• 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!

Voter fraud suspect arrested in Des Moines

Harshaw said:
Your first link (to Wikipedia, which isn't exactly "documentation") lists isolated instances over a period of decades -- how is that any more significant than the instances of voter fraud known to have happened?
Click to expand...

Its far more significant in total amount of voters effected.

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Harshaw said:
Also, I didn't ask you for definitions of things which could happen -- I asked for actual documentation of things you claim DO happen, "en masse." Again, "en masse."
Click to expand...

Wikipedia tends to source it's claims so while it's not a great official source, it's own sources can be checked. I provided the definitions as just extra discussion, not as even more evidence of electoral fraud. Voter fraud found 31 as shown above, vote caging, while there was this one single instance of in that wiki where:

In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned.

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it hoped to cage voters there in the Democrat stronghold.​

And that's just two examples of electoral fraud.

Here's a gem:

Vote Caging and the Attorney General

In 1990, the North Carolina Republican Party and the Jesse Helms for Senate campaign engaged in vote caging by sending 44,000 postcards to black voters, giving them incorrect information about voting and threatening them with criminal prosecution.​

Electoral fraud is far more damaging, yet the GOP is ignoring that obvious fact.

So the significance would be 31 vs hundreds of thousands.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Its far more significant in total amount of voters effected.

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
Click to expand...

That's hardly a "study" -- it's one guy's attempt to follow reports, which even he says is neither complete nor conclusive.

I know a LOT of people try to glom onto this as though it's somehow scientific OR actual data, but it's not.



Wikipedia tends to source it's claims so while it's not a great official source, it's own sources can be checked. I provided the definitions as just extra discussion, not as even more evidence of electoral fraud. Voter fraud found 31 as shown above, vote caging, while there was this one single instance of in that wiki where:

In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned.

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it hoped to cage voters there in the Democrat stronghold.​

And that's just two examples of electoral fraud.

Here's a gem:

Vote Caging and the Attorney General

In 1990, the North Carolina Republican Party and the Jesse Helms for Senate campaign engaged in vote caging by sending 44,000 postcards to black voters, giving them incorrect information about voting and threatening them with criminal prosecution.​

Electoral fraud is far more damaging, yet the GOP is ignoring that obvious fact.
Click to expand...

You're still giving me 1) isolated peanuts, and 2) not much in the way of actual documentation. Where's the "en masse"?
 
Harshaw said:
That's hardly a "study" -- it's one guy's attempt to follow reports, which even he says is neither complete nor conclusive.

I know a LOT of people try to glom onto this as though it's somehow scientific OR actual data, but it's not.





You're still giving me 1) isolated peanuts, and 2) not much in the way of actual documentation. Where's the "en masse"?
Click to expand...

Isolated peanuts. I see what's going on now. You want me to dig and dig and I bring you evidence of hundreds of thousands being caged and you are just going to sit back and say ... isolated peanuts. That's how it works huh? Just dismiss all those voters being pushed off. Then of course you ignore that voter fraud study... so let me give you another one:

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.​

That's the Bush administration's investigation. And here is the Brennan Center for Justice collected evidence of voter caging:


There ya go... refute all you want. I'm not going on anymore errands for you. I backed up my claims rather well. If you want to wear blinders to that... not my problem.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Of course they are.

Why, here's the President saying that "instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found."

https://youtu.be/QvrVOOjZdCA

And Dems here say the exact same thing all the time.

Why, I created a poll on the very topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/267612-voter-fraud-problem-6.html

A very open-ended poll where people could interpret it and respond any way they wanted, and I didn't even participate except to clarify the question.

Yes, yes, yes; you're going to be absolutist on that statement, yadda yadda yadda, "I/you meant ABSOLUTELY NO voter fraud," but weirdly enough, you're not going after powerRob's equivalent generality about Republicans.
Click to expand...

The point is no "Dem" says that voter fraud never happens, but that it is insignificant, trivial, which of course is what ALL the evidence indicates is a true statement. If you want to summarize the argument, that is the argument.

I responded to him in exactly the same tone as his statement. You take me absolutely literally, when I didn't take HIM literally.
Click to expand...

