Quote:
Originally Posted by doggin94it
You. I've looked at the studies. It is not a study that says there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud in 12 years.
It is a study that says there have been only ten cases of reported in-person voter fraud in 12 years.
Tell me something, SB - if a new regulation, tomorrow, wiped out the SEC's or anyone's ability to investigate insider trading (while still leaving it a crime), and 12 years later, I said "hey, insider trading must not be a problem, since there've been only 10 insider trading cases in the last 12 years," how seriously would you take that argument?
I haven't personally tried it. But I haven't seen much research one way or the other. We've certainly seen the sensational videos of people trying it without any difficulty at all.
For example:
(Multiple people showing up and asking for ballots in the names of dead registered voters)
The bottom line is, the poll worker in that video is right when - after the "voter" admits that she just handed a ballot to someone who had claimed to be a dead man - she defends herself by saying "how would I know he was dead"?
Short of demanding ID, there is no reasonable way to catch in-person voter fraud. If you disagree, suggest one. |
You keep bringing up that this is a crime that is undetectable without voter ID laws yet when someone votes as a dead person - which is how one would commit in-person voter fraud as impersonating a live person is far more dangerous as they might show up to vote - it is quite simple for us to report after the fact.
States can sift through voting records and see "Oh sh*t, this guy died in March of '08 and yet he voted, in-person, on election day in November of -08."
"Tally that as in-person voter fraud. Call up the RNC, we've got our 10th case in 12 years."
Furthermore, the risk - which is $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison - is not rationally worth one vote in an election. This is not insider trading, where the reward is far greater, the jail time a lot shorter and usually requires the subpoena of phone and computer records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggin94it
Yes - obviously and self-evidently. I mean just think about it. If it is "better to let ten men vote fraudulently than to turn away one true voter", then you are advocating a system where fraudulent votes swamp the true ones - meaning that you've in effect rendered the true votes worthless. That can't be the principle.
More fundamentally, the contexts are completely different. First, the hardship to the innocent in the criminal context - wrongful imprisonment - is far, far more injurious to the hardship to the wrongly barred voter in the election context. Second, the entire point of that principle is it exists as a check on government power, to prevent the government from obtaining convictions of innocent but inconvenient citizens (you only need to look to Russia and the recent ***** Riot trial to see how important that principle can be). It's got no application in the election context.
Because it is a sensible requirement, and the only way anyone has suggested to prevent in-person voter fraud. This is not a significant barrier by any stretch of the imagination.
|
First off, by bringing up innocent until proven guilty, I was not implying that we should allow ten fraudulent votes for each legitimate one but rather passing a law restricting the vote to those possessing a form of ID they are not legally obliged to have otherwise, is assuming guilt at the polls without cause. It is estimated that up to 10% of the voting population does not have a photo ID, and you're adding a barrier between them and their right to vote, without proving there is a problem.
This is restricting the most fundamental right in our country - to participate in our democracy - without just cause. Google online how many times Mr Okeefe and ProjectVeritas has been denied or shut down trying that exact same stunt on the youtube video you posted.