I'm sorry how do you get from the evidence in the case you referenced that dead people vote?The plain and simple fact is that no dead people actually voted in that case. A student working for a voter registration group submitted 18-20 fraudulent registrations. It is not proof of fraudulent voting. In fact, the most likely explanation is that the student wanted to make himself look good as far as being able to register voters. But I await your update with evidence that he was part of some vast conspiracy to have people go out and vote under the registrations of the dead people and influence some election with 20 fraudulent votes...

Since you filed a preemptive strike with your claim that some people will rationalize this I will respond, no, we are merely asking that a reasonable analysis be made of the evidence in the case. If dead people really were voting then you would have something. You don't and your headline was factually misleading. I guess "dead people registered by a student working for a registration group whose motivations are unclear" just would not have sounded as good.

By the way, why is it so tough to check whether fraudulent voting is a significant issue? As far as my personal experience goes when you vote your name is crossed off. So why do not a statistically significant sampling of voting polls across the country. Then investigate to see if anyone who voted was ineligible to vote. Right now we have absence of evidence of fraudulent voting. But such a study would likely provide evidence--not absence of evidence-that fraudulent voting is rare. And if it turns out I'm wrong then those that are against voter ID laws probably would have to rethink their position.

hacker

What about dead people voting?

Your article was about dead people registering.
Now if they then actully show up to vote, you've got a problem.
The Zombie Apocalypse.

freeman3 wrote:By the way, why is it so tough to check whether fraudulent voting is a significant issue? As far as my personal experience goes when you vote your name is crossed off. So why do not a statistically significant sampling of voting polls across the country. Then investigate to see if anyone who voted was ineligible to vote. Right now we have absence of evidence of fraudulent voting. But such a study would likely provide evidence--not absence of evidence-that fraudulent voting is rare. And if it turns out I'm wrong then those that are against voter ID laws probably would have to rethink their position.

I suggested exactly this. It was howled at.

So if a "dead person" votes, (i.e. someone voting for a dead person) that would be a problem that needs to be addressed? I just want to understand the scope of what you are saying.

Sorry, if I repeated your idea, Owen--I did not remember that you had already made the same (or similar) proposal It just seems like common sense to me.

First, let's have the Republicans prove that there is significant levels of fraudulent voting on. I think it is very, very telling that with the all that time that has passed since Republicans have had since they started to pursue this Voter ID issue they have not come up with proof of fraudulent voting. Owen suggested a very simple way to find this out and yet that has not been done.

So as to the question of whether needs to be done if there are dead people voting, I would say that depends. Is 1 fraudulent vote enough, how about 2 out of 125 million? 20? 100? 1000? One tenth of one-percent would be 125,000 votes. One-hundred of one percent would be 12,500 votes, One-thousand of one percent would be 1,250 votes. My gut tells me that the cut-off should be between 100 and 1,250 fraudulent votes--that we would we have to do something. No system is going to be perfectly free of fraud, but if there are 1,000 people voting that knowingly are violating the voting laws then we probably need to do something about it.

I see what you are saying. I don't agree with the number, just that I agree that fraudulent voting is wrong.

To me one vote fraudulently cast is one too many. Let us look at it in another way. There is not many people who rob a bank. Perhaps one out 125,000 customers. Perhaps we should look the other way for that as well?

If there is fraud, we should deal with it.

Sure even one fraudulent vote is wrong but sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. That's where judgment is needed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

It does occur. We are in disagreement as to the effect of the cure.

Not enough. 31 out of a billion is not significant in my view. Certainly not enough to change the rules so that hundreds of thousands of minority voters do not vote.

freeman3 wrote:Sure even one fraudulent vote is wrong but sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. That's where judgment is needed.

Indeed. If you can only guarantee zero fraud by using means that deny, say, 1% of eligible voters a ballot, is that the right thing to do?

Rather than only looking at preventing fraud, you should look at punishing those caught properly.

And hey, if dead people can vote, is that because lax registrars keep th on the rolls? When we looked at the worst places for that in Illinois, it was not heavily Democrat Cook County, but the rural counties in the south, which tended to be more Republican than the state as a whole.

I disagree on the premise that voter's rights are impinged upon by having to provide ID. Especially if that occurs in a location that provides free ID.

There comes a time that people need to take initiative to achieve their desires. If you want to vote, then do the work. If you want to vote, then take the time off and go to the polling station. If it is not that important to do the need prerequisites, then there should be little basis to complain.

Of course that never does stop those who wish to complain.

You have a right to vote (in other words, you don't have to do anything to earn it other than being a US citizen at least 18 years old).Said right cannot be made harder to exercise just because one party runs out of white males to vote for it...

sorry Freeman, you are wrong.
First off, you need to register ahead of the actual vote.
That makes it so you do have one extra step.

Now, if you managed to register, ID is almost certainly a non-issue is it?
And all of this "proof" of voter fraud is a bit dumb as it's hard to prove since everything is so lax. Asking someone to prove fraud based on what we have is damned near impossible so when you manage to prove SOME, you can guarantee it's far worse than those proven numbers only. How much worse is anyone's GUESS but the number is absolutely higher than these few documented.

"Documented" gives me a comparison
This is similar to suggesting we have no illegal alien problem because we caught only "X" number of illegals. No kidding a great more exist but how do you prove how many when you only accept "documentation" like this?

freeman3 wrote:You have a right to vote (in other words, you don't have to do anything to earn it other than being a US citizen at least 18 years old).Said right cannot be made harder to exercise just because one party runs out of white males to vote for it...

Not true. Do you have to register? Do you have to fill out the voting ballot? Do you have to stamp the mail in ballot? There are restrictions on how this right is employed.

Let's look at the 2nd Amendment. It is a right. By your theory, you cannot impinge upon it. Therefore, there should not be any ID needed, any background check, or any restriction on what weapon you may purchase.

Also, Why is this a racial thing with you? I did not even mention a minority at all. I expect ALL people to present ID. I expect the government to provide ID to ALL citizens. It is not a minority thing with me. Apparently to you, this is a minority based item. Perhaps you think that minorities do not have the ability to acquire ID, like "white males".

Do you really think so little of a minority that they are unable to even acquire ID if it is free?