I'm responding to you, and you to me. I'm not here to defend someone else.
You say that as though the two concepts are mutually-exclusive.

The Voting Fraud Bust that Proves Texas' Voter ID Law Is Useless - The Atlantic
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

What's your point? I pointed out that photo ID isn't necessary because almost none of the fraud that happens (which is almost always absentee fraud) is prevented by a photo ID. Then you cite an article that proves MY point - that the fraud that almost always happens isn't affected AT ALL by photo ID.

Bottom line is you repeated a couple of right wing talking points, straw men, then prove what I said is exactly right. This is how all these debates on voter laws go. You right wingers can't rely on the evidence so have to do something intellectually hackish to make an argument.
 
poweRob said:
Isolated peanuts. I see what's going on now. You want me to dig and dig and I bring you evidence of hundreds of thousands being caged and you are just going to sit back and say ... isolated peanuts. That's how it works huh? Just dismiss all those voters being pushed off. Then of course you ignore that voter fraud study... so let me give you another one:
Click to expand...

No, I want you to show me the "en masse." Those were your words -- "en masse."

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.​

That's the Bush administration's investigation.


There ya go... refute all you want. I'm not going on anymore errands for you. I backed up my claims rather well. If you want to wear blinders to that... not my problem.
Click to expand...

You didn't show me any "en masse." You showed me particular, isolated incidents that you have to skip over decades in between to get from one to the other -- going back 70 years -- while citing that Washington Post thing which by its own terms only goes back to 2000.

Keep in mind, at no point did I argue that voter fraud is a problem. But you seem to be rather willing to accept that "election fraud" is a big problem -- "en masse" -- while denying that voter fraud is.

Whereas, even by what you've presented, neither is especially significant.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
The point is no "Dem" says that voter fraud never happens, but that it is insignificant, trivial, which of course is what ALL the evidence indicates is a true statement. If you want to summarize the argument, that is the argument.
Click to expand...

Funny; I anticipated and parried this already, in the post you quoted. I guess you go by your playbook no matter what actually happens on the field.


I'm responding to you, and you to me. I'm not here to defend someone else.
Click to expand...

And you ignored the context, letting his similar statement pass while singling out mine.

It's almost as if you only want to call foul on one side.


What's your point? I pointed out that photo ID isn't necessary because almost none of the fraud that happens (which is almost always absentee fraud) is prevented by a photo ID. Then you cite an article that proves MY point - that the fraud that almost always happens isn't affected AT ALL by photo ID.
Click to expand...

This is so strange -- again, you've quoted me as already addressing what you're saying here, yet you plod forward as though I didn't say anything.

Bottom line is you repeated a couple of right wing talking points, straw men, then prove what I said is exactly right. This is how all these debates on voter laws go. You right wingers can't rely on the evidence so have to do something intellectually hackish to make an argument.
Click to expand...

You didn't "prove" any such thing. You simply asserted conclusions and then repeated them no matter what I said.
 
Fenton said:
Does Iowa have a voter ID law in place ? Just curious
Click to expand...
My ID was not requested or demanded this morning when I voted. I was asked a couple questions, sign an affidavit that I was me and would vote only once, and that was it.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I want you to show me the "en masse." Those were your words -- "en masse."
Click to expand...

What do you think caging 130,000 voter is? That's all together and en masse. As compared to a single voter doing voter fraud... which as I've shown doesn't happen much according to the Bush administration's 5 year study on it.

Harshaw said:
You didn't show me any "en masse." You showed me particular, isolated incidents that you have to skip over decades in between to get from one to the other -- going back 70 years -- while citing that Washington Post thing which by its own terms only goes back to 2000.

Keep in mind, at no point did I argue that voter fraud is a problem. But you seem to be rather willing to accept that "election fraud" is a big problem -- "en masse" -- while denying that voter fraud is.

Whereas, even by what you've presented, neither is especially significant.
Click to expand...

I've showed you hundreds of thousands of voters EN MASSE getting thrown off the voting roles. And I've shown you how little a problem voter fraud is according the Bush adminstration. Hundreds of thousands of voters being booted off the roles in one area can easily throw a state. That's pretty damn significant.
 
radcen said:
My ID was not requested or demanded this morning when I voted. I was asked a couple questions, sign an affidavit that I was me and would vote only once, and that was it.
Click to expand...

