NC Republican Representative resigns over racist comments

[Simon_Jester]

I was referring to your extrapolation. Quit being obtuse.

I wasn't sure what you meant, as you keep rejecting what I say - even when I have links to back it up, or provide a simple extrapolation from one populace to a large one.

If there were many cases throughout the country of voter fraud, then we could be more confident Minnesota was a representative sample. But if Minnesota is the only case on record, we don't know that. We cannot assume that each of the 50 states has a voter fraud problem that is, on average, at least as bad as Minnesota's, with Minnesota only being unusual in that someone got caught.

[In the same vein, we cannot generalize "Republicans do X" from "Republicans did X in Wyoming."

How do you quantify the number of people disenfranchised by fraud ?

It's a hard thing to quantify, but I'd say that when the known fraud rate is 30% of the margin of victory (and remember, the 130 number from Minnesota is only those who were convicted on voting when they admitted that they knew they shouldn't have), you're risking disenfranchising everyone who did vote legally.

But how significant is that risk?

Should we knowingly disenfranchise a 2% of the population, to avoid a 1% chance of disenfranchising everyone?

I don't have an issue with third. My only issue is that I'm not convinced that there are millions of people who don't have ID that is valid, if only because of the requirements to live in modern society (from working to receiving benefits from the government). That said, independent of any voter ID system I do support making ID more accessible for those on the margins of society.

Right. Would it seem reasonable to you to make ID-accessibility a priority for some years before implementing ID as a requirement to vote? There's something inherently ridiculous about changing the ID requirements for voting 8 or 12 weeks before an election... and yet we've seen people trying to do exactly that.

[General Zod]

I wasn't sure what you meant, as you keep rejecting what I say - even when I have links to back it up, or provide a simple extrapolation from one populace to a large one.

Because all of your evidence has been a red herring. If someone asks for evidence of marijuana use, you don't post evidence of cocaine use and say you can extrapolate based on that. The type of voter fraud you posted evidence for has no bearing on the type of voter fraud that everyone has their panties in a twist about.

I posted evidence showing that our existing laws seem to be more than enough to catch people voting twice and you willfully ignored it.

Missed the point entirely. It's standard procedure here to assign evil motives to republicans when they do things that are unpopular on SDN. I simply turned that on it's head, and you got very defensive. Maybe you should learn from this?

Maybe you shouldn't shove words in people's mouths?

Would you be so flippant if it were the reverse? Democrats being kept out of districts and only being allowed back in after a court order?

I honestly doubt you would accept a pithy hearsay quote at face value if it were the reverse. Don't piss on my feet and tell me it's raining.

I don't have an issue with third. My only issue is that I'm not convinced that there are millions of people who don't have ID that is valid, if only because of the requirements to live in modern society (from working to receiving benefits from the government). That said, independent of any voter ID system I do support making ID more accessible for those on the margins of society.

I'm not convinced that there are hundreds of thousands of people casting fraudulent votes with someone else's ID.

[TimothyC]

If there were many cases throughout the country of voter fraud, then we could be more confident Minnesota was a representative sample. But if Minnesota is the only case on record, we don't know that. We cannot assume that each of the 50 states has a voter fraud problem that is, on average, at least as bad as Minnesota's, with Minnesota only being unusual in that someone got caught.

We honestly don't know what the real rates are in other states with other elections because there isn't the interest in doing the research. The research has been done on the Minnesota 2008 elections because of how close the race was and how the recounts for the senate race kept skewing the count one direction and only one direction.

The main, original point was that the 40 cases over 4 years number was an under count, that is at least half the real number and if the extrapolation is correct, two orders of magnitude low.

The short version of my current stance is that more research is needed, and when caught, people should be punished - very harshly. Voter fraud is an attack on the institution of voting, and in my opinion is treason against the very idea of our republic.

[In the same vein, we cannot generalize "Republicans do X" from "Republicans did X in Wyoming."

While that is correct, we just don't know what the rates are everywhere because in general republicans don't study it if they don't have what they see as an overtly stolen election (because it's not uncommon for democrats to cry out that they are only interested in disenfrancising poor/minority [read: democratic] voters and even dealing with such a charge takes political capital), and democrats don't study what might turn out to be very bad for them. This is not to say that republicans don't commit fraud, but the major cases of outright fraud have been beneficial to the democrats more than republicans.

Should we knowingly disenfranchise a 2% of the population, to avoid a 1% chance of disenfranchising everyone?

I'd rather not, but I do wonder how many people who do vote don't have an acceptable ID already?

Right. Would it seem reasonable to you to make ID-accessibility a priority for some years before implementing ID as a requirement to vote? There's something inherently ridiculous about changing the ID requirements for voting 8 or 12 weeks before an election... and yet we've seen people trying to do exactly that.

I don't have a problem with pushing ID requirements earlier, but again I ask, how many voters are actually unable to vote due to not having proper ID?

Because all of your evidence has been a red herring. If someone asks for evidence of marijuana use, you don't post evidence of cocaine use and say you can extrapolate based on that. The type of voter fraud you posted evidence for has no bearing on the type of voter fraud that everyone has their panties in a twist about.

My original point, which I will quote for you here, never touched on voter ID, only on the fact that fraud was more widespread the numbers from the study you cited.

We've also got this:

The Verdict

Based on independent information, it appears that Minnesota Majority’s estimate that 113 people have been convicted of voter fraud may be in the ballpark, though a precise number is elusive.

That's for just the 2008 election, where the Minnesota senate race was exceptionally close (312 votes) and votes kept being found for Al Franken. There have also been no fewer than three found just in Hamilton county relating to the 2012 election.

We've had the Chief of Staff for a Florida representative resigning after being implicated in a voter fraud scheme, the investigation later took down his communications director as well.

Given the above, I ask the individuals in this thread:
Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

Concession accepted.

Maybe you shouldn't shove words in people's mouths?

Show me where I have done so? The closest thing was where I interpreted your comparison of fraud and petty theft, and that was in my opinion a reasonable extrapolation from what you had said. Please, provide an alternate explanation if you have one.

I honestly doubt you would accept a pithy hearsay quote at face value if it were the reverse.

Must be nice to live in a world where you can reject the other side so easily. I'm sure hanging out on SDN helps with that.

I'm not convinced that there are hundreds of thousands of people casting fraudulent votes with someone else's ID.

And my original point (and post, as quoted above) didn't have anything to do with voter ID laws. Get off your high horse.

[Simon_Jester]

The short version of my current stance is that more research is needed, and when caught, people should be punished - very harshly. Voter fraud is an attack on the institution of voting, and in my opinion is treason against the very idea of our republic.

Fair enough- but see below.

While that is correct, we just don't know what the rates are everywhere because in general republicans don't study it if they don't have what they see as an overtly stolen election (because it's not uncommon for democrats to cry out that they are only interested in disenfrancising poor/minority [read: democratic] voters and even dealing with such a charge takes political capital), and democrats don't study what might turn out to be very bad for them. This is not to say that republicans don't commit fraud, but the major cases of outright fraud have been beneficial to the democrats more than republicans.

If Republicans do not make a study of this, then how can they reasonably allege that it's a large enough problem to be worth knocking tens or hundreds of thousands of American citizens off the voter rolls for not being able to get to the DMV soon enough and stay there long enough?

And while there are a lot of ways to police voter fraud other than just turning away anyone who fails to present their papers, that's the biggest one we're actually seeing made widespread in multiple states.

Should we knowingly disenfranchise a 2% of the population, to avoid a 1% chance of disenfranchising everyone?

I'd rather not, but I do wonder how many people who do vote don't have an acceptable ID already?

Do we count only people who now vote, or people who legally have the right to vote, but do not do so? Which choice do you think we should make, and why?

[General Zod]

My original point, which I will quote for you here, never touched on voter ID, only on the fact that fraud was more widespread the numbers from the study you cited.

Which is a completely irrelevant red-herring to the type of fraud that everyone's complaining about.

Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

Concession accepted.

I'm still waiting on proof that our existing system is doing an inadequate job of catching the voter fraud that does exist. Is there any reason that our existing systems are inadequate? Do you even know what our existing systems are? You aren't going to use the same mechanism to catch all types of fraud. Is there some reason that refuse to believe fraud is really as small of an issue as it actually is?

Show me where I have done so? The closest thing was where I interpreted your comparison of fraud and petty theft, and that was in my opinion a reasonable extrapolation from what you had said. Please, provide an alternate explanation if you have one.

I can't help it if you have reading problems, but I don't know how to explain that I don't believe in a permanent red-letter brand in simpler terms.

Must be nice to live in a world where you can reject the other side so easily. I'm sure hanging out on SDN helps with that.

Did you ignore the part where I asked for more details? Or are you willfully ignoring half my posts?

And my original point (and post, as quoted above) didn't have anything to do with voter ID laws. Get off your high horse.

Which makes it a red herring, see above.