What did Democrats do wrong?

[johnny karate]

I see the discussion has moved from "It doesn't happen" to "It happens but it's not a big deal" stage.

Just an outright lie.

"It doesn't happen" is specifically in regard to widespread voter fraud perpetrate by illegal immigrants. That isn't happening.

Trausti tried to move the goal posts to include any and all voter fraud and still came up laughably short in demonstrating there's a problem that we need voter ID to fix.

 

[johnny karate]

That's another common thing the folks on the left get wrong. They'd be much better off starting from, there is some, but the downside of X reaction is worse than the upside. Again, a thing on the right too just different issues and it undercuts the rights credibility too.

You're signing off on what is a demonstrable lie.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You specifically framed the "harm" as happening to my party and the "benefit" as going to the other party. A neutral person worried about "common sense" and "loopholes" would be concerned about the integrity of the vote regardless of the outcome. You, however, are explicitly measuring the value of this policy by how it affects the Republican win/loss column.

Your assumption is incorrect. I am concerned with overall integrity. But I'm also very cynical, and right now I'm inclined to think that a highly vocal cohort of posters on this forum are extremely partisan, and they only take positions if doing so allows them to paint "the other side" as being evil and bad. My working hypothesis is that many of the people here lamenting how it's evil and bigoted to place reasonable safeguards on voting to ensure identity and citizenship are only doing so because it benefits democrats to call it racist. It appears to benefit democrats because dem partisans have this notion that minorities are too dumb and too poor and too helpless to be able to get an ID or to demonstrate their citizenship, and those poor dumb helpless minorities have to be protected so they'll keep voting for democrats.

I suspect that if the demographics shifted, and minorities started voting for republicans instead, that the entire argument would shift.

My view is that this is an obvious loophole that can be closed with relative ease, and closing it benefits the country regardless of party. We could take actions that would prevent ANY party from exploiting the system. But then you wouldn't be able to point and complain about how racist the republicans are so...

 

[Thermal]

I see the discussion has moved from "It doesn't happen" to "It happens but it's not a big deal" stage.

4 out of 150 million qualifies as "it doesn't happen". Noise range errors in a group that large are inevitable.

Eta: christ, recounted votes in contested districts are off by a percent or so without any fraud found at all.

 

[johnny karate]

At some point I should get used to it, but I just keep being surprised and baffled that some people are so stridently opposed to closing obvious loopholes. It should be common sense, and some of you will argue until you're hoarse against taking even reasonable steps.

Alex: Hey Pat, how you doing? So last night I was walking by our shared north pasture on the road, and I noticed that part of the fence is down. You might want to take care of that before our livestock gets out.

Pat: Geez Alex, don't you realize that if I fix that hole in the fence, the deer won't be able to get into our pasture? What kind of monster are you trying to deny deer access to our field?

Alex: Well, I guess you don't have to care about your livestock, but I don't want my cattle to get loose and lost, so I'll just go ahead and fix it later today.

Pat: No, you can't do that! It's absolutely unacceptable for you to fix the hole in our shared fence that keeps both of our stock in our communal pasture! Don't you realize the problems you're going to cause for the deer?

*Ten years later*

Alex: Hey Pat, we still need to fix that fence. The cattle could get loose any moment now. This is a very important issue.

Pat: Alex, as I've explained to you way too many times, I went out to the pasture and didn't see any part of the fence that was down and to date, no cattle have gotten loose. We even hired someone to do an audit and they also told us that the cattle are perfectly secure. Please get off my porch and stop bothering me with this nonsense, and for god's sake put on some pants.

Alex: *soils himself and runs into the woods, mumbling incoherently*

 

[johnny karate]

I wonder how many people will change their tune when that loophole starts to benefit the other party, and to harm yours?

I'd be willing to change my tune when anyone can present evidence that the "loophole" is currently or ever benefited anyone.

 

[johnny karate]

Your assumption is incorrect. I am concerned with overall integrity.

Sure you are.

Here's you talking about the violent mob who assaulted cops while trying to overthrow an election:

Sure... one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm.

Look how "concerned" you are.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm really enjoying that there are people arguing there exists this massive "voter fraud" loophole that Democrats can use to rig elections... in a thread about an election that Democrats lost.

 

[dirtywick]

i suppose the argument is the democrats should have conceded the premise that they were committing widespread voter fraud by importing immigrants that these false voter id accusations are based on and done more to disenfranchise many of their own voters. it was a dem mistake not to do so.

 

[johnny karate]

Thank you for bringing it full circle.

 

[Segnosaur]

Your assumption is incorrect. I am concerned with overall integrity.

Ummm, no you're not.

If you were concerned about election "integrity" you would be less concerned about the less than 0.002% of potentially fraudulent ballots cast in the 2020 election and more concerned about the 10-15% of Americans who might be disenfranchised by widespread strict voter photo ID laws.

