• 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

Karl said:
I understand that you have many questions about the voting process, which your posts indicate an unfamiliarity with, but I suggest you contact your local officials for answers and enlightenment instead of just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

You should note the word "usually" in that wiki link quote of yours. The word "usually" does not mean "always". If it was "always" then there would be no need for voter ID laws or this entire discussion.

So...when are you going to answer my question?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Karl said:
Your posts show zero contact with reality, but instead occupy a fuzzy world where lack of proof of A is proof of not A (when A itself does not even exist). I think there was a Star Trek episode on this . . . .
Click to expand...
Evasion alert!!! How about you actually answer my question instead of evading it?
Click to expand...
Your question requires formal education in logic (a high school level course would probably do it, if they even have one), and this is not the proper place for that. Perhaps you can take a course online.

Kal'Stang said:
I'll give you the same question I asked Haymarket....

haymarket said:
And as the sun begins to set, it looks like yet another in a long series of days where no verifiable data is presented demonstrating voter fraud convictions to any significant degree warranting this type of action. [...]
Click to expand...
"Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?" [...]
Click to expand...
But I did already address your question; did you not understand it? It was the part in bold above. Now, why did you evade my questions?

Karl said:
Simply because you do not know how to detect/investigate voter fraud does not mean that everyone else is equally challenged.

How can you tell the Earth is actually orbiting the Sun, and not the other way around? Therefore, how do you know that the scientists aren't lying to us, like they are about global warming?
Click to expand...
 
Karl said:
Your question requires formal education in logic (a high school level course would probably do it, if they even have one), and this is not the proper place for that. Perhaps you can take a course online.
Click to expand...

You know what Karl, I'm done with you. If you cannot be civil then you are not worth the crap that I **** in the toilet.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You should note the word "usually" in that wiki link quote of yours. The word "usually" does not mean "always". If it was "always" then there would be no need for voter ID laws or this entire discussion. [...]
Click to expand...
Well, there is no need for voter ID laws or this entire discussion since you have failed to show evidence of any need -- other than your imagination, which, I'm sure you will be crushed to know, does not qualify as evidence of need.

Now, as to the word "usually"... when you said:

Kal'Stang said:
1: Not everyone pre-registers to vote, as such there is no signature to compare to. [...]
Click to expand...

Did you mean "Not everyone pre-registers to vote, as such there is usually no signature to compare to." ?

And even if you did mean that, didn't that wiki link quote of mine still prove your imagination wrong, since the signature on the ID would be compared to the signature the voter submits at the polling place when voting in a same-day registration scenario?

We had a guy in here last night that dug a hole so deep we haven't heard back... perhaps he's in China now? How's your Mandarin? :mrgreen:
 
When you have to go hypothetical, you know that you don't have an argument based on facts, right? In any case...

1. When the person he voted for showed up at the polling place and tried to vote -- at which point the real person would have been told that he had already voted (they keep track of who has voted). At which point the real person, and the poll worker, knows that something fishy is going on.

2. When the imposter's signature did not match the real person's signature (I'm not sure if this is checked in all states, but then again it is not my task to disprove hypotheticals).

But so far the right can't even come up with an example of either of those things happening, so a logical deduction would be that it is not happening.
Click to expand...

1 He used a public personality on purpose only a moron actually trying to do this type of voter fraud would use a public figure. With roughly 60% voter rates and use of false registrations (that why it is a scandal that dead/fake/nonexistant people getting registered is bad) there will be no "real" person coming to vote after.

2. Ok signatures dont match how does that get the guy in the video caught? It could only after much hassle get the unlawful vote disqualified but if it is never reported, see above it`ll never happen.

The fear of prosecution arguement you have made several times makes no sense. Your defense of it here doesnt work either. Again how is requesting ID a problem?
 
ARealConservative said:
only one side is visible.

If a person is denied a right to vote, he knows then and there he is being disenfranchised. They can step forward and show conclusively that a problem exists.

If my vote is being undermined by fraud, I have no way of knowing that I am being disenfranchised. nobody can step forward and prove the problem exists, that doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

as a scientifically minded individual, I choose the system of knowing over the system of not knowing 10 times out of 10
Click to expand...

You're not being scientific, seems to me your arguement is pretty idiotic. It's like saying you would rather know that you lose $10, rather than dropping a cent or two without knowing about it. On top of that, since you don't know that there is a big problem of in person voter fraud to begin with, and the solution you sought would not prevent most kind of electoral frauds currently being documented, you are saying you would rather give away $10 to prevent the possibility of losing a few cents, basing this probability entirely on unsubstantiated suspicions, and even though giving away the $10 might have nothing to do with the few cents you do lose.

