Sure looks like compelling evidence for positive voter identification:
Voter Fraud | Dead | New Hampshire | The Daily Caller
Wow, how surprising. Not only did Catawba run for the hills where his "17.2" percent argument went to die, but this must also be the place where the DNC hid the whole "requiring an ID to vote will disenfranchise voters" brain fart. Too bad, who knew that this is really all about getting illegal votes from non citizens so ya can get into office ala politics as usual? I mean aside from everyone but passionate defender of the same Catawba?
Good for you Catawba, good for you. Still all in all, a poor and unpersuasive argument you saddled yourself with there. Way to go, bully for you. A complete failure in any intellectual or "debate" sense, but then we all know ahead of time that on these types of "debate" matters you cleave to the Sheen play book. You drink tigers blood and are WINNING!
Last edited by Gie; 01-16-12 at 12:32 AM.
As a point of comparison, the highest estimates for fraud I've ever seen from any study indicated that fraudulent votes account for maybe 0.1% of votes cast in the worst case scenarios. Most estimates are down in the 0.001% sort of range for a typical election, but lets go with 0.1% just to be ultra conservative about it. So, total, a provision requiring any valid photo ID would make elections 0.7% less accurate (still assuming 1/5 would go get a new ID), where a provision requiring a photo ID issued by the state you are voting in with your current address would make voting 7.9% less accurate.
Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice 0.7% of the accuracy of our elections just to make you guys shut up about it already. But 7.9%? No freaking way. That is straight up election rigging of the sort that can be a real threat to democracy itself.
And everybody only thought that the Russians and Chinese brainwash their people...HA!