Oh, and here's more data:

2020 election: 475 potential cases of voter fraud out of more than 25 million votes cast
Number of Americans who currently lack photo ID suitable for voting in states that have the strictest voting ID laws: 7 million

Which number do you think is bigger, 475 or 7 million? Which number do you think will have a bigger effect on an election?

See:

Exhaustive fact check finds little evidence of voter fraud, but 2020's 'Big Lie' lives on

More than a year after President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump and his allies still insist without evidence that widespread voter fraud led to a stolen election. A new reporting project from the Associated Press shows that is false, finding fewer than 475...

www.pbs.org

https://cdce.umd.edu/news/news-umd-analysis-millions-americans-don%E2%80%99t-have-id-required-vote

But I'm also very cynical, and right now I'm inclined to think that a highly vocal cohort of posters on this forum are extremely partisan, and they only take positions if doing so allows them to paint "the other side" as being evil and bad.

You mean like the way you lie about how "people against photo ID laws want illegal people to vote"?

Or how about the way you lie about just the type of ID laws republicans want to implement?

Or the way you like when you say "people need an ID to survive" when the evidence shows at least 7 million Americans manage to do just fine without the type of photo ID republicans are demanding?

My working hypothesis is that many of the people here lamenting how it's evil and bigoted to place reasonable safeguards on voting to ensure identity and citizenship

Proof of your lies.

People here have no problem with verifying that voters have citizenship. But that is not determined by looking at a photo ID at the polling station. That is determined long before, and photo ID is not needed to make that determination.

are only doing so because it benefits democrats to call it racist.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its probably a duck.

It appears to benefit democrats because dem partisans have this notion that minorities are too dumb and too poor and too helpless to be able to get an ID

Again, you are either a moron, or you are dishonest.

It has been explained to you multiple times that being "dumb and helpless" is not the problem. It is the required time and/or financial commitment by people who may have limited resources.

The only "dumb" ones are the people who get told that over and over again but don't let it sink in.

I suspect that if the demographics shifted, and minorities started voting for republicans instead, that the entire argument would shift.

I suspect that you're an idiot.

My view is that this is an obvious loophole that can be closed with relative ease, and closing it benefits the country regardless of party.

Nope, not a loophole.

We could take actions that would prevent ANY party from exploiting the system.

Is this this "fantasy" that you have that somehow "we just have to make sure everyone will be given an ID"?

What a dream world you live in.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would be all on-board with Voter ID laws if it was phased in over time and was also paid for with tax dollars. Of course, Republicans would never go for that because it would undermine their goal, which is to disenfranchise elgible voters.

 

[johnny karate]

I would be all on-board with Voter ID laws if it was phased in over time and was also paid for with tax dollars. Of course, Republicans would never go for that because it would undermine their goal, which is to disenfranchise elgible voters.

I would also be onboard with the additional requirement that the process to acquire the IDs was easy and streamlined. Something else, of course, that Republicans would be against.

 

[EHocking]

In the UK if two people attempt to use the same vote (or one person is suspected of using two votes) the police attend and investigate. If the legitimate voter voted first, that's you caught on the spot. The risk/reward ratio sucks.

And if the illegitimate voter votes first, how do you expect to find them?
ID not required and cctv/security etc very much not the case at polling places.

To be honest though, the scenario is equally unlikely and pointless, I only got involved to point out the error regarding I’d required to cast a vote in Oz.
The number of multiple and/ or fraudulent votes seems to be between 0.01 and 0.03%, if this report is to be believed, i.e., about 13 votes per electorate.

Talk about a solution looking for a problem…

This is not about IDs for voting, this is about IDs to control a population. ICE demands of ID from legitimate citizens is just proof of this.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

2020 election: 475 potential cases of voter fraud out of more than 25 million votes cast
Number of Americans who currently lack photo ID suitable for voting in states that have the strictest voting ID laws: 7 million

Which number do you think is bigger, 475 or 7 million? Which number do you think will have a bigger effect on an election?

7 million of course. That 7 million will be enough to swing the election in favor of Democrats, which is why we have to stop it. But that's not all. We are in the minority now. We will never win if the elections are truly democratic, so we will have to use every trick in the book (and more) to prevail. Here are a few ideas:-

1. Bring back the Three-fifths Compromise, but apply it to votes counted instead.
2. Apply literacy tests to anyone who votes for a Democrat.
3. Declare the Democratic Party a "clear, present, and continuing danger to the security of the United States".

We did it once, and can do it again!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And if the illegitimate voter votes first, how do you expect to find them?
ID not required and cctv/security etc very much not the case at polling places.

To be honest though, the scenario is equally unlikely and pointless, I only got involved to point out the error regarding I’d required to cast a vote in Oz.
The number of multiple and/ or fraudulent votes seems to be between 0.01 and 0.03%, if this report is to be believed, i.e., about 13 votes per electorate.

Talk about a solution looking for a problem…

This is not about IDs for voting, this is about IDs to control a population. ICE demands of ID from legitimate citizens is just proof of this.

Then it's a single discounted fraudulent vote. It's not about having a 100% catch rate, it's about making the risk and effort of casting a single vote not worth the risk of it being at best discounted, at worst getting caught.

 

[EHocking]

Then it's a single discounted fraudulent vote. It's not about having a 100% catch rate, it's about making the risk and effort of casting a single vote not worth the risk of it being at best discounted, at worst getting caught.

But it happens so infrequently, or in such small numbers, the response looks to me to be taking a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. There is much more legitimate fraud taking place that really needs addressing, e.g., voter disenfranchisement. Think Florida 2000 where (mostly) black voters were removed from the register.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you were concerned about election "integrity" you would be less concerned about the less than 0.002% of potentially fraudulent ballots cast in the 2020 election and more concerned about the 10-15% of Americans who might be disenfranchised by widespread strict voter photo ID laws.

Oh, and here's more data:

2020 election: 475 potential cases of voter fraud out of more than 25 million votes cast
Number of Americans who currently lack photo ID suitable for voting in states that have the strictest voting ID laws: 7 million

Which number do you think is bigger, 475 or 7 million? Which number do you think will have a bigger effect on an election?

A lot of people have trouble understanding big numbers, such as 475 or 7. Instead of asking questions they can't or won't answer, we should assure them we have been giving commensurable attention to their concern.

ETA: Oh, and percentages? I'm pretty sure 0.002% is at least 1700% more than zero.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

To follow up on quantitative findings that were reported two days ago, here's a related qualitative story.

The quantitative story reported that DHS has thus far found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The qualitative story concerns lawsuits filed by DOJ against states that provided redacted lists of voter registration, but refused to include sensitive personal details such as birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers.

Oregon was one of the states sued by DOJ. The galaxy brains at DOJ suspected a high level of voter fraud in Oregon because 95% of Oregonians over the age of 18 are registered to vote, as opposed to the national average of less than 75%. DOJ has been unable to understand any possible link between that fact and the Oregon law that automatically registers eligible voters whenever they obtain or renew a driver's license. DOJ has also been unable to understand any possible link between Oregon's vote-by-mail law and Oregon's high turnout in elections.

On Wednesday (two days ago), US District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai heard arguments in that case. He then said he intends to dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit against Oregon, telling DOJ “I’m very cautious and doubtful that what you’re asking for, which is an unredacted list, is actually going to give you the information that you need to establish a violation” of the two federal laws DOJ's galaxy brains think Oregon has violated.

Yesterday (Thursday), in California, US District Judge David Carter dismissed a similar case, saying "the DOJ's request violates federal privacy laws". Carter's three-paragraph conclusion began with this paragraph:

The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece-by-piece until there is nothing left. The case before the Court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans. The erosion of privacy and rolling back of voting rights is a decision for open and public debate within the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. The Constitution demands such respect, and the Executive may not unilaterally usurp the authority over elections it seeks to do so here.

Judge Carter also observed that DOJ failed to identify any actual violations of federal law:

Even the federal government is not permitted to sue first, obtain discovery, and finalize its allegations later. This appears to be a telltale “fishing expedition.”

 

[Thermal]

To follow up on quantitative findings that were reported two days ago, here's a related qualitative story.

The quantitative story reported that DHS has thus far found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The qualitative story concerns lawsuits filed by DOJ against states that provided redacted lists of voter registration, but refused to include sensitive personal details such as birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver's license numbers.

Oregon was one of the states sued by DOJ. The galaxy brains at DOJ suspected a high level of voter fraud in Oregon because 95% of Oregonians over the age of 18 are registered to vote, as opposed to the national average of less than 75%. DOJ has been unable to understand any possible link between that fact and the Oregon law that automatically registers eligible voters whenever they obtain or renew a driver's license. DOJ has also been unable to understand any possible link between Oregon's vote-by-mail law and Oregon's high turnout in elections.

On Wednesday (two days ago), US District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai heard arguments in that case. He then said he intends to dismiss the DOJ's lawsuit against Oregon, telling DOJ “I’m very cautious and doubtful that what you’re asking for, which is an unredacted list, is actually going to give you the information that you need to establish a violation” of the two federal laws DOJ's galaxy brains think Oregon has violated.

Yesterday (Thursday), in California, US District Judge David Carter dismissed a similar case, saying "the DOJ's request violates federal privacy laws". Carter's three-paragraph conclusion began with this paragraph:


Judge Carter also observed that DOJ failed to identify any actual violations of federal law:

Sometimes a thumbs-up is just too trite.