Here in New Mexico, you register to vote and then when you go to vote you don't need an ID becuase they have your registration in the books. They ask you who you are and your address, they find you in the book of registered voters and you vote.
 
poweRob said:
Here in New Mexico, you register to vote and then when you go to vote you don't need an ID becuase they have your registration in the books. They ask you who you are and your address, they find you in the book of registered voters and you vote.
Click to expand...
It's pretty much that here in Iowa, too. They did ask me my street address and my DOB.
 
poweRob said:
What do you think caging 130,000 voter is? That's all together and en masse.
Click to expand...

No a "mass-mailing" is a single incident. Where's the evidence that this mailing actually resulted in the suppression of votes?


I've showed you hundreds of thousands of voters EN MASSE getting thrown off the voting roles.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. Your links mentioned allegations of it, and mostly unsuccessful attempts to do so. One or two were successful, but there's no indication that it actually disenfranchised anyone or had any significant impact on the election.

And some of the incidents mentioned looked more to be error, inconsistent applicaiton of law, and confusion, than any actual fraud, which is an intentional thing.


And I've shown you how little a problem voter fraud is according the Bush adminstration.
Click to expand...

So?


Hundreds of thousands of voters being booted off the roles in one area can easily throw a state. That's pretty damn significant.
Click to expand...

OK, show me where the "hundreds of thousands of voters" were "booted off the" rolls.
 
Harshaw said:
No a "mass-mailing" is a single incident. Where's the evidence that this mailing actually resulted in the suppression of votes?




No, you didn't. Your links mentioned allegations of it, and mostly unsuccessful attempts to do so. One or two were successful, but there's no indication that it actually disenfranchised anyone or had any significant impact on the election.

And some of the incidents mentioned looked more to be error, inconsistent applicaiton of law, and confusion, than any actual fraud, which is an intentional thing.




So?




OK, show me where the "hundreds of thousands of voters" were "booted off the" rolls.
Click to expand...

Refute, deny. Rinse and repeat.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...des-moines-post1066486942.html#post1066486942
 
Harshaw said:
Well, yes, I refuted it, because you did not actually document what you claimed. I went through your links; I told you what I found.

Did you not actually read them? Is that the problem?
Click to expand...

Nah... you didn't read them. Go to that link and read the brennan center link. That's all you needed to acknowledge that I'm right. But you think I'm going to keep running in circles becuase you want to live in denial. Not doing it.
 
Harshaw said:
Funny; I anticipated and parried this already, in the post you quoted. I guess you go by your playbook no matter what actually happens on the field.
Click to expand...

Right, you knew your quote was BS, so "parried" me pointing that out. Do you want a gold star for admitting your error?
And you ignored the context, letting his similar statement pass while singling out mine.
Click to expand...

I won't have any trouble finding quotes by right wingers that it's democrats engaging in fraud through dead voting and "illegals."

It's almost as if you only want to call foul on one side.
Click to expand...

You misstated the "Dem" position, twice, 0 for 2. And now you're admitting it, so I guess we are done here.

This is so strange -- again, you've quoted me as already addressing what you're saying here, yet you plod forward as though I didn't say anything.
Click to expand...

What you said made no sense to me.

You didn't "prove" any such thing. You simply asserted conclusions and then repeated them no matter what I said.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't quote anyone saying voter fraud "does not happen" and the argument against photo ID isn't that they will not "work." I have no idea what your point is now.
 
poweRob said:
Nah... you didn't read them. Go to that link and read the brennan center link. That's all you needed to acknowledge that I'm right. But you think I'm going to keep running in circles becuase you want to live in denial. Not doing it.
Click to expand...

No, I did. I told you exactly what I found. Nearly every attempt to purge voters from rolls was unsuccessful, and for the few which were successful, there's no evidence it had any adverse affect on anyone's vote. There's certainly no case where "hundreds of thousands" or even "130,000" were purged.
 
JasperL said:
Right, you knew your quote was BS, so "parried" me pointing that out. Do you want a gold star for admitting your error?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my error. It was your pedantry.


