Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

Its always worked for me in the past.

AustonT wrote:Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

Can you explain how that characterizes my position?

repeated more than once since I posted it. Including in a post you responded to.

AustonT wrote:
He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Interesting. Would the voter ID laws stop fraud of that kind? If the illegally-registered voter had to show a driver's license, would it prevent them from voting? It doesn't appear so. Manchu has not said there has been no voter fraud. He's said that it doesn't appear to happen in any real numbers, to which your instance looks like contrary evidence. He has also argued that voter ID laws will not actually do anything to stop real voter fraud. Which looks like might still be true, at least in the case of Colorado.

Well to preface I've never actually said I support voter ID laws because I don't. If the same system UNCHANGED from the current ID system in Colorado continues then Voter IDs would do absolutely nothing. The fraud here is persons not legally able to vote do not have their citizenship (and therefor right to vote) verified, if that isn't fixed a voter ID is useless.

Manchu wrote:You are asking me to prove that you have no evidence? I won't accept that burden.

I'll fix that for you

Manchu wrote:ITT I will ignore any and all evidence of voter fraud, and continue to espouse my belief that it does not occur.

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Oh look an illustration,
/Responds to post
/Doesn't notice that the rest of the post above directly relates

AustonT, I don't understand what argument you are trying to make. The picture that you posted is not loading on my computer so maybe that is the issue.

As to the registration of non-citizen voters, the article that I posted in response actually directly responds to those kinds of claims.

Manchu wrote:AustonT, I don't understand what argument you are trying to make. The picture that you posted is not loading on my computer so maybe that is the issue.

As to the registration of non-citizen voters, the article that I posted in response actually directly responds to those kinds of claims.

It's a rather fetching Chimpanzee with his fingers in his ears.

Are you referring to the Brennen report?

Yes, I am referring to the Brennan Center journal article.

Manchu wrote:Yes, I am referring to the Brennan Center journal article.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/without-proof-the-unpersuasive-case-against-voter-identification

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/10/new-myths-on-voter-id

If you want to quote liberal think tanks, I suppose that conservative think tanks can refute them.

The first link is critical of a "report" that is not even mentioned in the article I am referencing. Please take a look at the article I posted on pages 18 - 20.

The second link conflates voter fraud generally with in-person voter fraud that might be addressed, if such fraud existed, by voter ID requirements. You have also, unsuccessfully, deployed this misleading conflation against me. The Heritage Foundation goes on to criticize the Brennan Center's identification of who will actually be disenfranchised. I have said repeatedly that disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters is only hypothetical.

Manchu wrote:The first link is critical of a "report" that is not even mentioned in the article I am referencing. Please take a look at the article I posted on pages 18 - 20.

The second link conflates voter fraud generally with in-person voter fraud that might be addressed, if such fraud existed, by voter ID requirements. You have also, unsuccessfully, deployed this misleading conflation against me. The Heritage Foundation goes on to criticize the Brennan Center's identification of who will actually be disenfranchised. I have said repeatedly that disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters is only hypothetical.

The first link is for the original Brennan Center report titled "Citizens Without Proof" which the BC then Repackaged and is refuted in the second link.

This report concludes that voter ID laws have no impact on turn out.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3260864
This one concludes that Voter ID laws increased voter turn out in Democratic majority districts
http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf
which is weird....because it's hosted by Brennan, the same center that produced a report that said Voter IDs disenfranchise voters.
And Robert Pastor had both testified and written that Voter IDs combat fraud and don't disenfranchise voters
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/LPS107910/LPS107910/www.usccr.gov/pubs/voterfraud102408.pdf
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf
You know Robert Pastor that conservative wing nut associated with the Carter and Clinton administrations and serves as a Senior Fellow at the Carter Center.

AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on the last page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

I have yet to read in any of your links an example of someone committing fraud in a manner that would be addressed by these law that cannot be explained as someone not committing voter fraud in manner that would be addressed by these laws.

You can tell me that there are studies showing that voter ID requirements do not disenfranchise eligible voters as much as you want. I am still not arguing that they do, except hypothetically.

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagree with his position.

No justice, no peace.

Report it using the yellow triangle.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

The only examples provided have been of fraud which requiring a driver's license to be shown would not have stopped or caught. I'm all for making it clearer to people that you need to be a citizen to vote, and putting some kind of safeguard in to prevent noncitizens from voting, but these laws wouldn't solve that problem. They're a waste of time and money.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

The only examples provided have been of fraud which requiring a driver's license to be shown would not have stopped or caught. I'm all for making it clearer to people that you need to be a citizen to vote, and putting some kind of safeguard in to prevent noncitizens from voting, but these laws wouldn't solve that problem. They're a waste of time and money.

As I have previously stated: I do not support Voter ID laws. I simply have been pointing out that whist Manchu has been sticking to his guns about how voter fraud never happens and voter ID laws "hypothetically" disenfranchise people that niether is true. Voter fraud has occured, and in the real corporial world(even in this country *shock*) research rather than opinion has shown that disenfranchisement has not occured.
I heartily agree that showing a drivers licence to vote wouldn't fix registering to vote through the bloody DMV that doesn't check for eligibility, if anything it encourages it. I'm not even sure if I have presented what I think should be done. I''m about 99.99% sure I haven't. What I have said is I have no sympathy for disenfranchising illegal immigrants(dur), that voter fraud occurs, and that Voter IDs are niether unreasonable nor disenfranchise voters. Whether they are effective or not. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for proof that a person has the RIGHT to vote, either during registration or voting or both. Becuase if the act of confirming someone has the right to a franchise disenfranchizes someone...well I kind of feel like that explains itself. If the only time you have to "show your papers" (cringe) is at the poll, I feel a balance of freedom and democracy is maintained.

AustonT wrote:What I have said is I have no sympathy for disenfranchising illegal immigrants(dur),

No one here disagrees on that. However fear of illegal immigrants voting (even if justified) does seem to be used to drum up support for these laws, which would not actually prevent illegal immigrants from voting. As someone noted, that smacks of pandering for political advantage, rather than taking real steps to fix a real problem.

AustonT wrote:that voter fraud occurs,

Albeit not in a way that is addressed by these laws. Manchu and Holder (and me) have argued that the crime which the pro-ID law activists have been simulating does not seem to actually occur. Not that no voter fraud ever occurs anywhere.

AustonT wrote:and that Voter IDs are niether unreasonable nor disenfranchise voters. Whether they are effective or not.

If they don't fix a problem, and they cost taxpayer money, that makes them an unreasonable waste of time.

If they dissuade any legimate eligible voters from voting, then that also makes them unreasonable. Manchu has conceded for the sake of argument/discussion that the disenfranchisement of these poor/elderly/college student voters is hypothetical/unproven. I'm not sure. I don't think these laws are purely political theater. I suspect that they are intended to put at least a minor hurdle in the way of demographics who overwhelmingly vote Dem, while pandering to fear of illegal immigrants. They look like laws written with cynical political intent, particularly because they don't address the actual voter fraud that apparently happens out there.

AustonT wrote:I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for proof that a person has the RIGHT to vote, either during registration or voting or both.

I could potentially get behind requiring documentation of eligibility at the time of registration.

Seaward wrote:
You seem to be in the camp that believes claiming voter fraud has happened in the US before is silly..

As a result of having voter fraud occur in the past, we have laws which make it a crime that are well enforced.

Truthfully, I think the best course of action given the OP story would be to find, arrest, and charge the person in the video with voter fraud, and O'Keefe with conspiracy.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagree with his position.

No justice, no peace.

Report it using the yellow triangle.

No, I don't think so.
Just surprised.

If you don't want to use the official channels of complaint it is probably a good idea not to complain via the open forums because that might make you look disingenuous.

Perhaps the impression exists that complaining against a Mod is not worth the effort. The fact that a Mod makes those posts implies Mod approval.

We don't actually think much less act with a single brain.

Everyone knows we do it with no brains at all.

CptJake wrote:Perhaps the impression exists that complaining against a Mod is not worth the effort. The fact that a Mod makes those posts implies Mod approval.

As it is the complaining poster plays fast and loose with forum rules on his own (Mormonism is a fraudulent religion, apparently), so I'm not sure he has room to complain. It reeks of the double standards he claims to abhor ever so much, and further plays into the victim narrative that pervades most of his posts. Complaining because someone was a bit snarky to him is throwing rocks in a glass house.

That said, people have lost, or given up, moderator status (for whatever reason). So it seems somewhat odd to think complaining necessarily falls on deaf ears.

Manchu wrote:We don't actually think much less act with a single brain.

Everyone knows we do it with no brains at all.

Then obviously being a MOD on Dakka is a stepping stone to being in Congress!!

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Then obviously being a MOD on Dakka is a stepping stone to being in Congress!!

As a Republican, sure.

Hey, there are intelligent Republicans! I think you meant with a Tea Party endorsement.

And so now the Mods are insulting and dismissive of political parties they disagree with...

Gee, no wonder there is so much faith in them actually being impartial Moderators....

You actually thought there was such a thing as an impartial moderator?

That was a mistake.

Monster Rain wrote:You actually thought there was such a thing as an impartial moderator?

That was a mistake.

I didn't mean to imply I thought that.

I'm not hating on anyone, but no one is impartial.