• 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!

Death penalty for voter fraud

Do you support the death penalty for voter fraud?

  • I'm a Democrat and approve the death penalty for committing voter fraud.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    75
I can see what you wrote.

Now I am asking you a question based on what you wrote.

So you believe proposing the death penalty for a non capital crime in which no persons life was taken or even harmed and then failing to demonstrate that it is indeed a national problem which requires such a drastic and severe sanction is perfectly rational and stands as an idea without any further documentation?

My opinion is yes, I think it's possible to consider the punishment for an act based on the act itself, independent of the frequency with which the act may or may not be committed.
 
Exactly, and that mixed bag includes the death penalty, so it isn't inherently unchristian.

But as I pointed out, 2 out of the 3 main Christian Churches, after much deliberation, agreed that the New testament promoted mercy and that the death sentence is Unchristian. Only the Catholic Church is still divided on the subject. So the death penalty is unchristian if people whose entire life is dedicated towards the Bible say it is so. So it's unchristian.
 
My opinion is yes, I think it's possible to consider the punishment for an act based on the act itself, independent of the frequency with which the act may or may not be committed.

And in this case the act itself merits the death penalty in your opinion?
 
1 yr in the slammer, and forfeit the right to vote in ANY election for the rest of your life.
 
I believe in the death penalty for destroying a sun--whether the solar system had any life or not. I'm pretty sure there has never ever been a conviction for such a crime. Heck, I'm not even sure there is a law against it.
 
Voter fraud ?
Are they some of the laws Obama instructed Holder not enforce or defend?
Problem may be solved.
 
does voite fraud exist?
People are caught at it and convicted.
search "vote fraud convictions", generates more than 30 pages of links (that's as far as I punched NEXT).
Are ALL guilty caught?
I suspect only a tiny % are caught and/or convicted.
Why do people vote illegally, twice or more, or in other peoples name?
Obviously, THEY believe they are having an effect on the election.
Is there a conspiracy of vote fraud? Do these people know each other, and are confident their combined efforts sway the election?
I doubt most are in mutual contact, but I also suspect everyone involved in vote fraud has "friends" also involved in vote fraud.
I can't believe people would go to the trouble of voting fraudulently, UNLESS they believed it was WORTH the effort!
But even ONE fraudulent vote, robs ALL the American people! And is TREASON in my opinion!
 
does voite fraud exist?
People are caught at it and convicted.
search "vote fraud convictions", generates more than 30 pages of links (that's as far as I punched NEXT).
Are ALL guilty caught?
I suspect only a tiny % are caught and/or convicted.
Why do people vote illegally, twice or more, or in other peoples name?
Obviously, THEY believe they are having an effect on the election.
Is there a conspiracy of vote fraud? Do these people know each other, and are confident their combined efforts sway the election?
I doubt most are in mutual contact, but I also suspect everyone involved in vote fraud has "friends" also involved in vote fraud.
I can't believe people would go to the trouble of voting fraudulently, UNLESS they believed it was WORTH the effort!
But even ONE fraudulent vote, robs ALL the American people! And is TREASON in my opinion!

So tell us then - how many people were convicted of voter fraud since the year 2000?
 
So tell us then - how many people were convicted of voter fraud since the year 2000?

Would you propose different penalties depending upon the number?
 
Would you propose different penalties depending upon the number?

I would need a number to know if a significant problem exists or if this is just small potatoes.
 
I would need a number to know if a significant problem exists or if this is just small potatoes.

That's irrelevant to the OP, and to the question you quoted. Try answering it, you might see how completely irrelevant your point is.
 
I would need a number to know if a significant problem exists or if this is just small potatoes.

And once you know the number, you would then propose different penalties based on that number?
 
That's irrelevant to the OP, and to the question you quoted. Try answering it, you might see how completely irrelevant your point is.

If one person gets cancer and dies from it every year - it is only a problem for that person and their family and close friends. If hundreds of thousands of people get cancer and die every year it becomes a national issue with significant numbers to prove it.

The same is true for a measurement of almost everything that one believes is a national problem which needs some sort of action or law to deal with it.

The fact is that your own tactics here - and the inability of your side to quantify this so called problem - is a loud and clear admission that you have no such national problem that requires any sort of serious solution.
 
And once you know the number, you would then propose different penalties based on that number?

Hold on there speedy. Once we have the number we can then evaluate if indeed we have any sort of significant problem that even merits consideration of action. That would be the conservative and prudent approach.
 
Hold on there speedy. Once we have the number we can then evaluate if indeed we have any sort of significant problem that even merits consideration of action. That would be the conservative and prudent approach.

And THEN you would propose different punishments based your evaluation of the number?
 
If one person gets cancer and dies from it every year - it is only a problem for that person and their family and close friends. If hundreds of thousands of people get cancer and die every year it becomes a national issue with significant numbers to prove it.

The same is true for a measurement of almost everything that one believes is a national problem which needs some sort of action or law to deal with it.

The fact is that your own tactics here - and the inability of your side to quantify this so called problem - is a loud and clear admission that you have no such national problem that requires any sort of serious solution.

This isn't cancer, because it's intentional. Murder, rape, or other current criminal offenses would be better comparisons. You don't wait until millions of people are being murdered or raped to decide what punnishment is appropriate for such crimes.

haymarket said:
That would be the conservative and prudent approach.
Conservative and prudent to wait until after multiple serious criminal offenses have been committed before discussing how they should be dealt with? Do you know what "prudent" actually means?
 
And once you know the number, you would then propose different penalties based on that number?

Once voter fraud hits .5% of the total votes cast in an election, then a certain someone would evaluate the penalties. Some people don't deal in hypothetical questions but want to be conservative and prudent. In the meantime, voter fraud is presumed to be at best a misdemeanor--no harm, no foul and if the referee doesn't see it, then no foul either.
 
Some people don't deal in hypothetical questions but want to be conservative and prudent
Yet again I ask, what on earth is conservative or prudent about waiting until after a serious crime has been committed on a mass scale before even discussing what appropriate punishment would be? Seriously, get a dictionary, look up the word "prudent", and tell me how it has any relevance what so ever to your stance on the issue. The the complete and utter opposite of prudent.
 
Yet again I ask, what on earth is conservative or prudent about waiting until after a serious crime has been committed on a mass scale before even discussing what appropriate punishment would be? Seriously, get a dictionary, look up the word "prudent", and tell me how it has any relevance what so ever to your stance on the issue. The the complete and utter opposite of prudent.

Don't ask me, I'm the one for advocating the death penalty for destroying a sun in an uninhabited solar system. Why wait until it happens?
 
Don't ask me, I'm the one for advocating the death penalty for destroying a sun in an uninhabited solar system. Why wait until it happens?

Voter fraud is an attempt to change the outcome of an election. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any point in doing it. The percentages you speak of are only relevant to how successful the criminal was in their efforts to conspire with other criminals.

Once again to be clear, I hate democracy in its current form, I think it's abhorrent, but seizing power by fraudulent means is even worse.
 
This isn't cancer, because it's intentional. Murder, rape, or other current criminal offenses would be better comparisons. You don't wait until millions of people are being murdered or raped to decide what punnishment is appropriate for such crimes.


Conservative and prudent to wait until after multiple serious criminal offenses have been committed before discussing how they should be dealt with? Do you know what "prudent" actually means?

One can quickly and easily demonstrate, illustrate and prove harm in an act of murder simply by pointing to the deceased and the resulting loss that the crime caused.

One can quickly and easily demonstrate, illustrate and prove harm in an act of rape simply by talking to the victim and the resulting pain, suffering, and types of damage that the victim suffers from the crime.

Neither is theoretical. Neither is in the abstract. Neither has to be done on a fairly large scale to have a negative impact or effect.

We do deal with voter fraud in both a conservative and prudent way. There are laws against it and people are prosecuted for it. We are NOT waiting for multiple offenses before dealing with it and for you to float that absurdity shows how little you seem to know about this issue.

Can you do the same with your charges of voter fraud? Please do.
 
Voter fraud is an attempt to change the outcome of an election.

That definition could also apply to a variety of legal campaign activities including making speeches, kissing babies, debating, distributing materials, door to door visits, advertising in media outlets and all sorts of other perfectly fine and good activities.

Try again please.
 
And THEN you would propose different punishments based your evaluation of the number?

When we reach that reality, I can properly evaluate it and give you a definitive answer.
 
That definition could also apply to a variety of legal campaign activities including making speeches, kissing babies, debating, distributing materials, door to door visits, advertising in media outlets and all sorts of other perfectly fine and good activities.

Try again please.

Voter fraud has two parts to it, your irrelevant examples only speak to the second which isn't illegal by itself. It's the fraud part that's specifically illegal.
 
Back
Top Bottom