So at least these states will be able to require all registrations prove evidence of citizenship. Next up, the SCOTUS.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/judge-states-can-demand-proof-citizenship-voters/
I think this is a good idea assuming their restrictions don’t impede voters.
Do you know if they are doing this?
10 Likes
I think this is a good idea assuming their restrictions don’t impede voters.
Do you know if they are doing this?
What a setup. The answer is no. ID is provided free of charge. With all the crap out govt hires people to roll out why wouldn’t this be different. As I already discussed at length, if you identify a risk which voter fraud clearly is, you address it with a control. I need I’d to buy beer, board a plane and most importantly exercise a real right (buy a gun). Yet I do not for a much more destructive activity not guaranteed by the constitution?
Do requirements ever impede people from getting things done?
(/pink)
I think this is a good idea assuming their restrictions don’t impede voters.
Do you know if they are doing this?
The whole idea of it is to impede voter. Lots of studies have shown, the % of voter fraud is very very small,
1 Like
Are there any studies showing voter fraud is a real problem?
34 Likes
Do I have to lecture you on risk and fraud prevention standards again or would you like a link to the exhaustive explanation I have after years of education and experience on the topic. Everybody has an ID or can easily get one except for illegal immigrants. You argument is stupid because of course it presents people from voting illegally, end of story. We know it happens because every risk associated with fraud isnpresent and it is nearly impossible to detect as presented in my explanation. Why would anybody with a brain wish to allow it to happen when the mitigation has minimal cost and everybody should have ID anyways based on existing laws.
I’ll tell you what, you remove any ID requirement for me to purchase, posses and use my firearms and ill drop this.
2 Likes
Voting is something sacred to our republic.
It is an institution of our great society.
I am not sure if you really think voter fraud is an issue, or if you want to constrain the minority vote.
The risk is there is the 34 cases of voter fraud in AZ.
The downside is all of the voters who cannot vote as a result of these restrictions.
Do you think this is worth it?
Your responses are verbose, concocted.
I suspect you have a point, but it is difficult to discern.
Would you please be parsimonious?
I’m always amused by the voter ID issue because it so nakedly exposes the purely political motivations on both sides.
On the right, it’s claimed to solve the issue of illegal immigrants voting - a problem that basically doesn’t exist.
The left claims it’s an onerous hurdle. Which it basically isn’t. Except maybe for a few % of very old people, who’d have to arrange to drive to the DMV, etc, instead of just mailing in a registration/ballot.
But for those who don’t like the government to meddle around in solving problems that don’t exist, I don’t see why we want bigger government in elections. They’re likely to screw up and purge many more legit voters than purge the miniscule number who are actually attempting fraud:
“Last year, Florida officials said they had drawn up an initial list of 182,000 potential non-citizens. But that number was reduced to fewer than 200 after election officials acknowledged errors on the original list.” (source)"
Oops.
43 Likes
Are there any studies showing voter fraud is a real problem?
Don’t need studies, there are convictions.
Greg
27 Likes
Are there any studies showing voter fraud is a real problem?
Don’t need studies, there are convictions.
Greg
How many? What percentage of votes are fraudulent and how many elections have been won from them? Just because there are a few doesn’t mean its serious enough to spends millions of dollars to enforce and make more rules for officials to screw up.
26 Likes
Election are rigged before we even get to vote. Who votes and whether or not those votes are legal don’t make a lick of difference.
This whole thing is a giant joke. Have fun with your delusions.
1 Like
Are there any studies showing voter fraud is a real problem?
Don’t need studies, there are convictions.
Greg
How many? What percentage of votes are fraudulent and how many elections have been won from them? Just because there are a few doesn’t mean its serious enough to spends millions of dollars to enforce and make more rules for officials to screw up.
I am not going to do your research for you as it wouldn’t convince you anyway. Your mind is made up that it is a GOP attempt to block votes. But, spend about 60 seconds with Google and you will get a pretty decent indication of where it has been happening. Add “ACORN” to the search field and have a ball. I am sure you will be able to dismiss just about all of the results I would post because you would claim they are right leaning, conservative websites or authors. And you would probably be correct, since it is the left that is committing the fraud in the first place.
And, asking, “What percentage of votes are fraudulent and how many elections have been won from them?” is nothing but a rhetorical question with no verifiable answer. You know this. If ALL of the fraudulent votes were KNOWN, then there would be more prosecutions. What percentage of drivers exceed the speed limit? What percentage of shoppers shoplift? What percentage of cyclists dope? The statutes for voter fraud in most states are so strict as to make it very burdensome to prosecute.
In your world, is it OK for busloads of unidentifiable voters to simply travel around from one voting location to another voting over and over again? Why did ACORN expend so much time and energy creating fake registrations?
Seriously, how burdensome is it for someone to simply identify themselves at a polling location? Is it realistic to just let anybody walk up and say they are Robert Redford or Jesse Jackson and let them vote? For cryin’ out loud, this is fundamental to creating a legitimate election, yet lefties continue to scream that those evil Republicans are racists and they don’t want poor people to vote. If what the Dems say is true and so many of these people 'can’t get a free state ID for some reason or another, why don’t they help them get an ID instead of accusing the conservatives of racism?
