?

What Kerowo said, though my objection at this point is that you're unable to come up with any kind of numbers and so you try to get the other side to speculate it for you.

There is proof that voter fraud occurs. What we don't know is how much since it is nearly impossible to catch (please see the study I posted earlier).

Wouldn't you first have to prove you have a fireproof house before you decide to not install sprinklers?

98% is the number I have posted ITT. I don't think another number is needed. That is the percent of successful voter fraud that got through with that study where the participants either did no research or intentionally made horrible decisions on who to try to vote for. However, if you need another number I can make one up in the same way some of the articles have guessed on how many people would have voted if it wasn't impossible.

As has been pointed out, in the US lawmakers can pass virtually any voter ID law they like. Lawmakers can believe that they are enacting said law due to concerns about voter fraud.

However, people can contest the law by bringing it in front of a federal court. Typically one side presents evidence that the voting law had the result of "denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process". The other side presents evidence that the voting law did/will prevent voter fraud.

The court then "weighs" the two sets of evidence. In most cases federal courts have consistently ruled that the an actual violation of the equal protection provision of the Constitution outweighs possible (or potential) claims of voter fraud. In such a ruling, the court would typically strike down the voting law.

So the way for the other side to prevail in these cases is to (1) demonstrate actual and significant voter fraud so prevalent as to outweigh the demonstrated actual voting discrimination by race (or language minority) or (2) refute the evidence of the law's discriminatory effects.

How would you go about trying to prove how prevalent voter fraud is since we have seen evidence of voter fraud being a nearly impossible crime to catch?

I don't know. According to you, it's happening by the bushel, but you only assume it is because "it's possible". Why do you believe it's happening in such high numbers that it's worth disenfranchising so many people if you haven't seen any actual proof? Sounds silly to me. The burden of proof is on you, sir.

I don't know how much voter fraud is happening just like I don't know how many people would vote if it wasn't impossible. Both of these numbers are difficult to find, but one being easier than the other doesn't mean it is larger.

That is not the calculus that is required, not now, not ever. It's as if you have not read anything that anybody has posted in this thread.

6:50



he's talking directly to you, bahbah...

Well, here's the thing, if you can't come up with a reasonable estimate of voter fraud because it's frequency is below the threshold even for detectability, you shouldn't get to disenfranchise any voters.

John oliver's main point: Voter impersonation is a stupid crime because of a potentially high penalty & it may not even matter if you don't do it enough depending on how others vote . The problem with his argument is that you are way way way way way way less likely to be caught doing this crime than most other crimes.

blades, you are assuming that voter fraud's frequency is low. That is your opinion and it is unfounded. While you are assuming the number of voters who would vote if it was possible is high which is also unfounded.

Write us a story how this could affect an election, we'll make it easy and say a state election.

[Citation is needed]

You really question that statement. There are very few if any crimes that are serious (aka- not jay walking or speeding) that one has less of a chance of getting caught for than voter fraud. I can't even think of one, but there probably is one or two out there. Either way, getting caught very infrequently isn't proof of a crime not occurring.