We've gone back and fourth with the question of should citizens provide ID to vote. You guys know where I stand on that issue.
But what if that person can't even prove they are registered to vote. In Vermont that's OK. Their votes still count.
So...let's see. I'm a resident of another district. I show up in Burlington with no ID and no proof of being registered to vote. I give them a fake name and they send that name to the DMV, while in the meantime I vote. And the vote is counted.
I then go to another polling place in Burlington and give another fake name. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
I don't know if this occurs in other states but I've always been under the assumption we only hear about 10% of the fraud out there. We never hear about the other 90%.
We've gone back and fourth with the question of should citizens provide ID to vote. You guys know where I stand on that issue.
But what if that person can't even prove they are registered to vote. In Vermont that's OK. Their votes still count.
So...let's see. I'm a resident of another district. I show up in Burlington with no ID and no proof of being registered to vote. I give them a fake name and they send that name to the DMV, while in the meantime I vote. And the vote is counted.
I then go to another polling place in Burlington and give another fake name. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
I don't know if this occurs in other states but I've always been under the assumption we only hear about 10% of the fraud out there. We never hear about the other 90%.
Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. In Burlington, 4% of voters are unregistered but most are still eligible to vote. 5% of unregistered votes may be fraudulent according to Clerk office.
Also election workers might be making mistakes in counting because law requires unregistered voters to write on provisional ballots that are not supposed to be counted until voters are verified.
Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. In Burlington, 4% of voters are unregistered but most are still eligible to vote. 5% of unregistered votes may be fraudulent according to Clerk office.
Also election workers might be making mistakes in counting because law requires unregistered voters to write on provisional ballots that are not supposed to be counted until voters are verified.
Let's assume the 4% and 5% statistic you provided is accurate (I'm not doubting you. I'm doubting the people reporting it). I still think that's too high. It should be zero.
Saying that, I think the people reporting it would be the state of Vermont. If I was self critiquing myself I would deflate the number to make it appear there wasn't a problem. Or at least make the problem look minimal.
Let's assume the 4% and 5% statistic you provided is accurate (I'm not doubting you. I'm doubting the people reporting it). I still think that's too high. It should be zero.
Saying that, I think the people reporting it would be the state of Vermont. If I was self critiquing myself I would deflate the number to make it appear there wasn't a problem. Or at least make the problem look minimal.
Yeah those districts where more votes were cast than voters are registered, the preponderance of whom voted for obama........no evidence of fraud....nope.....none.
Yeah those districts where more votes were cast than voters are registered, the preponderance of whom voted for obama........no evidence of fraud....nope.....none.
Yeah those districts where more votes were cast than voters are registered, the preponderance of whom voted for obama........no evidence of fraud....nope.....none.
Eligible voters can still vote outside of their district by registering at polling station. Impossible to have more votes than number of registered voters unless there is 100% voter turnout which is rare and great.
Yeah those districts where more votes were cast than voters are registered, the preponderance of whom voted for obama........no evidence of fraud....nope.....none.
Eligible voters can still vote outside of their district by registering at polling station. Impossible to have more votes than number of registered voters unless there is 100% voter turnout which is rare and great.
Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. In Burlington, 4% of voters are unregistered but most are still eligible to vote. 5% of unregistered votes may be fraudulent according to Clerk office.
Also election workers might be making mistakes in counting because law requires unregistered voters to write on provisional ballots that are not supposed to be counted until voters are verified.
Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. In Burlington, 4% of voters are unregistered but most are still eligible to vote. 5% of unregistered votes may be fraudulent according to Clerk office.
Also election workers might be making mistakes in counting because law requires unregistered voters to write on provisional ballots that are not supposed to be counted until voters are verified.
I'm highly curious to what conservative principles does this conservative judge hold?
read about him. you won't find too many people who don't respect his knowledge and intelligence. of course if you equate conservative with republican, you'll be confused and disappointed.
I'm highly curious to what conservative principles does this conservative judge hold?
read about him. you won't find too many people who don't respect his knowledge and intelligence. of course if you equate conservative with republican, you'll be confused and disappointed.
read about him. you won't find too many people who don't respect his knowledge and intelligence. of course if you equate conservative with republican, you'll be confused and disappointed.
Is there a Cliffs Notes version? I'm in the middle of Season Two of "The Facts of Life."
read about him. you won't find too many people who don't respect his knowledge and intelligence. of course if you equate conservative with republican, you'll be confused and disappointed.
Is there a Cliffs Notes version? I'm in the middle of Season Two of "The Facts of Life."
dj can probably find one. but if you google him, i'm sure there is a lot of info about him. he's been a judge a long time and writes a lot, reagan appointed him to his current position.
dj can probably find one. but if you google him, i'm sure there is a lot of info about him. he's been a judge a long time and writes a lot, reagan appointed him to his current position.
