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 pmThe 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.