PA Rep. Michael Turzai admits voter registration is a scam.

[Darth Rotor]

There is no evidence that fraud exists on any statistically significant level. Given your premise the guy is extremely dishonest or very, very stupid.

Suggest you research the history of Duval and Jim Wells Counties Texas. You are hanging your hat on the idea that voter fraud isn't there, anywhere, when it can crop up most anywhere, depending upon how clever a given set of operators is.

It's one of those things that happens now and again. Like any disease, one might consider an ounce of prevention to be a pound of cure.

Or, you can pretend that it can't happen where you live.

Your choice.

In my county, it's kind of funny for anyone to bring the topic up, since one can barely get 15% of those eligible to vote around here. One doesn't need voter fraud to get things done 'round here, just the right amount of sales job to the known demographics who actually do vote.

 

[RandFan]

Suggest you research the history of Duval and Jim Wells Counties Texas.

I referenced Rick Hassen and two other sources. I have more. I can't prove the negative, which is to say that I can't demonstrate that statistically significant voter fraud is not a problem. I only note that seemingly objective experts and investigative journalists have argued time and again that there is a dearth of data to support the claim. I also note that in the face of all of that those who have a vested interest in supporting their claims are silent. But let me say this, in the hopes of justifying my claim to be a skeptic and critical thinker I try to stay away from categorical assumptions. Yeah, it could be a problem from time to time.

That said, I've never found the argument "go study X" to be all that persuasive. If you have some evidence don't hold back. This is your opportunity to shine. However, to be fair, I've engaged in that mode of debate before. Glass houses and all.

And if I could ask one other small favor, when you get that data, to what extent are we talking about? What is the relative risk given your premise? Let's have some context.

 

[crimresearch]

Voter registration and the attempts to disenfranchise people with Voter ID tactics, aren't the same thing.

 

[applecorped]

Voter registration and the attempts to disenfranchise people with Voter ID tactics, aren't the same thing.

For some people, it seems, it is.

 

[Bikewer]

It seems to me likely that the classic instances of voter fraud occur in local elections for such things as aldermen/selectmen positions, small-town mayors, and things of that nature.
Often such elections are rather informal affairs at any rate and not subject to the controls you'd expect at a national-level event.
We actually had a police officer involved in such a case. He'd been hired from a local department when he left abruptly due to a political dispute, which are very common in these departments.
Some months later we were somewhat shocked to see him and his brother doing the "walk of shame" to the local county lockup for fraud.
Seems they had tried to buy the election for mayor for a ladyfriend, and they got caught with a pile of write-in ballots.
She had promised him the position of chief if she got elected.... There may only be on the order of a few hundred ballots cast in these affairs, so a few votes one way or the other could swing things.

Hard to imagine much of this taking place during national elections....Here, we have to present our voter registration card, sign a form in the presence of the election officials, and have our signature compared to the one they have on file.
I imagine a few people could slip through this by one means or another, but it would require a lot of work to come up with substantial numbers.

 

[Twiggett]

So if I read that NYT article correctly, Hasen says that there is no evidence to support that there is significant voter fraud along with no evidence to support the claims that these sorts of laws do anything to disenfranchise voters. In addition he also says that Republicans may be trying to use the laws to suppress the vote of Democratic leaning people while the Democrats are using those same laws for their own political purposes. From that I take that the laws are not harmful insofar as we can tell nor do they have any measurable effect.

If all that is true, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt on it as what he says doesn't strike me as particularly slanted to either side of the debate, why are we even bothering with the whole issue? Aren't there real issues that these politicians ought to be working on?

 

[RandFan]

So if I read that NYT article correctly, Hasen says that there is no evidence to support that there is significant voter fraud along with no evidence to support the claims that these sorts of laws do anything to disenfranchise voters.

No. That they disenfranchise voters is not in dispute. Anymore than the fact that there is voter fraud, that is not in dispute. Hassen is saying A.) The laws are too new to judge. B.) No evidence to date exists to support a claim that the laws have a statistically significant affect.

In addition he also says that Republicans may be trying to use the laws to suppress the vote of Democratic leaning people while the Democrats are using those same laws for their own political purposes. From that I take that the laws are not harmful insofar as we can tell nor do they have any measurable effect.