I read about Judge Posner in Wiki (I guess that is today's version of Cliffs Notes.) I guess he would be classified as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
He won't change my mind. I still think you should have to prove who you are when you vote. I don't know of anyone that doesn't have an ID.
I always hear about the burden it puts on people to obtain ID's. Are you kidding me? I guess I have more faith in individuals than you guys do. Do we also need to send someone over to their house to wipe their azz?
Are there any stories out there about people who don't have ID and the reasons on why they aren't able to get an ID? If anyone knows of a specific article please attach.
I personally think liberals use this argument the same way they use the War on Women argument. There isn't anything specific anyone can point to where there is voter suppression, or the War on Women for that matter. It is just used as a "Bumper Sticker" slogan to gain sympathy for mythical victims just to make conservatives look bad.
I read about Judge Posner in Wiki (I guess that is today's version of Cliffs Notes.) I guess he would be classified as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
He won't change my mind. I still think you should have to prove who you are when you vote. I don't know of anyone that doesn't have an ID.
I always hear about the burden it puts on people to obtain ID's. Are you kidding me? I guess I have more faith in individuals than you guys do. Do we also need to send someone over to their house to wipe their azz?
Are there any stories out there about people who don't have ID and the reasons on why they aren't able to get an ID? If anyone knows of a specific article please attach.
I personally think liberals use this argument the same way they use the War on Women argument. There isn't anything specific anyone can point to where there is voter suppression, or the War on Women for that matter. It is just used as a "Bumper Sticker" slogan to gain sympathy for mythical victims just to make conservatives look bad.
There are some arguments so stupid that only the brilliant can make them. See, e.g., the faculty lounges at Princeton, Yale and Columbia. Posner's "argument" is drawn from the supposition that everyone thinks like a Democrat - that everything must have a political end, and that there can be no other explanation. He says several times that it would be nonsensical for Republicans to push for these laws if it actually increased votor participation of those not typically inclined to vote Republican. Here's a thought: maybe they support them, like I do, because they think it's the right thing to do, regardless of the political upside (you progressives in the thread may need to read that several times and perhaps consult several dictionaries before attempting to read further, as this concept must appear to be written in Urdu to you). Posner pointedly notes that states with such laws tend to have Republican governors. OMG! Wait, so you're saying states not run by socialist nincompoops tend to pass better laws?! No! And, oh the expense of getting this magical card! Would Judge Posner be ok is the law itself provided a free mechanism to obtaining a card? Somehow I suspect not, which leads me to believe Rich is just trying to make sure he stays on the list for the really cool cocktail parties in Lincoln Park. Carrying the frieght for this nonsene will surely help.
Suppose we asked 100,000 17-year-olds (and I pick that group only because they couldn't have voted yet) if they think you need a photo ID in oder to vote. What do you suppose the percentage would be of people who assume you would? 80? 100? Heck, I make sure I have one with me every time I vote because I can never quite believe that I really DON'T need one. It seems like such common sense. People opposed to these laws are either very, very, very clever jurists from Chicago, or people who want to abet and enable fraud. We've been making jokes for 50 years about how JFK won Illinois; and yet when someone suggests that votor fraud actually exists, that comment itself gets labeled as nutty.
There are some arguments so stupid that only the brilliant can make them. See, e.g., the faculty lounges at Princeton, Yale and Columbia. Posner's "argument" is drawn from the supposition that everyone thinks like a Democrat - that everything must have a political end, and that there can be no other explanation. He says several times that it would be nonsensical for Republicans to push for these laws if it actually increased votor participation of those not typically inclined to vote Republican. Here's a thought: maybe they support them, like I do, because they think it's the right thing to do, regardless of the political upside (you progressives in the thread may need to read that several times and perhaps consult several dictionaries before attempting to read further, as this concept must appear to be written in Urdu to you). Posner pointedly notes that states with such laws tend to have Republican governors. OMG! Wait, so you're saying states not run by socialist nincompoops tend to pass better laws?! No! And, oh the expense of getting this magical card! Would Judge Posner be ok is the law itself provided a free mechanism to obtaining a card? Somehow I suspect not, which leads me to believe Rich is just trying to make sure he stays on the list for the really cool cocktail parties in Lincoln Park. Carrying the frieght for this nonsene will surely help.
