Anyone Want a $1000 - Simply Prove Voter Fraud in Minn

That's why the ACLU is involved... because the Republicans pushing for laws like this one are either clueless or intentionally attempting to limit the amount of Democratic votes.

I agree with the ACLU, you two apparently don't. I'm not Republican, you two are. I say you two are either lying or are genuinely clueless about the methods and means of disenfranchisement in this case.

That said, if the idea of every vote counts is paramount to you then it's necessary for you two to say you support funding for programs and agencies that will ensure the integrity of the voting system. Otherwise, I'd come to the conclusion that the integrity of the voting system isn't your primary concern.

So let's hear you two say it, let's hear you say; "The integrity of the voting system is our primary concern, therefore we support funding for programs and agencies that will ensure it's integrity."

 

Having a legitimate election should be everyone's concern
If just anyone can walk into a polling place & claim to be whoever they want you to believe they are the integrity of the system should be called into question.

 

26 felons to possibly 113 or so unknowns (info not provided) voting out of 3.9 million votes cast, at worst a roughly 1:35,000 vote ratio.

Disenfranchisement issues are far, far more serious an issue, and the ACLU agrees with me.

 

A free, easily obtainable picture ID would have eliminated those known instances as well as an untold number of unknown cases of fraud.

 

I understand you claim it's free in your state, but is it free in Minnesota? What requirements must be met for someone to obtain one in Minnesota? Who can apply? Who will be denied and for what reason?

As I've mentioned earlier, my son had to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop to get his photo ID, and again through those same hoops to get his driver's license. The requirements here in Michigan make getting a photo ID anything but "easily obtainable".

I agree, a photo ID has merit, but I have to ask myself what the cost is to democracy? IMO, the net-benefit (stronger certainty of less illegal votes) doesn't outweigh the net-cost (less legal votes allowed to be cast).

 

Even if there's a price, it's a small price to pay to preserve the integrity of our voting process.

 

So that's a 'yes' to funding programs resulting from the policies that would create agencies or retask existing agencies to ensure the integrity of the voting system? ...Or just to the photo ID thing?

 

Photo ID's should be required before casting a vote. They are easy to obtain & serve as a deterent to voter fraud.

 

You have made one assumption that is critical to your conclusions. You are assuming that all parties involved with fraud have been convicted. My assumption would be that you would be very lucky to have caught 1 in 10. My guess is that you assumption would be untenable. After all, there are a further 112 cases awaiting trial. I doubt that I could prove my assumption either, but mine is at least plausible.

BTW, the last time you posted it, there were only 2.9 million votes cast. Are you trying to infer something?

 

I was hoping you'd ask. You've made some innuendos about the true number of illegal votes, that each case may represent more than one vote and therefore the number of illegal votes may be much higher than they appear... but that's all it's been so far...innuendo. Do you have any additional information that may be relevant?

"3.9" was an unintentional error on my part. 2.9 million votes were cast. "Are you trying to infer something?" doesn't make sense for you to ask since you are pointing out an error ...unless you are attempting the same.

 

I made no even hint that "EACH case may represent more than one vote". But, it only take one case of many voters to add a bunch to the balance of single voters. That said, I would find it extremely odd that of the 200+ cases, each one only dealt with a single voter. And, no, I do not intend to review each case to determine the number of voters involved.

As for the 2.9 vs.3.9, it was supposed to be a joke. Apparently it went over your head.

 

...anyway, the idea is that the total number of illegal votes is unknown. That begs the question of limits, as to how many are likely illegal out of the 2.9 million. What limit would you say is reasonable to expect from the 300-odd possible cases you mentioned? 300 votes? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? More? My argument is that it is more likely than not that it is less than 500. My evidence states 26 individual cases, all from felons, and I have seen no evidence to indicate anything other than individual voters voting illegally.

To be honest, there are tons of other points I can make, including the intent to keep blacks, college kids, and other young people from voting because they tend to vote Democratic. I can also site more on how felons have played their part in this debate. For the record: I don't have any issues with the idea of a felon voting. If you feel this is nuts by all means feel free to try to convince me otherwise. I'll listen. But I believe I'm beating a dead horse here and am considering leaving it at that. Unless you can bring something to my attention that may have merit.

 

And just how many cases went uncovered? Remember, if only 312 votes were changed, the Senate would not have been filibuster proof and there would have been no Obamacare.

 

The small number of felons that have been found to vote without having the right to vote even after they have paid their debt to society is so far beyond inconsequential compared to the millions of people across the country that would be disenfranchised simply because they were unable to put together the "proper' paperwork before an election was held even though they are legally able to vote.
If the Right was actually concerned about the integrity of the vote as they claim, why would a handful of illegal votes count more than the millions that are disenfranchised by the restrictions they want to put in place? It makes NO sense if they are actually concerned about the accuracy, integrity, or the will of the people's vote. NONE!!
So either come up with a more convincing lie or get out of my face.

 

It's been a while and I don't see that the ACLU has had to shell out yet. I think it's pretty clear that the problem for the RW is not voter fraud, to the extent that it exists at all, and it's certainly not election fraud. The problem for them is people who tend not to vote Republican.

 

Somehow the common sense aspect of this issue has been lost on the leftists.
The leftists here want to immediately jump into the hyperbole & rhetoric but can't answer 1 single simple question:

Why is it so wrong to expect one to identify oneself at the polling place?

 

I know it's bad manners to answer a question with a question, but here's one. Why do you insist on devoting resources to a problem that you have not proved even exists? Don't you know we're broke?

 

I agree with Moen. I ask myself which is more likely to produce skewed results in an election in Minnesota: A handful of felons voting illegally or the disenfranchised as a result of the proposed law.

The few cases of illegal votes says more about felon rights than anything. IMO felons were stripped of their right to vote in a previous disenfranchisement law and the few votes they attempted to cast have now given Republicans an excuse (unwarranted IMO) to make a new disenfranchisement law that will again affect the outcome in their favor.

My conclusion is that the Republican party is manipulating the less informed people in Minnesota (and other states) into voting for laws that strengthen the Republican chances of winning there.

Anyone truly concerned about justice or liberty or democracy in America should be horrified at this manipulation of our voting system.

 

Why would anyone be disenfranchised simply by requiring proper ID?

 

I think we need international observers since we ourselves apparently can't keep things honest.