Greg
2 Likes
Election are rigged before we even get to vote. Who votes and whether or not those votes are legal don’t make a lick of difference.
This whole thing is a giant joke. Have fun with your delusions.
You are telling me this? Like I don’t already know.
Im not asking you to do research for me. Im asking you for some evidence to support your claims. Provide proof that in person voter fraud is a serious widepread problem and I’ll happily change my position. im trying to stick to the very narrow claim here. Ive said nothing about either party, racism or anything beyond voter fraud.
Why did ACORN expend so much time and energy creating fake registrations?
Don’t forget to add “Strategic Allied Consultants” to the search term! The right wing press will bring out the Scary Black ACORN year after year, but you get kind of crickets on the at-least-equally-serious Strategic Allied Consultants.
, “What percentage of votes are fraudulent and how many elections have been won from them?” is nothing but a rhetorical question with no verifiable answer.
I recommend the book Proofiness to you. It brings some statistical rigor to the argument, and not in a partisan way.
From an older thread. That addressed how a democratic administration’s research found not fraud. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=4079730;search_string=fraud%20risk;#4079730
My job centers around identifying and addressing risk. So I have have spent a significant portion of my education and career learning about the intricacies of risk. I don’t have time to thouroughly educate you on the subject, but I can tell you this. Risk is typically addressed as those that are within control and those that are not. Both are subjecive but ultimately used calculate the residual risk which is weighed against the risk appetite and the cost to reduce the risk. Considering there are virtually no controls over preventing voter fraud and errors with regards to ineligible people voting, that by definition means the risk of people not supposed to vote can’t be insignificant by any objective measure. Why? Because it is solely based on the uncontrollable actions of people.
In my professional opinion, that would greatly increase the risk. And since the cost of everybody having an ID is negligible (the state has a vested interest in everybody having an id to begin with), that means the only way to bring the calculated risk within the risk appetite would be to increase the risk appetite. In otherwords, say that the risk is not significant. Nobody in risk managment would ever say there is “No Risk” I guarantee that. But auditors are not immune to political pressure so I can see why an agency in a largely democratic controlled state would not find significant risk or deem the risk to be tolerable. But put aside the risk of fraud. What about the risk of errors or ineligible people mistakingly voting? Surely the combination would pose a greater risk that could be mitigated by the same control, a state issued ID, not even a dl or walking ID.
Of course this is being made into an issue for political reasons, but that doesn’t make the solution of requiring any less reasonable and valid.
Then this.
Historically PA has been controlled by democrats, I’m not from PA so if the tieds have shifted, it would be fairly recent. But I can assure you most of the local gov’t are still. But I might be right.
So your saying that there are already mitigating controls in the form of a find and prison time? First that isn’t a control, but if we are going to go there, then surely you would again support gun purchases without an id as the penalties are much greater. But I know, next you are going to say that people ineligible for weapons have them since we arrest them on a nearly daily basis, and you would be correct. So that brings up my next point. The ballot system secret. And since no IDs were taken, no photos of the voter taken of them voting, and not witnesses showing the person actually voted, it would be impractical and almost impossible to detect instances of voter fraud after the fact. So that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. When you combine the risk as previously stated and the fact that they aren’t likely detected, this to me tells me it is most certainly happening.
In auditing, which goes hand and hand with risk. Residual risk as I previously defined is synonymously referred to as detection risk. Since there are no controls for detection after the fact, that would again increase the risk on the otherside of the equation.
So again, in the absence of controls to prevent fraud and the absence of controls to detect it. There is a high risk that it is or could happen and since the cost and benfit of everbody having an ID are insignificant. The only way they could say with a straight face the risk is no significant, is if they are willing to accept a high level of risk, a high risk appetite. This is not a matter of debate, these are well established standards on risk management that you can look up and compare to my comment.
So again, why would it not make sense to have an id since they are readily available, their benefits go beyond voting, it is in the states interest for everybody to have an ID, it doesn’t cost much, and it virtually eliminates the risk of voter fraud that I have proven through well established standards, has to exist. Plus most people support voter id laws. Like abortion for republicans, this is a losing battle for democrats.
22 Likes
Considering there are virtually no controls over preventing voter fraud and errors with regards to ineligible people voting, that by definition means the risk of people not supposed to vote can’t be insignificant by any objective measure.
Well if you have an objective measure, out with it then! That’s a lot of whoosiwhatsit about risk, without any objective data. And risk analysis is all about data.
What about the risk of errors or ineligible people mistakingly voting? Surely the combination would pose a greater risk that could be mitigated by the same control, a state issued ID, not even a dl or walking ID.
Exactly! But the book I referred to above lists the sources of election error by magnitude, and then comes to the conclusion that the most significant would not be fixed by ID. ID is fine, but if you were really and truly concerned with the accuracy of elections voter ID wouldn’t be #1 on your list. You might get to it after spending several years on other issues.
“Voter fraud” is an oxymoron. For further education and insight on the value of voting: