Will Trump be impeached? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Will Trump be impeached?

Yes
12
26%
No
30
64%
Other
5
11%
#14753028
NeoYeo wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Voter fraud exists because you can't prove it doesn't."

Voter fraud exists because there are known cases where people have been convicted. Even the website you linked doesn't claim that voter fraud doesn't exist.

NeoYeo wrote:
If voter fraud was a widespread issue, then scientific studies on the matter would show so. I just spent a few minutes going through what conservatives say is voter fraud, and not a single issue would have been resolves with voter ID. Most of them have to do with mail in ballots, where a photo ID is not required. Or instances where if it is occurring, we can prevent it using other methods which don't prevent living, actual people from voting.

My favorite part about this idea that somehow voter fraud will be what prevents some machine from stealing an election is that, for some reason, the only thing that such a political machine can't do is produce fake ID's. You know, that thing many college kids have. Give me a fucking break.

Does the term scientific convey magical powers?

The true number of any crime tends to be higher than the number of cases that come to our attention, and the number of convictions will usually be even lower. We often try to estimate the real number and while this is always problematic, we can get at least some information if there are victims. For victimless crimes our estimates are often not much better than a mere guess.

Let me ask you if you believe that the number of white collar crimes that we have evidence for reflects the real number.

My favourite part is the idea that since there will always be some crime we must change the system in such a way that committing crime is even easier. Let's open up the system for abuse!
#14753143
Voter fraud does not exist on a scale where it actually changes something like the Presidential election. It's so rare that the vote count is close enough for a few fraudulent votes to matter, especially compared to the harm done by preventing people from voting.

The true number of any crime tends to be higher than the number of cases that come to our attention, and the number of convictions will usually be even lower. We often try to estimate the real number and while this is always problematic, we can get at least some information if there are victims. For victimless crimes our estimates are often not much better than a mere guess.


Yep, and these are facts and statistics which studies look at and do their best to account for. But again, the rate of voter fraud is so pathetically low, that it is not worth the concern it is given.

My favourite part is the idea that since there will always be some crime we must change the system in such a way that committing crime is even easier. Let's open up the system for abuse!


That would be funny, if anyone said it. There are numerous methods and safeguards we can put in place, which do not go out of the way to prevent people from legally voting, which safeguard from voter fraud. We have many of those methods in place already, and it's one reason why voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. We will never make it impossible for the occasional fraudulent vote from happening, but we can rather easily make it so significant amount of people can't vote, as they are legally entitled to. We could reduce the rates of rape in this country if we automatically took the DNA and the fingerprints of every person, and then actively tracked all their movements. But I'm sure you would object to that.

*edit*

I will acknowledge that I have been slightly sloppy. I never meant to say that voter fraud never, ever, ever happens. Only that the rate of which it happens is minuscule. If we wanna say that we only detect 1/2000 instances, then that still means there has only been like 30,000 fraudulent votes in the past two decades. Still not significant enough to have an effect. Meanwhile, well more than 30,000 people were prevented from voting this election alone.
#14754553
NeoYeo wrote:Voter fraud does not exist on a scale where it actually changes something like the Presidential election. It's so rare that the vote count is close enough for a few fraudulent votes to matter, especially compared to the harm done by preventing people from voting.

The real scale is unknown and unknowable. Even if you surveyed people and asked whether they have ever voted illegally, the assumption that people will tend to tell the truth is questionable and you possibly underestimate the real number. You certainly cannot extrapolate from known cases where evidence exists to the real number.

In the US there are a few thousand cases of hate crime reported every year, but according to the BJS, based on a survey of victims, the estimated number is around 200,000.

NeoYeo wrote:Yep, and these are facts and statistics which studies look at and do their best to account for. But again, the rate of voter fraud is so pathetically low, that it is not worth the concern it is given.

Researchers "doing their best" or "best available evidence" are weasel words that are supposed to give us confidence in the result. There is no way of knowing whether this is good enough. Science is not magic.

NeoYeo wrote:That would be funny, if anyone said it. There are numerous methods and safeguards we can put in place, which do not go out of the way to prevent people from legally voting, which safeguard from voter fraud. We have many of those methods in place already, and it's one reason why voter fraud is extraordinarily rare. We will never make it impossible for the occasional fraudulent vote from happening, but we can rather easily make it so significant amount of people can't vote, as they are legally entitled to. We could reduce the rates of rape in this country if we automatically took the DNA and the fingerprints of every person, and then actively tracked all their movements. But I'm sure you would object to that.

The idea that requiring people to prove their eligibility means going out of the way to prevent them from voting is one of those distortions of reality that are so common nowadays. It is not surprising then that you would try to equate it with taking DNA samples and fingerprints of everybody.

It's not only a matter of whether actual election fraud is happening but also of the confidence in and credibility of the election process itself.

Image
Image
From here.

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]