They are not statistically significant, on the whole, as far as we can tell so far working with what little data we have, so far. But there is no question that they do harm (he actually makes that point I'm not sure how you missed it). Otherwise, yes, that is by and large his thesis.

If all that is true, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt on it as what he says doesn't strike me as particularly slanted to either side of the debate, why are we even bothering with the whole issue? Aren't there real issues that these politicians ought to be working on?

A.) Post #20. B.) We ought not disenfranchise people for no good reason. C.) We don't know that these laws won't be statistically significant. It makes little sense to engage in social experimentation when it's not needed. D.) One of the duties of elected leaders is to ensure the rights of citizens.

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me likely that the classic instances of voter fraud occur in local elections for such things as aldermen/selectmen positions, small-town mayors, and things of that nature.
Often such elections are rather informal affairs at any rate and not subject to the controls you'd expect at a national-level event.
We actually had a police officer involved in such a case. He'd been hired from a local department when he left abruptly due to a political dispute, which are very common in these departments.
Some months later we were somewhat shocked to see him and his brother doing the "walk of shame" to the local county lockup for fraud.
Seems they had tried to buy the election for mayor for a ladyfriend, and they got caught with a pile of write-in ballots.
She had promised him the position of chief if she got elected.... There may only be on the order of a few hundred ballots cast in these affairs, so a few votes one way or the other could swing things.

Hard to imagine much of this taking place during national elections....Here, we have to present our voter registration card, sign a form in the presence of the election officials, and have our signature compared to the one they have on file.
I imagine a few people could slip through this by one means or another, but it would require a lot of work to come up with substantial numbers.

The reason that voter fraud is not a problem is that the reward is so small for any potential risk. Dream up a scenario for committing fraud in state or county without voter ID laws and you will quickly realize how foolish such a prospect is. If you are caught committing voter fraud you face a federal sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. To what end and how many fraudulent votes could you reasonably cast before you were caught?

 

[Ausmerican]

Funny how many other countries including our nearest neighbors of Canada and Mexico, have some sort of voter ID requirement, and somehow there isn't any problem of voter disenfranchisement and cries of discrimination?

Canada has universal healthcare and gun control, you want we should adopt those too?

 

[AlBell]

Assuming voter ID laws do not disenfranchise in a statistically significant way:

Will Voter ID Laws Disenfranchise Democratic Voters?

A usual lefty-lib crock-of-crap from the NYT.

At any rate Dems usually vote dead people. See LBJ's wins; lately, who knows. Damn hard to verify one way or the other, but:

Contains more recent examples of Dem ballot fraud.
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-10.htm

 

[RandFan]

A usual lefty-lib crock-of-crap from the NYT.

Typical right-wing ad hominem. You don't address the arguments made. What exactly do you take issue with? Let me guess, you didn't even read it, did you?

At any rate Dems usually vote dead people. See LBJ's wins; lately, who knows. Damn hard to verify one way or the other, but:

This is evidence of what?

Contains more recent examples of Dem ballot fraud.
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-10.htm

Since when do unsourced assertions count as evidence? And "kay Daly"? Vice president of a public relations firm? Okay, explain to me how an expert in election law is a hack and person whose job it is to frame is perfectly okay in your head? Look, I would not dismiss Daly on the grounds that she's paid to propagate ideas regardless of the truth value of those ideas. I'm happy to consider her arguments and data. But her arguments and data are contradicted by experts in the field.

Seriously, you can do better.

 

[NotJesus]

Seriously, you can do better.

Evidence?

 

[RandFan]

Seriously, you can do better.

Evidence?

Okay, fair enough, I'll just hope.

 

[Twiggett]

No. That they disenfranchise voters is not in dispute. Anymore than the fact that there is voter fraud, that is not in dispute. Hassen is saying A.) The laws are too new to judge. B.) No evidence to date exists to support a claim that the laws have a statistically significant affect.

I should have re-read what I typed before I posted it. I would have sworn what I said paraphrased him well but obviously it didn't. I was trying to get across that there is no evidence, to this point, of statistically significant voter fraud or disenfranchisement.

They are not statistically significant, on the whole, as far as we can tell so far working with what little data we have, so far. But there is no question that they do harm (he actually makes that point I'm not sure how you missed it). Otherwise, yes, that is by and large his thesis.

Using the word harmful was a poor choice there as, to an individual, having their vote not count is obviously harmful. I meant it the context of being the deciding factor in a large scale election.

A.) Post #20. B.) We ought not disenfranchise people for no good reason. C.) We don't know that these laws won't be statistically significant. It makes little sense to engage in social experimentation when it's not needed. D.) One of the duties of elected leaders is to ensure the rights of citizens.

A) I can think of a few other ways that I would spend my money on were I the sort who wanted to illegally or immorally influence an election.

B,C,D)One of these days I will figure out how to be clear in what I am trying to say, as I agree with all of them. My point was if there is no current evidence that the laws will do anything significant, why are the Republicans wasting time (See my response for A) trying to get them passed, aren't there more important issues out there?

Oh, I can see how my use of the word we might also have led to some confusion. When I use it in the context of politicians or political parties it is meant as taking responsibility for whichever one is pushing for or against a particular issue. Like them or not, they are our elected leaders and we as a nation are responsible for what we have in DC.

 

[RandFan]

I should have re-read what I typed before I posted it. I would have sworn what I said paraphrased him well but obviously it didn't. I was trying to get across that there is no evidence, to this point, of statistically significant voter fraud or disenfranchisement.

Using the word harmful was a poor choice there as, to an individual, having their vote not count is obviously harmful. I meant it the context of being the deciding factor in a large scale election.

A) I can think of a few other ways that I would spend my money on were I the sort who wanted to illegally or immorally influence an election.

B,C,D)One of these days I will figure out how to be clear in what I am trying to say, as I agree with all of them. My point was if there is no current evidence that the laws will do anything significant, why are the Republicans wasting time (See my response for A) trying to get them passed, aren't there more important issues out there?

Oh, I can see how my use of the word we might also have led to some confusion. When I use it in the context of politicians or political parties it is meant as taking responsibility for whichever one is pushing for or against a particular issue. Like them or not, they are our elected leaders and we as a nation are responsible for what we have in DC.

Okay, yes, I understand you better. And yes, I agree with you.

 

[Vorticity]

A usual lefty-lib crock-of-crap from the NYT.

At any rate Dems usually vote dead people. See LBJ's wins; lately, who knows. Damn hard to verify one way or the other, but:

Contains more recent examples of Dem ballot fraud.
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-10.htm

Now you just need to start using the word "drongo" a lot.

 

[Brainster]

There is no evidence that fraud exists on any statistically significant level. Given your premise the guy is extremely dishonest or very, very stupid.

One could say the same for the folks who put that YouTube video together. It seems quite obvious to me that the state rep was not saying that Voter ID laws were some sort of scam.

 

[RandFan]

One could say the same for the folks who put that YouTube video together. It seems quite obvious to me that the state rep was not saying that Voter ID laws were some sort of scam.

The point being that the rep believed that disenfranchising voters was necessary to ensure a Romney win. Never mind the lack of evidence that there was any evidence whatsoever that such legislation was necessary to "allow" a Romney win given voter fraud.

Can we be honest for a moment? The rep is either an ignorant fool or a cynical bastard. If I've excluded the middle then please, by all means, fill me in? As far as I can tell, there is NO evidence whatsoever that disenfranchising voters was necessary for Romney to secure the Pennsylvania vote in an honest fashion. But you be sure to let me in on any evidence to the contrary.

 

[theprestige]

Funny how that's not a valid argument. Funny how you want to rationalize something that will disenfranchise people for no good reason by arguing that "but mommy, nobody minds when Billy does it".

Neally, A.) That someone else does something doesn't make it okay. B.) We are not Canada, we have a different history and a different social dynamic.

Awesome. I'll be sure to keep this in mind then next time you try to pimp the NDI or European healthcare as prescriptions for US policy.

 

[RandFan]

Awesome. I'll be sure to keep this in mind then next time you try to pimp the NDI or European healthcare as prescriptions for US policy.

? I think you seriously miss the point. If voter fraud were a real problem and IF all other nations relied on voter ID to fix that problem then you would have a point. They don't and you don't.

Do you see the error of your logic?