Suppose we asked 100,000 17-year-olds (and I pick that group only because they couldn't have voted yet) if they think you need a photo ID in oder to vote. What do you suppose the percentage would be of people who assume you would? 80? 100? Heck, I make sure I have one with me every time I vote because I can never quite believe that I really DON'T need one. It seems like such common sense. People opposed to these laws are either very, very, very clever jurists from Chicago, or people who want to abet and enable fraud. We've been making jokes for 50 years about how JFK won Illinois; and yet when someone suggests that votor fraud actually exists, that comment itself gets labeled as nutty.
i don't have a huge problem with the voter id requirement. seems reasonable to me. but some of these other restrictions appear obviously designed to limit or discourage voting from the other side.
maineroad, again it is reasonable to me that you should have ID to vote, to the extent that these voter law address that issue only, but it's hard to find republicans credible when 1) some of these laws are more than just ID and 2) republicans seem to be overly concerned about such a minor issue. of all the things a true conservative republican (i.e. i know, a picture of a unicorn comes to mind when you read that), should be concerned about these days, addressing voter fraud should be somewhere in the thousands.
i don't have a huge problem with the voter id requirement. seems reasonable to me. but some of these other restrictions appear obviously designed to limit or discourage voting from the other side.
maineroad, again it is reasonable to me that you should have ID to vote, to the extent that these voter law address that issue only, but it's hard to find republicans credible when 1) some of these laws are more than just ID and 2) republicans seem to be overly concerned about such a minor issue. of all the things a true conservative republican (i.e. i know, a picture of a unicorn comes to mind when you read that), should be concerned about these days, addressing voter fraud should be somewhere in the thousands.
There are some arguments so stupid that only the brilliant can make them. See, e.g., the faculty lounges at Princeton, Yale and Columbia. Posner's "argument" is drawn from the supposition that everyone thinks like a Democrat - that everything must have a political end, and that there can be no other explanation. He says several times that it would be nonsensical for Republicans to push for these laws if it actually increased votor participation of those not typically inclined to vote Republican. Here's a thought: maybe they support them, like I do, because they think it's the right thing to do, regardless of the political upside (you progressives in the thread may need to read that several times and perhaps consult several dictionaries before attempting to read further, as this concept must appear to be written in Urdu to you). Posner pointedly notes that states with such laws tend to have Republican governors. OMG! Wait, so you're saying states not run by socialist nincompoops tend to pass better laws?! No! And, oh the expense of getting this magical card! Would Judge Posner be ok is the law itself provided a free mechanism to obtaining a card? Somehow I suspect not, which leads me to believe Rich is just trying to make sure he stays on the list for the really cool cocktail parties in Lincoln Park. Carrying the frieght for this nonsene will surely help.
Suppose we asked 100,000 17-year-olds (and I pick that group only because they couldn't have voted yet) if they think you need a photo ID in oder to vote. What do you suppose the percentage would be of people who assume you would? 80? 100? Heck, I make sure I have one with me every time I vote because I can never quite believe that I really DON'T need one. It seems like such common sense. People opposed to these laws are either very, very, very clever jurists from Chicago, or people who want to abet and enable fraud. We've been making jokes for 50 years about how JFK won Illinois; and yet when someone suggests that votor fraud actually exists, that comment itself gets labeled as nutty.
Your first two sentences sum up your line of thinking very nicely.
Notice how the only argument you are making presupposes that the fraud you so speak actually exists (a point torpedoed by Posner).
Not to worry,. You will never be confused with Judge Posner, despite your self-professed "brilliance."
There are some arguments so stupid that only the brilliant can make them. See, e.g., the faculty lounges at Princeton, Yale and Columbia. Posner's "argument" is drawn from the supposition that everyone thinks like a Democrat - that everything must have a political end, and that there can be no other explanation. He says several times that it would be nonsensical for Republicans to push for these laws if it actually increased votor participation of those not typically inclined to vote Republican. Here's a thought: maybe they support them, like I do, because they think it's the right thing to do, regardless of the political upside (you progressives in the thread may need to read that several times and perhaps consult several dictionaries before attempting to read further, as this concept must appear to be written in Urdu to you). Posner pointedly notes that states with such laws tend to have Republican governors. OMG! Wait, so you're saying states not run by socialist nincompoops tend to pass better laws?! No! And, oh the expense of getting this magical card! Would Judge Posner be ok is the law itself provided a free mechanism to obtaining a card? Somehow I suspect not, which leads me to believe Rich is just trying to make sure he stays on the list for the really cool cocktail parties in Lincoln Park. Carrying the frieght for this nonsene will surely help.
Suppose we asked 100,000 17-year-olds (and I pick that group only because they couldn't have voted yet) if they think you need a photo ID in oder to vote. What do you suppose the percentage would be of people who assume you would? 80? 100? Heck, I make sure I have one with me every time I vote because I can never quite believe that I really DON'T need one. It seems like such common sense. People opposed to these laws are either very, very, very clever jurists from Chicago, or people who want to abet and enable fraud. We've been making jokes for 50 years about how JFK won Illinois; and yet when someone suggests that votor fraud actually exists, that comment itself gets labeled as nutty.
Your first two sentences sum up your line of thinking very nicely.
Notice how the only argument you are making presupposes that the fraud you so speak actually exists (a point torpedoed by Posner).
Not to worry,. You will never be confused with Judge Posner, despite your self-professed "brilliance."
another way to look at it, and i think dj has mentioned this, is you can take one of two approaches:
1) the right to vote is so important in our society that we should safeguard that even if the cost is some very small percentage of voter fraud. or
2) even a small percentage of voter fraud is so serious that we need more laws to address it even if it disenfranchises people and effectively prevents them from voting.
if those effectively characterize the two positions in some way, i'd side with option one, which seems to be the more conservative, less government involvement, pro posner side.
another way to look at it, and i think dj has mentioned this, is you can take one of two approaches:
1) the right to vote is so important in our society that we should safeguard that even if the cost is some very small percentage of voter fraud. or
2) even a small percentage of voter fraud is so serious that we need more laws to address it even if it disenfranchises people and effectively prevents them from voting.
if those effectively characterize the two positions in some way, i'd side with option one, which seems to be the more conservative, less government involvement, pro posner side.
Perhaps it is true that Votor ID laws are pushed by people on K Street (think lots of little Karl Roves; actually, just think Karl Rove) who only care about supressing the minority vote, and wrap it up in a pretty package for sale to dopes like me. Could be. That's how the Left gets poor saps to worry about dolphins, and trees and Indian burial grounds, not realizing they are funding people who only wish to destroy this country (some more). Who knows. Like you said, it seems facially reasonable. If it turns out that it has draconian effects on certain groups, then that it something to be dealt with.
A great start would be trying to figure out just how much fraud there is out there. There doesn't need to me be much, in the grand scheme of things, for the impact to be sizeable. I sense there's more than we think, but am certianly willing to be pursuaded to the contrary.
Perhaps it is true that Votor ID laws are pushed by people on K Street (think lots of little Karl Roves; actually, just think Karl Rove) who only care about supressing the minority vote, and wrap it up in a pretty package for sale to dopes like me. Could be. That's how the Left gets poor saps to worry about dolphins, and trees and Indian burial grounds, not realizing they are funding people who only wish to destroy this country (some more). Who knows. Like you said, it seems facially reasonable. If it turns out that it has draconian effects on certain groups, then that it something to be dealt with.
A great start would be trying to figure out just how much fraud there is out there. There doesn't need to me be much, in the grand scheme of things, for the impact to be sizeable. I sense there's more than we think, but am certianly willing to be pursuaded to the contrary.
along those lines, my position would be that we would need to find out how much fraud there is and determine it is in fact significant before we enact more laws to address it rather than enact the laws first and then maybe see if there was sufficient voter fraud to support what we've already done and hope we got the laws right even though we didn't appreciate the problem when we enacted them again, i think that's the conservative, anti-republican, posner position.
along those lines, my position would be that we would need to find out how much fraud there is and determine it is in fact significant before we enact more laws to address it rather than enact the laws first and then maybe see if there was sufficient voter fraud to support what we've already done and hope we got the laws right even though we didn't appreciate the problem when we enacted them again, i think that's the conservative, anti-republican, posner position.
Its the perfect issue to illustrate why I abhor both parties. Do I really think the right wingers pushing this are concerned that some left wing candidate is going to fraudulently lose an election because right wingers are able to somehow obtain multiple votes?
On the flip side, do I really think the left wingers so opposed are doing so because they are so concerned about the rights of the poor and minorities?
We all know the end game here. The poor and minorities are less likely to vote and any additional burden placed on them will make them less likely to do so. Right wingers gain, left wingers lose.
The bottom line is its a constitutional right and added laws need to be justified. They aren't.
To me, its like the minimum wage. Left wingers push it hoping that the added $1 per hour will bring them votes when all studies show that the minimum wage increase is not a living wage increase and has little impact. Solely done for show and their own self-interest, not because it will help us as a society or the economy.
Its the perfect issue to illustrate why I abhor both parties. Do I really think the right wingers pushing this are concerned that some left wing candidate is going to fraudulently lose an election because right wingers are able to somehow obtain multiple votes?
On the flip side, do I really think the left wingers so opposed are doing so because they are so concerned about the rights of the poor and minorities?
We all know the end game here. The poor and minorities are less likely to vote and any additional burden placed on them will make them less likely to do so. Right wingers gain, left wingers lose.
The bottom line is its a constitutional right and added laws need to be justified. They aren't.
To me, its like the minimum wage. Left wingers push it hoping that the added $1 per hour will bring them votes when all studies show that the minimum wage increase is not a living wage increase and has little impact. Solely done for show and their own self-interest, not because it will help us as a society or the economy.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.