interesting

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I didn't think you would fall into the Voter fraud is real camp ? you seem well informed on most topics

It's great isn't it? Voter fraud is an existential threat to our way of life but racism and climate change are non issues.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

It's great isn't it? Voter fraud is an existential threat to our way of life but racism and climate change are non issues.

Maybe if people could actually stick to the definition of racism instead of throwing it out willy nilly we might be able to do something about.

I don't think voter fraud is a big deal....but I also don't think it's a big deal to show some ID either. It really can't be seen both ways?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I didn't think you would fall into the Voter fraud is real camp ? you seem well informed on most topics


Exaggerated or unfounded allegations of fraud by dead voters include the following:
• In Georgia in 2000, 5,412 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters over the past 20
years.91 The allegations were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up
report clarified that only one instance had been substantiated, and this single instance was later
found to have been an error: the example above, in which Alan J. Mandel was confused with Alan
J. Mandell.92 No other evidence of fraudulent votes was reported.
• In Michigan in 2005, 132 votes were alleged to have been cast by deceased voters.93 The allegations
were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. A follow-up investigation
by the Secretary of State revealed that these alleged dead voters were actually absentee ballots
mailed to voters who died before Election Day; 97 of these ballots were never voted, and 27
15
were voted before the voter passed away.94 Even if the remaining eight cases all revealed substantiated
fraud, that would amount to a rate of at most 0.0027%.95
• In New Jersey in 2004, 4,755 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot. The allegations
were premised on a flawed match of voter rolls to death lists. No follow-up investigation publicly
documented any substantiated cases of fraud of which we are aware, and there were no reports
that any of these allegedly deceased voters voted in 2005.96
• In New York in 2002 and 2004, 2,600 deceased voters were alleged to have cast a ballot, again
based on a match of voter rolls to death lists. Journalists following up on seven cases found clerical
errors and mistakes but no fraud, and no other evidence of fraud was reported.97

So statistically you have a better chance of getting struck by lighting than Voter fraud ... if and when it happens

Just 23 people died as a direct result from lightning strikes in 2013, according to figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). or voted fraudulently out of 316.5 million not all of voting age statistically speaking

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/up...idespread.html

Arguments on both sides can be found on the net. If you choose to believe one over the other, so be it. You can find other statistics if you choose to. But even that would be argumentative. Their are many problems in trying to discover and prove what is before your eyes. One problem is relying only on what is "reported." And related to that problem is what the Justice Dept. wishes to investigate and prosecute. Ignoring a problem is one way of saying it doesn't exist. Politics plays a role on both sides. Voter registration mischief exists by Republicans as well as Democrats. And saying that it is "rare" does not make it insignificant. Murder is rare when considering how many murders occur in relation to the number of people in our country. There is something called the butterfly effect. The idea that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can create the motion that can eventually evolve into a hurricane. Small, "rare" things can lead to large events. Ignoring small problems can invite the problems to grow.

I like this more "thoughtful" rather than "statistical" analysis:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ete_idiot.html

I found many articles on the net which differ than yours. But

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

It's great isn't it? Voter fraud is an existential threat to our way of life but racism and climate change are non issues.

Because the last 2 haven't affected not affected GOP voters or the party in America

but losing elections have .. it's as Basic as that

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Arguments on both sides can be found on the net. If you choose to believe one over the other, so be it. You can find other statistics if you choose to. But even that would be argumentative. Their are many problems in trying to discover and prove what is before your eyes. One problem is relying only on what is "reported." And related to that problem is what the Justice Dept. wishes to investigate and prosecute. Ignoring a problem is one way of saying it doesn't exist. Politics plays a role on both sides. Voter registration mischief exists by Republicans as well as Democrats. And saying that it is "rare" does not make it insignificant. Murder is rare when considering how many murders occur in relation to the number of people in our country. There is something called the butterfly effect. The idea that the flapping of a butterfly's wings can create the motion that can eventually evolve into a hurricane. Small, "rare" things can lead to large events. Ignoring small problems can invite the problems to grow.

I like this more "thoughtful" rather than "statistical" analysis:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ete_idiot.html

I found many articles on the net which differ than yours. But

Yours studys come from Articles & Blog Posts Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.


Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



My studys : The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a nonpartisan, left-leaning law and public policy institute kinda like 300



Detbuch: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
wdmso: Doesn't it?
[points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
wdmso: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I am a blogger ... sir.
wdmso: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I write articles , sir.
wdmso: writer.


wdmso: [turns back shouting] Brennan center for Justice What is YOUR profession?
Lawers: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
wdmso: [turning to Detbuch] You see, old friend? I brought more lawyers and facts than you did!

Yet again 2a Supports state we need to enforce the gun laws we have now not enact new ones making it harder for law abiding people to buy a Gun .... But have no issues making more laws to address an issues to restrict law abiding people to vote .??. seems some think fraud has effected a recent election I cant make this stuff up

http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...raud/page/full

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yours studys come from Articles & Blog Posts Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

Are you saying bloggers can't do "studys"? That programmer/analysts can't do studies? Isn't the objective of a liberal education to learn how to think for yourself? How to study? How not to be left in the helpless position of having to depend on others, especially so-called "experts" to tell you how to think?

My studys : The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a nonpartisan, left-leaning law and public policy institute kinda like 300

Oh good, a "left leaning" nonpartisan institute. Isn't "nonpartisan left leaning" an oxymoron?

Detbuch: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
wdmso: Doesn't it?
[points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
wdmso: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I am a blogger ... sir.
wdmso: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-: I write articles , sir.
wdmso: writer.

Nice, the really rational "might makes right" argument. The Persians won that battle, because they had the far greater numbers, but as a "statistical" aside, the Greeks killed a much higher number of Persians than vice versa. The Greeks put up a heroic, magnificent fight, and are remembered with favor and affection, as the more valorous, and victors in the war of being most admired. And, anyway, even though the Persians won that battle by the "statistic" of killing all but one of the Greeks, while, statistically, the Persians had many warriors remaining, the Greeks eventually won the war.

wdmso: [turns back shouting] Brennan center for Justice What is YOUR profession?
Lawers: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
wdmso: [turning to Detbuch] You see, old friend? I brought more lawyers and facts than you did!

Yes, let us put our faith in lawyers, not on those who can think for themselves. And FACTS? What facts? A left leaning group selected a set of variables out of a larger landscape of variables and from that compiled some statistics? Rather than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, let me try to get at what I think is the heart of the matter. If those who argue that requiring a type of ID to vote is undemocratic also argue against and deny the majority's desire and strike down the majority's vote to require that ID, is that Democratic? Is it Democratic when the majority's vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman is struck down in favor of a minority's choice of definition?

Do those who insist that requiring a type of ID to vote suppresses the right to vote also believe that requiring such ID to drive suppresses the right to drive? Isn't it rational to require the ID if it is mandatory to have a license to drive? And isn't it rational to require that those who wish to drive learn how and what the rules are? Who is suppressed from driving when such requirements are made. Apply that as an analogy to the right to vote.

We have become a society which requires, more and more, the need for education and qualification to do "important" things in order to "suppress" participation of those who we deem not prepared to do those things. Yet, those on the left who demand stricter qualifications and more education in order to participate in so many of those "important" things, they, on the other hand, believe that even those who are most ignorant of our constitutional system, of what the civic responsibility is to protect and defend our system of government and how it is supposed to work, and for what purpose it was conceived . . . they, on the other hand, feel that even the most ignorant of all of that should be allowed to cast their vote (which is more powerful and potentially harmful than shooting a gun) to impose laws and obligations on the rest of society. And even that we should make it easier for them to do so.

Yet again 2a Supports state we need to enforce the gun laws we have now not enact new ones making it harder for law abiding people to buy a Gun .... But have no issues making more laws to address an issues to restrict law abiding people to vote .??. seems some think fraud has effected a recent election I cant make this stuff up

http://townhall.com/columnists/rache...raud/page/full

Again, you skirt the issue of the second amendment being an unalienable right not to be abridged, but voting is not. But, OK, let's use your non-constitutional argument. Let's make as a requirement to vote all the same kinds of laws we have now re owning a gun. You know, needing the proper ID, background checks, etc., etc. Then all will be equal and we won't have to impose any more restrictions on either gun ownership or voting. Would that be OK with you?