The problem exists for the people who have been prevented from voting because their ID did not meet the requirement. The people who cares are stepping forward to say that this could create a problem if it goes forward, but you just don't acknowledge it so don't say that people don't "step forward".
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
By the liberal logic in this thread why dont you go rock climbing without a safety line, then once you fall you will have proof you CAN fall and need the safety line.

You dont use the safety line for the 1000 times you dont fall you need it for the 1 time you do.
Yeah, yeah analogy argument, go piss up a rope, but make sure it isnt your safety line :p
Click to expand...

Since the photo ID requirement doesn't actually prevent the kind of electoral fraud that have been documented, while the potential to discourage voters is higher, the requirement is more analogous to hiring a doctor to go with you in case you injure yourself and need medical care. Again: think of the costs and benefits. The probability of needing a doctor while mountain climbing is probably bigger than the probability of in person voter fraud.

But then again some people only care about the benefits to themselves and screw the costs to others.
 
nonpareil said:
Since the photo ID requirement doesn't actually prevent the kind of electoral fraud that have been documented, while the potential to discourage voters is higher, the requirement is more analogous to hiring a doctor to go with you in case you injure yourself and need medical care. Again: think of the costs and benefits. The probability of needing a doctor while mountain climbing is probably bigger than the probability of in person voter fraud.

But then again some people only care about the benefits to themselves and screw the costs to others.
Click to expand...

How do you know it won't prevent electoral fraud?
 
Caine said:
Why should anyone have to walk,drive, ride a bus or a friend to get to the polling place so they can vote?
Click to expand...

A lot of people don't, and instead of finding ways to encourage them to vote, people are saying let's put up more barriers to them voting - a barrier that would not prevent most of the frauds anyway.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How do you know it won't prevent electoral fraud?
Click to expand...

Because the kind of frauds documented (absentee ballot, false registration) are not the kind to be stopped by photo ID requirement. And even with photo ID requirement, if a person go to the extend of making false registration, why wouldn't they just get a fake ID as well? It's not hard. It's the people who are honest that get stopped because they don't have enough documents, the ID don't meet the requirements, or they plain don't care enough to go to the trouble.
 
nonpareil said:
Because the kind of frauds documented (absentee ballot, false registration) are not the kind to be stopped by photo ID requirement. And even with photo ID requirement, if a person go to the extend of making false registration, why wouldn't they just get a fake ID as well? It's not hard. It's the people who are honest that get stopped because they don't have enough documents, the ID don't meet the requirements, or they plain don't care enough to go to the trouble.
Click to expand...

So its time to ask you the question also....

"Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?"

I've asked two people this question now and they have either refused to answer or just simply have not posted since I asked it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So its time to ask you the question also....

"Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?"

I've asked two people this question now and they have either refused to answer or just simply have not posted since I asked it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the question is based on a false premise. There is a way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are - that's what the registrar's for. If you suspect that an illegal alien is trying to vote, you go back to the registrar and cross reference it with his citizenship status. If a person vote in a different person's name, it's the registrar that will help us determine if a crime has been committed, not a photo ID. In the OP case, Holder can go and point to the registrar and say it's registered in his name with his address and a ballot has been submitted even though he was never there, and conclusively prove that a crime was committed. If the person voting in Holder's name can produce a photo ID that claims he's Holder, it wouldn't make his voting in Holder's name not a crime.
 
Kal'Stang said:
LMAO so what do you propose? That people be allowed to vote from their home computer? Good god what an insane statement. :roll:
Click to expand...

If someone can get a ride to the Polls, Im certain that person can get a ride to the damned DMV.
 
This latest coordinated photo voter ID law is their newest effort. Since they have no proof of actual fraud that the law would prevent, they have to work the 'common sense' angle while calling those that currently do not 'qualify' as "lazy" (again, code for welfare, shiftless, = minority).
Click to expand...

Actually this is my point. you point out the other sides stance (voter photo ID law) then ascribe an evil intent to it (depriving minorities of votes)
On the other side people have pointed out your stance (Voter photo ID not necessary) then ascribe evil intent to it (permitting voter fraud to keep your side in power)

That was my point! Same story different spin. This is why I like it when US talk radio shows are on same subject. I find it amusing that they automatically assume the other sides stance is based on some sort of nefarious plot.

Let me try this.

Karl: If requesting voter ID would cost the state nothing and not disenfranchise people would you still be against it?

Kal'Stang: Is a seperate voter photo ID card what you are demanding? would a lesser threshold of Identification be acceptable to you?

*edit* Didn't mean to limit questions to Karl and Kal'Stang. Everyone please feel free to answer either/both questions.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Here's a question for you haymarket. Just how are statistics like this suppose to be compiled if there is no way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are?
Click to expand...

You re making a false assumption.



I have been voting since 1972. Every time I have voted the make sure I am who I say I am. I would estimate I have voted over fifty times in my life and each and every time they have determined I was who I said I was.

Now that that is out of the way.... will today be the day we get verifiable statistics on voter fraud convictions which establishes we have a significant problem in the first place? Or will the little redhead sing again tonight?
 
nonpareil said:
You're not being scientific, seems to me your arguement is pretty idiotic. It's like saying you would rather know that you lose $10, rather than dropping a cent or two without knowing about it.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant. Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. We know some level of election fraud occurs, I am pursuing a a system of acquiring knowledge about the level of corruption that occurs.

Your analogy is equally idiotic. A better one is that someone is stealing money from me. Now I am going to start counting the money so I know exactly how much was stolen.
 
Quag said:
Actually this is my point. you point out the other sides stance (voter photo ID law) then ascribe an evil intent to it (depriving minorities of votes)
Click to expand...
There is multiple historical evidence of that.

Quag said:
On the other side people have pointed out your stance (Voter photo ID not necessary) then ascribe evil intent to it (permitting voter fraud to keep your side in power)
Click to expand...
There is no historical evidence of that, at least that the proposed laws would prevent. Additionally, there is no evidence of even the existence of the type of fraud that the ID is supposed to prevent.

Quag said:
That was my point! Same story different spin. [...]
Click to expand...
No. One story based on facts, another story based on spin. It is the task of the observer/reader to research and analyze each, then come to a reasoned conclusion based on facts, knowledge, and intellect.
 
Where can you show me the motives behind what you are saying? You are implying them but where is the proof?
This is what i hear all the time LOOK what so and so wants, They want this for whatever evil reason. Sorry I aint buying that both sides say it over and over and over again.

Yes I know you will point to lack of proof that there is voter fraud caused by not requiring ID. This doesnt change the fact that it is possible and small measures will make it more difficult. Again if you register a fake person and dont require ID than anyone can vote, if you require ID than there are more hoops to go through to commit voter fraud. THAT is why voter ID is part of this issue.

I also have heard your points on why you don`t think it's a good idea but they haven't been convincing to me.
I see no problems with voter ID as we have in Canada, again it isnt even remotely an issue here. There is no additional cost, it does not slow down voting and there is no disenfrachisement of ppl. Is there another problem other than these you wish to adress?

As to those in favor (on this forum) I have not heard them demand a voter photo ID card (tired of typing that, VPID) Only those against have mentioned that.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Kal'Stang: Is a seperate voter photo ID card what you are demanding? would a lesser threshold of Identification be acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

As long as it is an official state recognized ID I don't care one way or the other. A drivers license or basic ID or military ID card would be perfectly fine with me. No, school cards and the like allowed though.
 
haymarket said:
You re making a false assumption.

I have been voting since 1972. Every time I have voted the make sure I am who I say I am. I would estimate I have voted over fifty times in my life and each and every time they have determined I was who I said I was.
Click to expand...

And yet we have evidence that not everyone is verified. Remember, what happens in your county may not happen in another.
 
nonpareil said:
Perhaps because the question is based on a false premise. There is a way to tell if the people voting are who they say they are - that's what the registrar's for. If you suspect that an illegal alien is trying to vote, you go back to the registrar and cross reference it with his citizenship status. If a person vote in a different person's name, it's the registrar that will help us determine if a crime has been committed, not a photo ID. In the OP case, Holder can go and point to the registrar and say it's registered in his name with his address and a ballot has been submitted even though he was never there, and conclusively prove that a crime was committed. If the person voting in Holder's name can produce a photo ID that claims he's Holder, it wouldn't make his voting in Holder's name not a crime.
Click to expand...

The key word there is "suspect". What if you don't suspect?

And how can "Holder" in this case know whether someone voted for him or not? Particularly if he didn't vote because of some emergency. Or if he goes to a different polling station.
 
Quag said:
As to those in favor (on this forum) I have not heard them demand a voter photo ID card (tired of typing that, VPID) Only those against have mentioned that.
Click to expand...

Generally when people talk about ID in the US they are talking about photo ID. Just an FYI. :)
 
Generally when people talk about ID in the US they are talking about photo ID. Just an FYI.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification, from someone on the other side. I do note you do not demand a specific VPID card . The gap isn`t as huge as it once seemed.
Don't know how hard it is to get photo id there, like I said all Canadians of voting age have it with their medicaire card. but photo id is not required here. Would you be opposed to the non photo standards used here in Canada that ive posted before?
 
Quag said:
Thank you for the clarification, from someone on the other side. I do note you do not demand a specific VPID card . The gap isn`t as huge as it once seemed.
Don't know how hard it is to get photo id there, like I said all Canadians of voting age have it with their medicaire card. but photo id is not required here. Would you be opposed to the non photo standards used here in Canada that ive posted before?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think a photo in the ID should be a requirement. Anyone can carrry a card with just a name on it and pass it off as themselves. Thats a bit harder to do if a photo is in that card. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom