• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Keefe Voter Fraud Investigation: Young Man Offered Holder's Ballot

Maybe its because you dont understand how attempted voter fraud works. You begin by making fake registrations. You then have people go in posed as the people on the registrations to vote. Voter ID eliminates this as a possible fraud avenue. Thats ACORN was persued as hard as it was with its faked registrations. The intent to defraud is certainly there if you begin by faking regs. Then getting extra votes is a simple matter of just getting a warm body to the polling place.

No, actually, the intent to make fraudulent votes was never present in the ACORN case. These were lazy temporary employees who figured out they could get paid to sit at the mall and fake registrations instead of having to walk around and, you know, work. Nobody showed up to the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse.


You are confusing voter fraud convictions with actual voter fraud. Its notoriously hard to prosecute and the political pushback from doing so is significant.

Can you cite an example of "political pushback" for prosecuting voter fraud?


Does that mean you arent going trust NBC, Rueters, and CBS, each of whom has faked footage, photos or documents? Im not saying take it at face value, Im saying look at it and make your own judgements. I dont expect you to be a sheep over it.

NBC fires people who fraudulently edit footage. They are an organization. O'Keefe is an individual, a proven liar. I'm not going to watch the footage because the footage itself is immediately suspect. The footage itself is deceptive in his past cases. Take the ACORN "helping set up a brothel" footage. Reality was precisely the opposite, the house loan supposedly being sought was actually pitched as an escape from prostitution for these underage girls. That part was cut out. In another part of that video, audio was spliced so that the answer to one question was presented as the answer to a different one. Also, the guy after the discussion immediately called the police after O'Keefe left.

Why should I watch his footage?
 
............ Why should I watch his footage?

From where you sit, I dunno :notlook:

When an entire political party can say "no big deal" to Fast and Furious, Race-baiting by a President, Major networks lying about news so as to foment racial tensions, and are a party already committed to all ends that produce class-warfare justify the means ........ I would agree. Voter fraud is good from that view.
 
From where you sit, I dunno :notlook:

When an entire political party can say "no big deal" to Fast and Furious, Race-baiting by a President, Major networks lying about news so as to foment racial tensions, and are a party already committed to all ends that produce class-warfare justify the means ........ I would agree. Voter fraud is good from that view.

Now that the over the top partisan hyperbole is out of the way.... all you have to do is present some actual data on voter fraud convictions to show it is a significant problem.
 
Now that the over the top partisan hyperbole is out of the way.... all you have to do is present some actual data on voter fraud convictions to show it is a significant problem.

Seems I was spot-on with my "what me worry" examples :)
 
I think approaching the voter fraud problem from a standpoint of how much is caught is the current wisdom standard for asking why we need it. Should the standard be how much potential is there for abuse? How easy is it to use a voter's identity once its on the rolls, if the abuser knows they either wont be voting or the registration is false in itself?
This seems to show its pretty easy.
You can't make security decisions based on just how valuable something is to you. You also have to figure in how likely it is to be attacked.
In the end, the more secure something is, the less usable it is. The more usable, the less secure. For something to be totally secure it has to be totally useless.

So what is needed is to find the appropriate balance of security and usefulness.

Most of us don't live in fortresses because of how we balance out need for security against the pita of living inside reinforced steel walls. For the most part it's quite acceptable to live in a normal house.

If we looked only at the potential for abuse, it would be hard to justify not placing our loved ones in a a citadel of titanium. The potential for abuse is great. Our loved ones could be harmed or killed.
But, in reality, we balance the likelihood of being harmed against the various costs incurred to prevent the harm. We can never be entirely secure, so we pick a place that provides a sufficient assurance of safety and a sufficient amount of ease of living--a house, not a bank vault.


So, in short, it's not reasonable to decide what appropriate measures for preventing voting fraud by merely examining the potential for abuse.
 
I think approaching the voter fraud problem from a standpoint of how much is caught is the current wisdom standard for asking why we need it. Should the standard be how much potential is there for abuse? How easy is it to use a voter's identity once its on the rolls, if the abuser knows they either wont be voting or the registration is false in itself?

This seems to show its pretty easy.
also from the quote in the OP
"Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws."

Showing that something can occur is different than showing that it's a "major problem".
Does the author not realize this?
Or does he know and is just hoping that we're too slow to catch on?

:shrug:
 
Anyone else here ever have to sign anything? A less scrupulous person would have signed his name, taken the ballot and voted. Do you think the poll worker had the signature on file?
I think that point is that he didn't sign his name because doing so would have been illegal for him to do so. He would had to have broken a law to go further.
 
Good grief. We're talking about the same level of "security" needed to buy cigarettes, alcohol, cash a check, obtain any license or permit, rent most hotel rooms ..... it is that simple :roll:
 
also from the quote in the OP
"Holder has maintained that voter fraud is not a major problem in the United States, and that voter ID would not curb voter fraud in any case.
As Project Veritas has proven, voter fraud is easy and simple--and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws."

Showing that something can occur is different than showing that it's a "major problem".
Does the author not realize this?
Or does he know and is just hoping that we're too slow to catch on?

:shrug:

So it has to be proven to cross some threshold as a "major problem" before it gets resolved ? In a system so hodgepodge that we lack the mechanisms to even be able to detect it most of the time ?

The video does not demonstrate just "that it can occur". The video demonstrates how simply it can occur.

At this point, only a fool, or a liberal, thinks it is not a problem.
 
So it has to be proven to cross some threshold as a "major problem" before it gets resolved ?
That's not exactly what I said.
It has to be more of a problem than the solution is a more accurate way of condensing and paraphrasing. But that still leaves some out.

At this point, only a fool, or a liberal, thinks it is not a problem.
Of course it is. The question is about how much of a problem. The "size" of a problem is a factor in determining what is and what is an appropriate solution.

The OP posed the question as to whether we should focus on the potential for abuse when deciding what is the correct path of action. The answer is that it is only one of many aspects that go into making good decisions about the issue.
 
That's not exactly what I said.
It has to be more of a problem than the solution is a more accurate way of condensing and paraphrasing. But that still leaves some out.

Of course it is. The question is about how much of a problem. The "size" of a problem is a factor in determining what is and what is an appropriate solution.

The OP posed the question as to whether we should focus on the potential for abuse when deciding what is the correct path of action. The answer is that it is only one of many aspects that go into making good decisions about the issue.

No.. Its simple if one lets it be. Many states have voter ID laws in place. And some don't. The problem with finding it out is that the system must police itself. aka Fox in the hen house. What you advocate is that it must first be shown to be a large problem before we implement a simple solution.

Q: How about we implement the simple solution first ?
A: One political party, and idle thinkers, do not want it fixed.
 
I am quite certain about what I said. It's not really up for debate. It's posted clearly.

The problem with finding it out is that the system must police itself. aka Fox in the hen house.
The people in charge of detecting and prosecuting voter fraud are the people who are committing voter fraud?
OR did you need a different metaphor?

What you advocate is that it must first be shown to be a large problem before we implement a simple solution.
This is clearly NOT what I am saying. I said that the problem and solution must be commensurate. The only way that we would have to wait for it to be a "big" problem was if the solution was a "big" solution.

This means knowing how much of a problem there is that could be adequately addressed via voter ID laws.
If we can't answer that question we can't answer the next question about what is an appropriate response.
ymmv

gl
 
Seems I was spot-on with my "what me worry" examples :)

Let me guess - you have nothing to present so you attempt to joke about your inability to present such information?

Where is the actual data on voter fraud convictions which shows this is a significant problem?
 
I keep hearing about ID laws "disenfranchising" groups of people. But I have yet to see any proof that it actually does. There are several states with voter ID law's...surely someone can point to one of them and show through links that there are people in that state that have not been allowed to vote because they didn't have an ID?

Sorry but I just cannot believe that voter ID laws disenfranchise anyone. ID's are extremely simple to get and are requirements for damn near anything now a days. From buying cigarettes to renting subsidized appartments to buying a car to getting a bank account...and on and on and on. Hell, I can't even apply for a job or get a bank account without my social security card and an official ID.
 
Let me guess - you have nothing to present so you attempt to joke about your inability to present such information?

Where is the actual data on voter fraud convictions which shows this is a significant problem?

Where's the data that shows that everyone that commits voter fraud is caught and convicted?
 
Where's the data that shows that everyone that commits voter fraud is caught and convicted?
Where's the data that shows voter fraud is occurring?

If that data is not available, where's the data that shows Martian aliens are not hiding it on Saturn?

In fact, where is the data that this post even exists? Now don't bother to quote it, because you could have fabricated anything that does not have seventh degree DNA analysis, so when you get right down to it there is no irrefutable evidence that we are even having this conversation.

At least in this dimension . . . . . . .
 
Where's the data that shows that everyone that commits voter fraud is caught and convicted?

HUH?!?!?!?!? :doh


You are asking me to provide data that cannot possible exist in any shape or manner. The fact is a simple one: the way we track voter fraud is by documented evidence that it has been committed and the way we track that is through convictions.

Do you have that data to present?
 
I don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? It seems kinda common sense to provide proof of who you are when you vote. I don't see how this could have any negative effects. Not trying to be pissy or anything I just really don't understand why this shoudl be an issue.
 
I don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? ..........

Because it would reduce voter fraud. We have one party that spends a lot of money winning the dead people vote.
 
Because it would reduce voter fraud. We have one party that spends a lot of money winning the dead people vote.

What documented voter fraud would it reduce?
 
What documented voter fraud would it reduce?

This is what kills me.

Barely a majority of Americans care to vote nowdays, let alone plot to commit voter fraud.

If anything, electronic voting machines are what you should be concerned with.
 
HUH?!?!?!?!? :doh


You are asking me to provide data that cannot possible exist in any shape or manner. The fact is a simple one: the way we track voter fraud is by documented evidence that it has been committed and the way we track that is through convictions.

Do you have that data to present?

Actually people get away with crimes all the time. How many people get away without getting DWI tickets? How many people commit burglary and when they do get caught and charged with it the charges don't cover all of the crimes that they did?

I know for a fact that I have not been charged/convicted with all the crimes that I have committed over my life time. How many crimes have you knowingly committed and never got charged/convicted with?

Point being is that just because we don't have documentation of something that does not mean that it does not exist.
 
I don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? It seems kinda common sense to provide proof of who you are when you vote. I don't see how this could have any negative effects. Not trying to be pissy or anything I just really don't understand why this shoudl be an issue.
With rampant idenitity theft these days don't see where ID solves a GD thing... it could make voter fraud a real problem. Besides, even with ID a person can vote in more than one state.
 
I don't get it. Can someone please explain why voter ID would be a bad thing? It seems kinda common sense to provide proof of who you are when you vote. I don't see how this could have any negative effects. Not trying to be pissy or anything I just really don't understand why this shoudl be an issue.

The argument is why is such a law needed?

Did you watch the video?

Why did the guy not sign in and vote? The reason he didn't is because the penalty for doing so is the deterent. It sure stopped this character from commiting voter fraud.
 
Because it would reduce voter fraud. We have one party that spends a lot of money winning the dead people vote.
If you could show this it would certainly bolster your argument.

Or it could produce a proliferation of fake photo IDs - for those so inclined...LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom