YOU'RE FIRED!

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .

Image

“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"


"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source


So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #141

Post by Purple Knight »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmIn fact, that might be difficult information to obtain given the fact that we wouldn't know about the uncaught cases to be able to put a number on it.
Correct. My point was that asking for evidence that can't exist is a little unfair. There can't be evidence of people getting away with it because if there was evidence of them doing it, they would not have gotten away with it.

My more recent point is that if we accept that minorities are more important and ought to be in the spotlight because they are likely to be victims of disenfranchisement (which I do), we must also accept that if you put minorities in the spotlight and select a policy that pushes other people under the rug and says their votes are less important and it doesn't really matter if they didn't get counted simply because they are fewer in number, you have created one of those minorities that is likely to be disenfranchised and now ought to be in the spotlight. "What does it matter? They don't affect the result," applies exactly equally to some minority demographics as it does to the people who will lose votes if you allow more fraud.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #142

Post by The Barbarian »

It always comes down to evidence. The most ineffective way to commit election fraud is have people vote, who aren't legally qualified to vote. They almost always get caught.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pm One of Purple Knight's earlier points apply here, and I don't see how your point refutes his.
It always comes down to evidence. The greatest source of voter fraud, according the evidence, is denying qualified voters the right to vote. would you like to see that?
I question how we can determine that voter fraud "almost always get caught". The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught.
I can't prove there aren't invisible orange leprechauns living in your attic, either. But the evidence...
In fact, that might be difficult information to obtain given the fact that we wouldn't know about the uncaught cases to be able to put a number on it.
Or all those invisible orange leprechauns, too. Still...
You can shout from your rooftop all day that there is little to no cheating,
That's what the evidence indicates.
but your point would have little value if there was little to no oversight and security to catch cheating in the first place.
That's the point. We are catching them. There just aren't very many of them.

The most effective way to commit election fraud is to prevent qualified people from voting, which if you do it right, won't even be a crime. This is why political parties, when they suspect that voting will go against them, have always chosen to suppress votes, not vote illegally.
I'm sure we can both think of scenarios where LESS security and oversight would make it easier to cheat
Sure. For example, there were at least three cases of illegal voting in the 2016 presidential election. They got caught without voter ID laws. Because the existing security and oversight was sufficient. And if we don't keep an eye on legislators, experience has shown that they will try to rig the process to make it harder for the other party to vote. This is why you have to have extensive oversight on the ID process, to be sure it's not used to suppress voting by qualified citizens.
and we can also think of ways how making it too difficult to vote would restrict voting (suppress votes, some may even say it's cheating, as well).
Voting fraud would be considered cheating, yes.
Is that a fair point?
Sure. And since we have abundant evidence for fraudulent practices that deny the vote to qualified voters, and very little evidence for fraudulent voting by unqualified voters, what is most needed is to crack down on crooked parties and politicians who are trying to restrict voting to stop qualified voters. Is that a fair point?
I've read reports about some Republicans wanting to take away ballot drop boxes and shorten early voting window.
For example, the republican party tried to have one drop box for each county in Texas. Some counties had a few thousand people. They decided that Harris County, with about 6 million people, should have only one box, too. Fortunately, they were sued, and rather than explain how that would be fair to a judge, they folded and put some more out for counties with high populations. But they'll try it again. The loss of the presidency and the Senate, instead of convincing them that they need to appeal to more voters, just convinced them that they didn't cheat hard enough.
But at the same time, some Democrats are also not helping the matter when they think we need LESS security and oversight, like those who argue against VOTER ID.
Most democrats already favor voter ID, but with the condition that every qualified voter be given such an ID, without cost or difficult conditions to get it. Republicans reject it, saying that such conditions would go against the whole reason to have voter ID.

And that's the problem. Fix that, and the problem goes away for the democrats. But not for the republicans.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #143

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pm One of Purple Knight's earlier points apply here, and I don't see how your point refutes his.
It always comes down to evidence. The greatest source of voter fraud, according the evidence, is denying qualified voters the right to vote. would you like to see that?
No because that's not what I asked for. What I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud. Bringing up the cases that have been caught doesn't answer my point and I clearly explained why in my last post.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmI question how we can determine that voter fraud "almost always get caught". The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught.
I can't prove there aren't invisible orange leprechauns living in your attic, either. But the evidence...
Sure, you should only speak to the evidence you have, which just amounts to showing that there are instances of cheating that have been caught. That doesn't justify nor excuse your absolute claim that those instances represent all cases of fraud.

Secondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered. However, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight. It doesn't seem like it's a fair point for the person claiming that we can't prove it to then deny the TOOLS (in the form of oversight and security) that it would take to prove it. Either way, there are plenty of instances where voter fraud and errors were caught using ADDED procedures (procedures that don't normally occur in most elections) via recounts. So based on precedent (which we don't have for leprechauns), my point is already proven that LESS security and checks can lead to a situation where voter fraud/errors go uncaught.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmIn fact, that might be difficult information to obtain given the fact that we wouldn't know about the uncaught cases to be able to put a number on it.
Or all those invisible orange leprechauns, too. Still...
I also said this in my last post: "It also doesn't help when you're not in favor of the one factor that can close that gap in knowledge, which is extra oversight and security."
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmbut your point would have little value if there was little to no oversight and security to catch cheating in the first place.
That's the point. We are catching them. There just aren't very many of them.
We are catching cheating, but you're begging the question when it comes to answering just how much cheating we're catching. Catching cheating doesn't prove that you're catching all of them. And just throwing out statements, "there are just aren't very many of them", doesn't help your case in terms of what I asked you to show.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pm I'm sure we can both think of scenarios where LESS security and oversight would make it easier to cheat
Sure. For example, there were at least three cases of illegal voting in the 2016 presidential election. They got caught without voter ID laws. Because the existing security and oversight was sufficient.
I'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that. Do you agree?

If your cases involved voter impersonation, then perhaps they were caught by poll workers doing extra work to catch them, and I mean work that wouldn't have ordinarily been done. So that's a hit and miss situation. Voter ID would've made it easier to catch, no luck or extra work needed.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm And if we don't keep an eye on legislators, experience has shown that they will try to rig the process to make it harder for the other party to vote. This is why you have to have extensive oversight on the ID process, to be sure it's not used to suppress voting by qualified citizens.
That is true, but I'd hope that the real ardent Democrats would also look at how their own party may be contributing to that process. And I'm assuming that they care, because some may only care for cheating when their adversary does it, but then turn a blind eye to those in their own side that's doing it.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmIs that a fair point?
Sure. And since we have abundant evidence for fraudulent practices that deny the vote to qualified voters, and very little evidence for fraudulent voting by unqualified voters, what is most needed is to crack down on crooked parties and politicians who are trying to restrict voting to stop qualified voters. Is that a fair point?
So far, I'm not convinced by your assessment of the evidence. One reason being that there are a lack of standards in place to even make a fair judgement of how much cheating is going on to begin with. And then you're supporting a position that would make it harder to catch cheating so that takes away from your point.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:33 pmBut at the same time, some Democrats are also not helping the matter when they think we need LESS security and oversight, like those who argue against VOTER ID.
Most democrats already favor voter ID, but with the condition that every qualified voter be given such an ID, without cost or difficult conditions to get it. Republicans reject it, saying that such conditions would go against the whole reason to have voter ID.

And that's the problem. Fix that, and the problem goes away for the democrats. But not for the republicans.
If there are Republicans going against voter ID because of how its given, then I definitely disagree with them on that.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #144

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:38 pmOr all those invisible orange leprechauns, too. Still...
The difference is, we can at least potentially find invisible leprechauns. I can ask for evidence of them because there could potentially be some.

You're asking for evidence of people who got away with it. You're asking for something that can't exist.

And, if we know invisible pink leprechauns exist (voter fraud that is caught), and there is a reason orange ones (voter fraud that is not caught) might be harder to find, it's reasonable that they could exist.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #145

Post by The Barbarian »

Or all those invisible orange leprechauns, too. Still...
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:44 pm The difference is, we can at least potentially find invisible leprechauns. I can ask for evidence of them because there could potentially be some.
Hence, courts don't ask the accused to prove they didn't commit a crime. The burden of proof is logically on the accuser who claims a crime happened.
You're asking for evidence of people who got away with it.
I'm asking you for evidence that it's a significant problem. If it is, you should be able to show some evidence that it is. If not... well, that's the accuser's problem.
You're asking for something that can't exist.
The idea that we should just take it on faith (or imagination or whatever) is a logical error.
And, if we know invisible pink leprechauns exist (voter fraud that is caught), and there is a reason orange ones (voter fraud that is not caught) might be harder to find, it's reasonable that they could exist.
Can we agree that we should first address forms of voting fraud that we know are significant and well-evidenced before we work on the ones for which there is no evidence of being significant? The "For the People" bill addresses fraudulent disenfranchisement, which as you know, is far more common and much better documented than other voting frauds.

How about adding a voter ID clause, with a requirement that a state, in order to require voter ID, must document that every eligible voter has been provided the ID free of cost?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #146

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:26 pm
You're asking for evidence of people who got away with it.
I'm asking you for evidence that it's a significant problem. If it is, you should be able to show some evidence that it is. If not... well, that's the accuser's problem.
You're asking for something that can't exist.
The idea that we should just take it on faith (or imagination or whatever) is a logical error.
The idea that there are uncaught cheaters isn't mere imagination simply because you declare it to be. Your assertion that there are no or few uncaught cheaters is simply unfalsifiable, and you know it's unfalsifiable because if I had some evidence of an uncaught cheater, the moment I presented it, that cheater would be caught. Nothing in the world works like this. Nowhere in the world will you be able to demand evidence of successful, uncaught cheating as a prerequisite for adding a measure against cheating. Here's how the world works: People have a right to have it proved to them that the game is fair, because people are always trying to cheat.
And, if we know invisible pink leprechauns exist (voter fraud that is caught), and there is a reason orange ones (voter fraud that is not caught) might be harder to find, it's reasonable that they could exist.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:26 pmCan we agree that we should first address forms of voting fraud that we know are significant and well-evidenced before we work on the ones for which there is no evidence of being significant? The "For the People" bill addresses fraudulent disenfranchisement, which as you know, is far more common and much better documented than other voting frauds.
My only problem with this is that when you say, these people come first because there are more of them, let us address those other ones last or never because they are less significant in number, you've created an underclass of people whose votes don't matter as much.

Honestly after considering this thread a lot, and coming back to it, and thinking about it more, I think I'm for mandatory voting. "None of the above" is a valid vote, however.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #147

Post by The Barbarian »

It always comes down to evidence. The greatest source of voter fraud, according the evidence, is denying qualified voters the right to vote. would you like to see that?
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pm No because that's not what I asked for.
That's what voter ID bills, absent a clause requiring the state to assure that every qualified voter has one, will do. That's why they do it. Some republicans even slip and admit it.
What I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud.
That's what you have to show us. It does no one's argument any good to say "I don't have any evidence, but I just know it's a problem."
Secondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered. However, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight.
Sounds like a testable claim. What is your evidence for that? Texas increased oversight in the 2020 election. No significant fraud was found. So the evidence we have is contrary to your assumption.

That's the point. We are catching them. There just aren't very many of them.
We are catching cheating
The point is, with lots of new "ballot security measures" in 2020, there was no increase in fraud detected. So the assumption that more security would turn up more cheating, turned out to be false.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/nine- ... -credible/
I'm sure we can both think of scenarios where LESS security and oversight would make it easier to cheat
Sure. For example, there were at least three cases of illegal voting in the 2016 presidential election. They got caught without voter ID laws. Because the existing security and oversight was sufficient.
I'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that.
Such a case actually occurred twice in the last two presidential elections. They got caught each time, without a voter ID law.
If your cases involved voter impersonation, then perhaps they were caught by poll workers doing extra work to catch them, and I mean work that wouldn't have ordinarily been done. So that's a hit and miss situation.
No, it was part of the procedure.

And if we don't keep an eye on legislators, experience has shown that they will try to rig the process to make it harder for the other party to vote. This is why you have to have extensive oversight on the ID process, to be sure it's not used to suppress voting by qualified citizens.
That is true,
Yes. It's the most common form of voting fraud now.
but I'd hope that the real ardent Democrats would also look at how their own party may be contributing to that process.
Of course. If they weren't turning out in large numbers to vote, republicans wouldn't be trying to keep them from voting.
And I'm assuming that they care, because some may only care for cheating when their adversary does it, but then turn a blind eye to those in their own side that's doing it.
It happened a lot before the 1970s, when many states were run by conservative democrats, who also wanted to restrict voting. Unless you count Gerrymandering, (Maryland) I don't know of a recent case.

Sure. And since we have abundant evidence for fraudulent practices that deny the vote to qualified voters, and very little evidence for fraudulent voting by unqualified voters, what is most needed is to crack down on crooked parties and politicians who are trying to restrict voting to stop qualified voters. Is that a fair point?
So far, I'm not convinced by your assessment of the evidence. One reason being that there are a lack of standards in place to even make a fair judgement of how much cheating is going on to begin with.
Courts have repeatedly found republicans doing this, requiring them to go back to their planning to find a voter suppression method that the courts would find acceptable. In one case, they entire republican party was prohibited from any "ballot security" activities, because of their past history of cheating.
And then you're supporting a position that would make it harder to catch cheating
We tested that claim in 2020. Additional security measures didn't turn up any additional cheating.

Most democrats already favor voter ID, but with the condition that every qualified voter be given such an ID, without cost or difficult conditions to get it. Republicans reject it, saying that such conditions would go against the whole reason to have voter ID.

And that's the problem. Fix that, and the problem goes away for the democrats. But not for the republicans.
If there are Republicans going against voter ID because of how its given, then I definitely disagree with them on that.
So far, all of them have. Democrats have offered those amendments to voter ID bills, but wherever republicans are the majority, they have been voted down.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #148

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pm No because that's not what I asked for.
That's what voter ID bills, absent a clause requiring the state to assure that every qualified voter has one, will do. That's why they do it. Some republicans even slip and admit it.
Go back and read post #140. I quoted you stating this, "It always comes down to evidence. The most ineffective way to commit election fraud is have people vote, who aren't legally qualified to vote. They almost always get caught."

So in response, I asked for this,
"The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught."

I'm specifically addressing voter fraud and how we can know how much is being committed. Bringing up Republicans suppressing votes or bringing up voter ID, does not answer my question.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmWhat I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud.
That's what you have to show us. It does no one's argument any good to say "I don't have any evidence, but I just know it's a problem."
I'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen. I don't know how much of a problem or the number of cheating that goes uncaught. In contrast, you're making an absolute claim that would involve having absolute knowledge of cheating when you claimed all instances are caught. So far you've dodged your obligation to show how we can know that all cases are caught.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmSecondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered. However, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight.
Sounds like a testable claim. What is your evidence for that? Texas increased oversight in the 2020 election. No significant fraud was found. So the evidence we have is contrary to your assumption.

That's the point. We are catching them. There just aren't very many of them.
I mean just think of it logically. If there was no security, and you caught no cheating, would you feel confident in saying there was no cheating? Let's even scale that up some. If there was little security, and you caught small amounts of cheating, would you feel confident in saying there was only small amounts of cheating? That's why I don't buy your reasoning to reduce the matter of uncaught votes to being as insignificant as some invisible leprechaun in your closet.

I'm not aware of the details on Texas increased oversight, but I would need to go by more than just ONE state and ONE election to determine the impact of increased security. I think that's fair not only because you're going by a small sample size, but then also what about states that have caught cheating or errors doing what most other states wouldn't do, i.e. a recount. Take Georgia for instance,
"For the record, Georgia recounts led to Trump adding thousands (around 2,300) to his vote count."
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmI'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that.
Such a case actually occurred twice in the last two presidential elections. They got caught each time, without a voter ID law.
You addressed one of my points but didn't address the other one. Do you agree that requiring voter ID can be used to deter voter impersonation?
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmIf your cases involved voter impersonation, then perhaps they were caught by poll workers doing extra work to catch them, and I mean work that wouldn't have ordinarily been done. So that's a hit and miss situation.
No, it was part of the procedure.
How were they caught? Were they caught immediately, as you'd expect if ID was required at the time of voting? Or were they caught later, perhaps even after the election? Provide sources, please.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:47 pmSure. And since we have abundant evidence for fraudulent practices that deny the vote to qualified voters, and very little evidence for fraudulent voting by unqualified voters, what is most needed is to crack down on crooked parties and politicians who are trying to restrict voting to stop qualified voters. Is that a fair point?
Your point would only be fair if the details weren't debatable. I'm still waiting for your proof that very little evidence of unqualified voters voting equates to small incidences of that happening. Either way, I think we can crack down on both scenarios. Why not, if no one is planning to cheat?
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #149

Post by The Barbarian »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm So in response, I asked for this,
"The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught."
So the first step in dealing with a problem is showing that there's a problem. So far no one can show me that there is. We have enough laws for stuff that's demonstrably real, without adding some to handle problems that so far, can be only shown to exist in some people's imaginations.
I'm specifically addressing voter fraud and how we can know how much is being committed. Bringing up Republicans suppressing votes or bringing up voter ID, does not answer my question.
As you know, voter suppression is the only instance of widespread voter fraud in the United States. If this is about reality, then shouldn't you address the problems that actually exist, first?
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmWhat I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud.
That's what you have to show us. It does no one's argument any good to say "I don't have any evidence, but I just know it's a problem."
I'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen.
"I'm not claiming that meteorite strikes injuring people are a big problem. I'm just stating that they can happen. So we need new laws and meteorite shields." Um, no.
I don't know how much of a problem or the number of cheating that goes uncaught. In contrast, you're making an absolute claim that would involve having absolute knowledge of cheating when you claimed all instances are caught.
Except, I didn't. Go back and take another look.
So far you've dodged your obligation to show how we can know that all cases are caught.
Would be so, if I made that claim. But I didn't.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmSecondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered.
No law should be passed absent a demonstrated need for it. Americanism 101.
However, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight.
Sounds like a testable claim. What is your evidence for that? Texas increased oversight in the 2020 election. No significant fraud was found. So the evidence we have is contrary to your assumption.
I mean just think of it logically. If there was no security, and you caught no cheating, would you feel confident in saying there was no cheating?
There is security. That's how they catch the people who do cheat. I'm just pointing out that the elaborate additional "security" implemented in Texas didn't catch more cheaters. Bottom line; more security didn't find more cheating.

That's why I don't buy your reasoning that more security means more people caught cheating. Better leprechaun detectors won't find you more leprechauns.
I'm not aware of the details on Texas increased oversight, but I would need to go by more than just ONE state and ONE election to determine the impact of increased security.
You could perhaps blunt the effect of this example, by showing one of the many states that did add "ballot security measures" that then turned up a lot of illegal voting. What do you have?
I think that's fair not only because you're going by a small sample size,
Over 11 million people voted in Texas. If you can't show what you think exists, in a sample of that size, how big a sample are you going to need?
but then also what about states that have caught cheating or errors doing what most other states wouldn't do, i.e. a recount. Take Georgia for instance,
"For the record, Georgia recounts led to Trump adding thousands (around 2,300) to his vote count."
Your link says the change was because the State of Georgia failed to count some ballots. I'm puzzled as to how you think "security" to prevent illegal voting would have assured that the republicans counting the votes would not have erred. I mean, they shorted their own candidate by failing to tally votes. I don't see how that could be considered intentional.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmI'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that.
Such a case actually occurred twice in the last two presidential elections. They got caught each time, without a voter ID law.
You addressed one of my points but didn't address the other one. Do you agree that requiring voter ID can be used to deter voter impersonation?
Texas tested that idea. Apparently not.
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:14 pmIf your cases involved voter impersonation, then perhaps they were caught by poll workers doing extra work to catch them, and I mean work that wouldn't have ordinarily been done. So that's a hit and miss situation.
No, it was part of the procedure.
How were they caught?
In one case, a check of the people voting turned up the same person twice. In another case, the absentee ballot was for a person who was dead. (His wife said she knew he would have voted for Trump)

One case was a person who claimed he was "just testing the voter security system." Can you guess who he voted for?
Were they caught immediately, as you'd expect if ID was required at the time of voting? Or were they caught later, perhaps even after the election? Provide sources, please.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... raudulent/

Here's an interesting report...
"Even True the Vote -- a controversial advocacy group that mines for examples of voter fraud -- claimed they have discovered only 1,264 "voter crime" convictions in the last two decades, the result of a year of exhaustive research of state and local records.

These "voter crime" convictions weren’t exclusively voter fraud, but also included voter intimidation, vote buying and registration fraud.. And the "vast majority" of these crimes happened in state and local elections, according to True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell. Those 1,264 vote crimes are out of over a billion votes cast."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-ch ... d=45021067

Sure. And since we have abundant evidence for fraudulent practices that deny the vote to qualified voters, and very little evidence for fraudulent voting by unqualified voters, what is most needed is to crack down on crooked parties and politicians who are trying to restrict voting to stop qualified voters. Is that a fair point?
Your point would only be fair if the details weren't debatable. I'm still waiting for your proof that very little evidence of unqualified voters voting equates to small incidences of that happening.
I fail to see how lack of evidence for a thing is evidence that it exists. I haven't seen any elephants in the park across from my house; are you telling me that I should put up an elephant fence because I can't prove there aren't any out there somewhere?
Either way, I think we can crack down on both scenarios.
Evidence from Texas says that's not the case. More "security" didn't translate to "more people caught cheating." There's a simple explanation for that.

Given that "ballot security" has been found by the courts to be used to suppress voting, the usual caution of "no law without a demonstrated need" is especially applicable here.


[/quote]

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: YOU'RE FIRED!

Post #150

Post by AgnosticBoy »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm So in response, I asked for this,
"The only evidence you've presented is instances where voter fraud is caught, but that doesn't tell me about how much isn't caught."
So the first step in dealing with a problem is showing that there's a problem. So far no one can show me that there is. We have enough laws for stuff that's demonstrably real, without adding some to handle problems that so far, can be only shown to exist in some people's imaginations.
If someone claims there is a problem, then they should demonstrate it. At the same time, if someone claims that there is NO problem of people not getting caught, then that claim needs to be validated, as well. Later on in your post, you mentioned Americanism 101, but perhaps you should also consider Logic 101, as well when it comes to burden of proof and arguments from ignorance.

My claim is that there could be a problem, as opposed to saying that there is or isn't. I'm wanting to know how can we know either way? Surely, taking away oversight and security that is meant to catch problems won't help us know that. Therefore, to test your claims and anyone elses, I propose we increase security. And if anything, what is wrong with having security anways? Security should be PROACTIVE and not just reactive.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmI'm specifically addressing voter fraud and how we can know how much is being committed. Bringing up Republicans suppressing votes or bringing up voter ID, does not answer my question.
As you know, voter suppression is the only instance of widespread voter fraud in the United States. If this is about reality, then shouldn't you address the problems that actually exist, first?
Logic 101. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there's no evidence of uncaught fraud, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like you've suggested, we can see if added security would catch more cheating. I've already presented evidence of cheating getting caught because of ADDED steps. If anything, security can also be PROACTIVE, so that alone is a reason to have security even if there was absolutely no evidence of fraud. Not having fraud now, doesn't mean there won't be fraud ever. Things and people can change for the worse.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmWhat I want to know is how we can have a fair assessment, or any assessment at all, when it comes to the amount of cheating via voter fraud.
That's what you have to show us. It does no one's argument any good to say "I don't have any evidence, but I just know it's a problem."
You're misrepresenting my claim. Here's my claim from the last post, "I'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen." You''re stating that they are not a problem, and that's also a claim that needs to be backed up. Saying that there's no evidence for it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmI'm not claiming that the uncaught cases are a big problem, I'm just stating that they can happen.
"I'm not claiming that meteorite strikes injuring people are a big problem. I'm just stating that they can happen. So we need new laws and meteorite shields." Um, no.
We don't need security just because I think uncaught cases are a big problem. It's only lately I've been using that point as a solution to the problem of knowing about uncaught cases. But I've also argued in earlier threads that security should also be PROACTIVE and not just reactive. Even if no one to date had committed voter impersonation, that doesn't mean that someone can't do it or won't try at some point in time. Security closes the door on that happen, but not having security leaves the door open for that to happen and not get caught.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmI don't know how much of a problem or the number of cheating that goes uncaught. In contrast, you're making an absolute claim that would involve having absolute knowledge of cheating when you claimed all instances are caught.
Except, I didn't. Go back and take another look.
You've said that almost all voter fraud cases are caught. Then you suggested that uncaught cases don't exist. You can't blame me for understanding your statements to be an absolute claim or as near to that as you can get.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmSo far you've dodged your obligation to show how we can know that all cases are caught.
Would be so, if I made that claim. But I didn't.
So how do you know about the number of uncaught cases? Do you now acknowledge that there can be voter fraud that goes uncaught? If so, how do you know what number or percentage of those cases out of all fraud cases?
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmSecondly, the strength your response about leprechauns is usually is based on the fact that if we can't evidence it or prove it, then it shouldn't be considered.
No law should be passed absent a demonstrated need for it. Americanism 101.
So by your logic, we need voter ID laws since voter impersonation has happened.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmHowever, in my scenario, I'm not referring to things that can't be proven. There is a way to catch even more cheating than what we're catching now, and that's with INCREASED security and oversight.
Sounds like a testable claim. What is your evidence for that? Texas increased oversight in the 2020 election. No significant fraud was found. So the evidence we have is contrary to your assumption.
That's a hasty conclusion. It's like going off of ONE study or preliminary results to draw conclusions. You made the same error when you posted ONE study showing how voter ID correlated with lower voter turnout, and then lo and behold, I brought you several other studies that showed the opposite effect and/or no effect. I would also say it would depend on type of security, as well.

For instance, Raquel Rodriguez was going door to door collecting mail-in ballots that she would turn in herself. After she saw what people were marking down for their votes, she was caught trying to get them to change it and offering gifts (trying to buy their vote??) in return. She probably targeted a lot of minorities, esp. in poorer areas, perhaps thinking that they'd be more susceptible to her efforts. Here's one source on that: here.

So with evidence of that occurrence, I would say we need increased security around poll workers or third party groups that going door to door collecting ballots (i.e. ballot harvesting). It's questionable if we should even allow ballot harvesting, but if so, then I'd want a witness, preferably from an opposing party, or body cams to record the interactions or to make sure that ballots are handed to the person already sealed.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmI mean just think of it logically. If there was no security, and you caught no cheating, would you feel confident in saying there was no cheating?
There is security. That's how they catch the people who do cheat. I'm just pointing out that the elaborate additional "security" implemented in Texas didn't catch more cheaters. Bottom line; more security didn't find more cheating.
Let's try to do some Security 101. As I mentioned before, there's nothing wrong with having added security, and that's true whether it be to test to see if it would catch more fraud or just to be PROACTIVE. If anything, proactive security alone can serve as a deterrent. I'd think someone wanting to do something bad, would be more unlikely to do it or it would make it harder for them to do it, if they knew there was more security. For instance, having a voter ID requirement. If someone tries to vote under someone else's name, then you can catch them on the spot.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmbut then also what about states that have caught cheating or errors doing what most other states wouldn't do, i.e. a recount. Take Georgia for instance,
"For the record, Georgia recounts led to Trump adding thousands (around 2,300) to his vote count."
Your link says the change was because the State of Georgia failed to count some ballots. I'm puzzled as to how you think "security" to prevent illegal voting would have assured that the republicans counting the votes would not have erred. I mean, they shorted their own candidate by failing to tally votes. I don't see how that could be considered intentional.
Who says it was just Republicans counting the votes? Who says that it wasn't intentional? It would seem someone had a way of knowing about the discrepancy by comparing the number of ballots casts with the final vote tally, and yet they chose to call the election WITHOUT addressing this discrepancy. The discrepancy wasn't addressed until there was a RECOUNT.

The line determining whether this was an error or not is a matter of intent, because someone could've very well intentionally not loaded up the ballots if they thought it would hurt the candidate they didn't want (although it did hurt Biden some, but it hurt Trump much more).

Here's another case involving a dead person voting and it took EXTRA work, in the form of investigations to catch (so far I've seen no updates from the investigation):
In a press conference on Nov. 7, Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski provided what he said was “one concrete example.”

Lewandowski pointed to an obituary for Denise Ondick of West Homestead in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, who died on Oct. 22. According to online records from the Pennsylvania Department of State, election officials received her application for a mail-in ballot on Oct. 23, and sent her a ballot the following day. Those records also show that her ballot was then received back by the county on Nov. 2, and that her vote was recorded.

The Philadelphia Inquirer got ahold of Ondick’s daughter, who said she helped her mother fill out an application for a mail-in ballot in early October, before she died of cancer. The daughter told the Inquirer she could not explain why the ballot had been sent in after her mother’s death, and that her father, Ondick’s husband, could not recall if he did anything with the ballot. The daughter said her mother had planned to vote for Trump.

Allegheny County officials said they will investigate the matter.
- Source: FactCheck.org
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmI'm not sure what cases you're referring to. I'm assuming we can agree that if there is a voter ID law in place, and someone tries to vote for someone else, then doing an ID check would catch that.
Such a case actually occurred twice in the last two presidential elections. They got caught each time, without a voter ID law.
You're getting off topic by not answering what I asked about. All that does is create a distraction. I asked specifically if voter ID requirement could catch voter impersonation, and not if there were other ways voter impersonation. Can you provide a straightforward answer to my question?
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmYou addressed one of my points but didn't address the other one. Do you agree that requiring voter ID can be used to deter voter impersonation?
Texas tested that idea. Apparently not.
I'm not asking about how many times it has deterred, but thinking about it theoretically. I can understand why some Democrats may not want to answer but this here is about logic, and not about partisanship. None of us are running for any political offices, right?! So here's a straightforward non-partisan question,
If someone walks in and tries to vote for someone else, would requiring them to show voter ID be a way to catch them?
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmHow were they caught?
In one case, a check of the people voting turned up the same person twice. In another case, the absentee ballot was for a person who was dead. (His wife said she knew he would have voted for Trump)
Were they caught immediately, as you'd expect if ID was required at the time of voting? Or were they caught later, perhaps even after the election? Provide sources, please.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... raudulent/
One case from your source did not involve voter impersonation but just someone voting twice by voting in two different states. The second case regarding someone signing the dead spouse's absentee ballot was discovered through a "manual" (meaning people are checking it themselves, and not computer) processing procedure called 'canvassing'. This process doesn't usually completed weeks AFTER election night and it's one of the steps before election results are certified.. For more information on 'canvassing' by each state read here. So far, you've only presented TWO cases of voter impersonation being caught without voter ID, but this could have easily been overlooked, especially by partisan election workers, which was done in the Denise Ondick case that I posted earlier in this post. Voter ID would've made it easier to catch this situation, and quicker, or in fact why not have BOTH canvassing and voter ID. That's more layers of security and it would reduce the chances of anything being missed - Security 101.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am Here's an interesting report...
"Even True the Vote -- a controversial advocacy group that mines for examples of voter fraud -- claimed they have discovered only 1,264 "voter crime" convictions in the last two decades, the result of a year of exhaustive research of state and local records.

These "voter crime" convictions weren’t exclusively voter fraud, but also included voter intimidation, vote buying and registration fraud.. And the "vast majority" of these crimes happened in state and local elections, according to True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell. Those 1,264 vote crimes are out of over a billion votes cast."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-ch ... d=45021067
This falls into my point earlier. If you have little to no security, then you should expect to "discover" little to no fraud. But that doesn't mean that no fraud or small amounts of fraud exists, but rather it could just mean you have inadequate security to catch it. Besides that, I wouldn't frame the issue of if security is needed based on what we've caught. I'd also go by what can potentially happen. So in that sense, security should also be PROACTIVE. Proactive security alone could serve as a deterrent or at least make it harder to cheat. Again, this is basic security.
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:40 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pm Your point would only be fair if the details weren't debatable. I'm still waiting for your proof that very little evidence of unqualified voters voting equates to small incidences of that happening.
I fail to see how lack of evidence for a thing is evidence that it exists. I haven't seen any elephants in the park across from my house; are you telling me that I should put up an elephant fence because I can't prove there aren't any out there somewhere?
What you're failing to see is that lack of evidence is NOT evidence that a thing doesn't exist. While it is very unlikely that you'll ever see elephants near your house (assuming you're in America which is not part of the natural habitat for elephants), but it is not as unlikely for there to be voter fraud since voter fraud has happened. In fact, instead of saying that uncaught voter fraud is not as unlikely, I'd rather say we don't even know the liklihood of it given that we may not have adequate security to catch most errors to begin with. This is why as one remedy I brought up a comparison of what caught using ADDED procedures (procedures that not all states would ordinarily do) since those instances would've gone uncaught via the regular protocols, especially if you're talking about having LESS protocols (oversight and security) in place.

If anything else, I see nothing wrong with having lots of security just to have lots of security. Security should not just be reactive, but it should also be proactive.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply