[PataOneil]

So you can't explain to me why you are so scared of a fictitious problem?

[wat0n]

So you can't explain to me why you are so scared of a fictitious problem?

For the same reason other countries have more restrictive gun laws than the US.

[PataOneil]

That seems unlikely. Two different topics. One is your fear of a fictitious voting problem, here in the USA... The other is another country banning guns.

Why are you trying so hard to hide your reason for being afraid of this fantasy voting problem?

[MadMonk]

That seems unlikely. Two different topics. One is your fear of a fictitious voting problem, here in the USA... The other is another country banning guns.

Why are you trying so hard to hide your reason for being afraid of this fantasy voting problem?

Why are his motives in question here? wat0n does not want do disenfranchise voters, he wants to remove this as an incendiary subject.

In most developed countries this is not an issue because we have Voter ID laws. The US is retarded and there is no doubt that if general voting were to be promoted to all citizens and everyone given free ID, hardcore racists would find another avenue of keeping undesirables from voting. Only the next time they would have to find even more stupid shit where they can't point to everyone else and say 'They already do it, so should we!'.

[PataOneil]

Are you like a body guard or something?

Have you read the thread?

In the US we provide ID when we register to vote, so voter ID is not necessary and it's only real use to to prevent people from voting.

I don't know what Wat0n's motivations are concerning this topic, which is why I'm asking. Seems a really straight forward way to go about things to me.

[wat0n]

You're repeating yourself, you said there are no known voter fraud rings that would simply send people to vote presenting other voters' registration data. But that is not a reason to simply refuse to prevent it from happening in the future, just like gun control laws exist to prevent people from doing bad things with them even if these don't happen often.

[PataOneil]

So, why are you so scared it's going to happen after two hundred some odd years of it not happening?

And the fact that it doesn't happen is a very good reason not to worry about it.

Which is why I want to know why you are so intent on making an issue of it when there are a lot of actual problems with our elections that are real.

[wat0n]

So, why are you so scared it's going to happen after two hundred some odd years of it not happening?

And the fact that it doesn't happen is a very good reason not to worry about it.

Which is why I want to know why you are so intent on making an issue of it when there are a lot of actual problems with our elections that are real.

Because the US has had electoral controversies before (again, the 1876 election - the controversy was largely about the results in the electoral college in some states) and that's not a good thing.

That's it, and it's not controversial elsewhere by the way.

[PataOneil]

Who cares about elsewhere? It's not controversial elsewhere to severely restrict gun ownership. You are using a logical fallacy when you try and make such arguments. It's an informal fallacy usually called the "Bandwagon" fallacy. It's also a formal fallacy... known commonly as the "Bad Reason" fallacy.

The USA has a lot of electoral controversies. No need to make up fake ones.

Why are you so intent on supporting a fake controversy? You still haven't managed to answer that question in any reasoning way.

[wat0n]

Who cares about elsewhere? It's not controversial elsewhere to severely restrict gun ownership. You are using a logical fallacy when you try and make such arguments. It's an informal fallacy usually called the "Bandwagon" fallacy. It's also a formal fallacy... known commonly as the "Bad Reason" fallacy.

The USA has a lot of electoral controversies. No need to make up fake ones.

Why are you so intent on supporting a fake controversy? You still haven't managed to answer that question in any reasoning way.

It's not a "fake controversy" to say one wants to make it impossible for the same rings you alluded to to appear sometime in the future

[PataOneil]

It is a fake controversy because no such rings exist or have existed. Nor have I "alluded" that they exist. I asked YOU if there was that kind of problem and you acknowledged there isn't. We have laws to deal with anyone who tries to vote fraudulently... We actually identify each and every voter during the registration process. Yet you want to support this fakery while acknowledging other far more pressing electoral problems actually exist... while condoning them. Even if you are confused as to our actual electoral problems regulation and disposition.

Fairies could appear sometime in the future. Why aren't you advocating that we determine their status now?

I have to say, it seems to me that you are trying your best to hide your true motives here. You seem concerned about something besides electoral integrity... in fact have simply dismissed the actual problems we have in that regard. All to pursue a fake problem.

Is there something here you don't want to discuss that actually factors into this debate? Because IDing voters is a done deal.

[wat0n]

It is a fake controversy because no such rings exist or have existed. Nor have I "alluded" that they exist. I asked YOU if there was that kind of problem and you acknowledged there isn't. We have laws to deal with anyone who tries to vote fraudulently... We actually identify each and every voter during the registration process. Yet you want to support this fakery while acknowledging other far more pressing electoral problems actually exist... while condoning them. Even if you are confused as to our actual electoral problems regulation and disposition.

Fairies could appear sometime in the future. Why aren't you advocating that we determine their status now?

So in your view, the US shouldn't take preventive measures to keep the credibility of its election system in place, even though as I mentioned there have been other controversial elections in the past (I already mentioned 1876, I could add 1960 if you want too). This is like saying you shouldn't have a fence around your house, just because there is no crime in your neighborhood at the moment.

I have to say, it seems to me that you are trying your best to hide your true motives here. You seem concerned about something besides electoral integrity... in fact have simply dismissed the actual problems we have in that regard. All to pursue a fake problem.

I didn't say the other problems shouldn't be dealt with.

As for my motives, sorry, but I'm not an American citizen. I don't have a hidden political motive if you are wondering. If I could have voted in the last election, I'd have voted Biden if anything. That doesn't mean I don't understand how toxic is it to have a part of the electorate claiming there's election fraud.

Is there something here you don't want to discuss that actually factors into this debate? Because IDing voters is a done deal.

No, it's not once even you admit it's possible for someone to vote using someone else's registration documents.

If you are concerned about voters not being able to afford the IDs, then make them free and include them as part of the registration documents as is done abroad (and no, it's not a bandwagon fallacy to mention this). Or make the usual state or federal IDs free, and hand them out to everyone.

[PataOneil]

"So in your view, the US shouldn't take preventive measures to keep the credibility of its election system in place, even though as I mentioned there have been other controversial elections in the past (I already mentioned 1876, I could add 1960 if you want too). "

Yeah, I never said that. But we actually have problem with our elections. IDing voters is not one of them. We do ID voters... as I've explained several times. US election simply are not credible now... for a variety of reasons.


"No, it's not once even you admit it's possible for someone to vote using someone else's registration documents.

If you are concerned about voters not being able to afford the IDs, then make them free and include them as part of the registration documents as is done abroad (and no, it's not a bandwagon fallacy to mention this). Or make the usual state or federal IDs free, and hand them out to everyone."

It is possible... but it rarely happens in the USA... because we figure it's safer to know where the person lives than it is to trust an ID that can also be faked. That is why we do the identification at the registration level. You are mistaken if you think that voters in the USA can vote without having identified themselves.

"I didn't say the other problems shouldn't be dealt with.

As for my motives, sorry, but I'm not an American citizen. I don't have a hidden political motive if you are wondering. If I could have voted in the last election, I'd have voted Biden if anything. That doesn't mean I don't understand how toxic is it to have a part of the electorate claiming there's election fraud."

US elections are really bad. What is happening with Voter ID in the US is not part of the problem... it's a way to avoid the other problems... and make them worse.

For the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Other than personality differences there just isn't that much difference between Biden and Trump. They both serve a small rich group of sociopaths who are actively destroying our democracy... and the environment.

As far as I'm concerned everyone should be able to vote... children... prisoners... crazy people. And they should be able to vote as many times as they want. The reason I think this is better than restricting voting rights is that statistically the kooks would tend to cancel each other out. And once you put a bureaucracy in place those folks will tend to xenophobic ideas and do their best to restrict voting... based on class, ethnicity, political leanings... which in my view is worse than people voting as much as they want to... even on the same issue.

[wat0n]

Yeah, I never said that. But we actually have problem with our elections. IDing voters is not one of them. We do ID voters... as I've explained several times. US election simply are not credible now... for a variety of reasons.

You ID them at one stage, yes, but not throughout the process. Also, registration may as well become automatic at some point.

It is possible... but it rarely happens in the USA... because we figure it's safer to know where the person lives than it is to trust an ID that can also be faked. That is why we do the identification at the registration level. You are mistaken if you think that voters in the USA can vote without having identified themselves.

The issue of faking IDs can only get you so far though, for starters getting a fake ID is not all that cheap to begin with... And, there are ways to make faking documents harder. One way is for the voter to put his or her fingerprint when voting (at least where I come from, it's how it's done).

US elections are really bad. What is happening with Voter ID in the US is not part of the problem... it's a way to avoid the other problems... and make them worse.

For the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Other than personality differences there just isn't that much difference between Biden and Trump. They both serve a small rich group of sociopaths who are actively destroying our democracy... and the environment.

As far as I'm concerned everyone should be able to vote... children... prisoners... crazy people. And they should be able to vote as many times as they want. The reason I think this is better than restricting voting rights is that statistically the kooks would tend to cancel each other out. And once you put a bureaucracy in place those folks will tend to xenophobic ideas and do their best to restrict voting... based on class, ethnicity, political leanings... which in my view is worse than people voting as much as they want to... even on the same issue.

How would you make sure, then, that people just don't code a script to vote several times over?

[late]

So in your view, the US shouldn't take preventive measures to keep the credibility of its election system in place, even though as I mentioned there have been other controversial elections in the past (I already mentioned 1876, I could add 1960 if you want too).

While Republicans are destroying the credibility of the election process, it's utterly schizophrenic to pretend we need fake measures to 'preserve' it, when in fact it's part of the Republican war on democracy...



Btw, if by 1960 you mean the JFK win, you would be wrong. Nixon sent teams of lawyers to dozens of states hoping to find irregularities on which he could base a suit to challenge the election. He found nothing. A team of historians went over the 1960 Chicago election, and also found nothing.

Which leaves 1876, which is ironic. It's funny because the racists got what they wanted. Looks like that is happening again..

[PataOneil]

"wat0n"]You ID them at one stage, yes, but not throughout the process. Also, registration may as well become automatic at some point."

And it has never been a problem to do it that way.


"The issue of faking IDs can only get you so far though, for starters getting a fake ID is not all that cheap to begin with... And, there are ways to make faking documents harder. One way is for the voter to put his or her fingerprint when voting (at least where I come from, it's how it's done)."

You were just questioning me about what was possible. It's just as possible to fake an ID as it is misuse a voter registration. Doesn't solve the problem that isn't there that we've been discussing.


"How would you make sure, then, that people just don't code a script to vote several times over?"

Because that would be available to all sides of the vote. I'm not saying it's the absolute best way to go... but it's better than letter a human bureaucracy decide.

[wat0n]

And it has never been a problem to do it that way.

For now.

You were just questioning me about what was possible. It's just as possible to fake an ID as it is misuse a voter registration. Doesn't solve the problem that isn't there that we've been discussing.

But it's not possible to fake a fingerprint put using indelible ink, at least as far as I'm aware.

Because that would be available to all sides of the vote. I'm not saying it's the absolute best way to go... but it's better than letter a human bureaucracy decide.

But then wouldn't it turn into a DDoS war between the different candidates?

[Drlee]

I am a conservative and a Republican. I have absolutely no fear in answering @PataOneil 's perfectly reasonable question. There are three reasons for having voter ID laws in the places where they have been proposed:

1. To make it harder for people who generally are politically opposed to the Republican Party candidates to vote.

2. To pander to the irrational fears of Republican Party members. Fears that have been stoked by lies from many of my fellow Republicans, thereby creating a siege attitude amongst the less intelligent Republican voters.

3. To support the anti-immigrant narrative that the Republican Party is selling and to highlight what the Republicans want to cast as an "Open Borders" position on the part of Democrats.

The truth, logic and racial equality have absolutely nothing to do with these laws.

Does that answer your question?

Many Republicans are simply not swift enough to understand this or racist enough to not oppose it if they do understand at some level.

[wat0n]

While Republicans are destroying the credibility of the election process, it's utterly schizophrenic to pretend we need fake measures to 'preserve' it, when in fact it's part of the Republican war on democracy...



Btw, if by 1960 you mean the JFK win, you would be wrong. Nixon sent teams of lawyers to dozens of states hoping to find irregularities on which he could base a suit to challenge the election. He found nothing. A team of historians went over the 1960 Chicago election, and also found nothing.

Indeed, although IIRC the big one actually happened in Texas too, given that the South was not necessarily Republican at the time.

Which leaves 1876, which is ironic. It's funny because the racists got what they wanted. Looks like that is happening again..

And they got what they wanted because the whole situation forced an agreement where a Republican President would let them do as they pleased in the South.

[PataOneil]

For now.



But it's not possible to fake a fingerprint put using indelible ink, at least as far as I'm aware.



But then wouldn't it turn into a DDoS war between the different candidates?

Plenty of actual problems to deal with in the electoral process without distracting from them to handle problems that aren't. What you doing is similar to trying to convince a stage 3 lung cancer victim to wear sunscreen before treating the cancer... when the lung cancer victim is a shut in that never goes outside.

Any ID can be faked. Intelligence services do it all the time. We have a whole program here in the USA called the witness protection program. That issues members false ids that are just as good as the ones issued in the first place. So you are still just trading one uncertainty for another... to deal with a fantasy problem.

Every system has holes. The question is do you want to restrict voting or allow it. As I've said, it's my personal opinion that it is better not to restrict voting. You could also simply require people to vote in person. Which would still permit them to vote as many times as they wanted to while taking out the possibility of automated voting.