Voter Fraud

[carlfense]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

Since the 2010 elections, many Republican state legislatures (as well as Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled body) have moved to pass stronger voter ID laws. Though the supposed goal of this legislation is to stop voter fraud, the data on how much fraud is actually happening are hard to come by.

 

News21, part of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, has mounted an intensive effort to try to flesh out that record. News21 students have requested and reviewed thousands of public records, court documents, and media reports to see how many prosecutions for election fraud have been made in each state. The result: "analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal." The map above illustrates the number of confirmed voter fraud cases found by News21 dating back to 2000. Out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast, they counted 633 incidents. Among states with voter ID laws on the books, Georgia and Kansas have seen the most prosecutions, with 80 and 97 cases respectively. In Pennsylvania, which may require voters to show identification on Election Day if the state’s Supreme Court does not block the new law from taking effect, the number of fraud cases was just five.

[Junior]

Yes, sadly, the real motives behind preventing voter fraud are quite transparent.

 

In reality, I think voter ID laws are fine, given 2 things.

 

1. They are passed YEARS in advance of actually taking effect, giving people plenty of time to do what they need to do to get IDs, while allowing for training of polling place volunteers.

2. An ID for voting alone (no driver's license) would be free.

[BigRedBuster]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[sd'sker]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

should a law that threatens a fundamental democratic right not have an extremely high burden of proof, let alone a preponderance of evidence?

[BigRedBuster]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

should a law that threatens a fundamental democratic right not have an extremely high burden of proof, let alone a preponderance of evidence?

 

It doesn't come anywhere close to that if put in place correctly. The only reason to argue that point is if you don't care if voter fraud happens.

[sd'sker]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

should a law that threatens a fundamental democratic right not have an extremely high burden of proof, let alone a preponderance of evidence?

 

It doesn't come anywhere close to that if put in place correctly. The only reason to argue that point is if you don't care if voter fraud happens.

no, i make that argument because i do not think voter fraud is a real problem. i think the greater threat to democracy is to disenfranchise so many because of examples of a very few fraudsters.

[carlfense]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

So you'll believe what you want despite a lack of evidence unless we can prove that it doesn't happen?

[carlfense]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

should a law that threatens a fundamental democratic right not have an extremely high burden of proof, let alone a preponderance of evidence?

 

It doesn't come anywhere close to that if put in place correctly. The only reason to argue that point is if you don't care if voter fraud happens.

Would you define "put in place correctly" as mere weeks before a major election?

 

I'll care about voter fraud as soon as there is evidence that it's a problem.

[Malth]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

 

/facepalm

[sd'sker]

gosh, if only someone would explicitly spell out the ulterior motive of these measures... oh, wait:

 

 

[Ziggy]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-09-14/news/bs-md-wendy-rosen-withdraws-20120910_1_general-election-voter-fraud-vote-on-local-issues

 

Ooops

[carlfense]

http://articles.balt...on-local-issues

 

Ooops

How is that an "oops?"

[Mavric]

Just because something hasn't been caught and prosecuted doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

should a law that threatens a fundamental democratic right not have an extremely high burden of proof, let alone a preponderance of evidence?

 

It doesn't come anywhere close to that if put in place correctly. The only reason to argue that point is if you don't care if voter fraud happens.

no, i make that argument because i do not think voter fraud is a real problem. i think the greater threat to democracy is to disenfranchise so many because of examples of a very few fraudsters.

So how many voters, exactly, will be disenfranchised by this?

[Malth]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/politics/groups-like-true-the-vote-are-looking-very-closely-for-voter-fraud.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=politics

[Mavric]

I'll care about voter fraud as soon as there is evidence that it's a problem.

So at what level does something become a problem? We haven't executed many people for treason lately so maybe we shouldn't worry about enforcing those laws either.