I won't have any trouble finding quotes by right wingers that it's democrats engaging in fraud through dead voting and "illegals."
Click to expand...

Feel free, if that's how you want to spend your evening. No idea what bearing you think it has, though.


You misstated the "Dem" position, twice, 0 for 2.
Click to expand...

Sure . . . I "misstated" the Dem position by providing you a video of President Obama actually saying it.

And now you're admitting it, so I guess we are done here.
Click to expand...

It's like you see words on a page and they magically transform into what you wish they were.


What you said made no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Your confusion and incomprehension were never really in doubt here, but I'm glad you're starting to self-diagnose.


Well, you can't quote anyone saying voter fraud "does not happen"
Click to expand...

Except for the video of Obama saying it, and a thread full of people here saying it, but hey.


and the argument against photo ID isn't that they will not "work." I have no idea what your point is now.
Click to expand...

You clearly never did. You just blathered on about whatever you wanted to no matter what I said. I already pointed this out.

I guess you can repeat yourself again -- ad nauseam, if you like -- but I've got a pizza from the best house in town arriving in about five minutes, so once I click "Post," you will not enter my mind again.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I did. I told you exactly what I found. Nearly every attempt to purge voters from rolls was unsuccessful, and for the few which were successful, there's no evidence it had any adverse affect on anyone's vote. There's certainly no case where "hundreds of thousands" or even "130,000" were purged.
Click to expand...

Deny, deny, deny...

“Operation Eagle Eye” is the Republican poll‐watching cam*paign under which G.O.P. offi*cials say they will deploy 100,000 trained Republican workers at polling places in 35 large cities.

According to Charles R. Barr, national director of “Operation Eagle Eye,” these observers ex*pect to successfully challenge or to discourage from voting 1,250,000 persons.

linkypoo...​
 
danarhea said:
Ah, here's the rub. In Texas, use can use a gun license as ID to vote, but you can't use a student ID. It's the way the laws are consistently applied by Republicans which makes them bad.
Click to expand...

So you expect a government issued license and a school issued student id to be the same thing? absence of logic
 
Harshaw said:
It wasn't my error. It was your pedantry.
Click to expand...

The statements - 'voting fraud does not happen' versus 'voting fraud happens but is trivial and efforts to combat fraud that doesn't rise above the trivial cause FAR more problems than they solve' are simply not equivalent. The "dem" argument is of course there are isolated cases of "voter fraud" that would be prevented if all polls had robust mechanisms to verify a state issued photo ID, but that the number is minuscule/trivial/insignificant and the "solution" in fact is FAR, FAR worse than the problem (impersonation fraud) the new IDs are supposedly designed to solve.

Sure . . . I "misstated" the Dem position by providing you a video of President Obama actually saying it.
Click to expand...


What Obama said is simply fact - there are simply NO known instances of significant voter fraud. You can't cite them, and you certainly cannot cite numbers of impersonation fraud addressed by state issued photo ID that rise above the trivial - a handful or less per million votes cast. That is the "Dem" position. If you want to argue against the actual "Dem" position citing evidence, facts, then do so. But we all know you CANNOT so we're parsing words here while you avoid addressing the actual "Dem" position.
 
SocialD said:
So you expect a government issued license and a school issued student id to be the same thing? absence of logic
Click to expand...

Well, schools are often an arm of government. They're not "the same thing" but no one argues they are. Why is ID issued by one arm of government worthless for voting while ID issued by another arm of government pure gold? The argument is there is no reason why a picture ID for UT - Austin shouldn't adequately serve as ID at the polls. Can you explain what it is about that school ID that makes it worthless for purposes of voting?
 
danarhea said:
Ah, here's the rub. In Texas, use can use a gun license as ID to vote, but you can't use a student ID. It's the way the laws are consistently applied by Republicans which makes them bad.
Click to expand...
Does aquiring a school id require a background check?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Does aquiring a school id require a background check?
Click to expand...

Why is that relevant to anything? No one needs to pass a "background check" of any kind to cast a vote. All the ID is supposed to do is identify, e.g. Trouble13 as Trouble13, and all school IDs that I've seen have photos on them, and a name. So why wouldn't that serve to adequately ID you as you for purposes of casting a vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom