marshaul
Campaign Veteran
The robber was a metaphor for government. And, no, government does not create rights.
Oh, and Hobbes was a jackass. His reputation as an intellectual is quite undeserved.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Obama closes 'loophole' re ATF and trusts...?
- Thread starter Contrarian
- Start date
The robber was a metaphor for government. And, no, government does not create rights.
Oh, and Hobbes was a jackass. His reputation as an intellectual is quite undeserved.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Again, I challenge anyone to cite a credible source that this has ever happened.
im pissed. the internet or this forum ate my post. I had a wonderfully detailed and well thought out response crafted. Now its gone!!!
im too angry to repost. so i will just summarize it.: I'm right; you're wrong. Deal with it. lol
im too angry to repost. so i will just summarize it.: I'm right; you're wrong. Deal with it. lol
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
You must have missed my inclusion of the word "credible". :lol:
But even ignoring the credibility of the source, none of those cases withstands a bit of scrutiny. In the Madison case, there never was over 100% turnout. That number was a projection, and of course it was wrong.
And where there are "more registered voters than are actually eligible to vote", it's not because people are registering the dead in order to vote under their name. It's because dying doesn't automatically get your name stricken from the rolls. Also, when people move they are frequently kept on the rolls. So, it's not at all unsurprising that more people are registered than are actually eligible. This is an uninteresting observation. This is not the same thing as all those ineligible-yet-registered voters actually passing a ballot.
It happened to me: I moved to another state and my name remained on the rolls for at least a couple years. Not my intent; but simply getting a new DL doesn't strike you from the rolls. You have to take special action. Most people don't. And guess what? I never voted twice. Heck, I didn't even know I was still registered until some time later.
Again, I challenge you to cite a credible source reporting turnout (and after the fact, not before) above 100% of eligible voters.
Last edited:
The Donkey
New member
You beat me to the draw, oh bandalero-ed one.
Virginia is in the process of doing its purges right now -- a bit too close to this year's election for my taste.
The purges this year are mainly based on lists of registered voters from other states. There are reports of people who moved to Virginia from those states who were not purged from the those states when they moved, ending up being purged from registration rolls here by mistake.
I do not mind well orchestrated purge efforts -- which from my perspective should occur with plenty of time before the next election -- and should require attempts to contact the voter suspected to have moved or died before they are purged. But in Virginia, unfortunately, many registrars frequently only attempt to contact voters AFTER they are purged -- putting the onus on them to get their acts together and register yet again with only a short time before registration closes. The all too obvious problem with these lame purge efforts is that many orders of magnitude more qualified voters end up being blocked from voting by these purges than potential fraudsters end up being frustrated in their attempts to vote more than once.
People who talk about turnouts of greater than 100% are usually trying to imply that elections are being stolen by fraud when it is not really the case. If what you mean by the "integrity of the election" is that election results reflect the will of qualified voters, you tend to get somewhat skeptical of over-exuberant purges and other supposed "election integrity" efforts that end up preventing more qualified than unqualified voters from voting.
The Donkey
New member
Quite.
You must be a Locke/Kant man then -- perspectives which I generally share.
But please do not compare Hobbes to a jackass, as it unfairly impugns the reputation of us jack-asses.
Much as Hobbes peeves me, I frequently find that I learn something or other from those that peeve me, as I have from Hobbes.
yes estimates put it an an equally unbelievable 96-100%. which means not only did an astounding and unheard of every eligible voter voted in that city (which just so happened to be a major commun.... i mean democratic city) but they did it during a recall election. So i guess you believe in an age where we cant even get 50% turnout for a presidential election, that 100% of voters went out and cast the ballots on a recall election. lol right. the stories may be from cites you find disagreeable with (why i dont know) but their sources arent themselves.
as for your second part. exactly just shows how easy it is to vote as someone else. dead people, absent people, people who moved etc.
and you just showed a case of how easy it would be to vote twice.
The Donkey
New member
Let me lay this out for you:
1. In a town with many highly transient voters, you would expect to have a high number of registered voters as compared to the total number of persons qualified to vote in the population unless the jurisdiction is very efficient at purging people off the rolls.
2. Madison Wisconsin -- home of the University of Wisconsin -- is such a town.
3. As the Breitbart article explains, Wisconsin allows voters to register at the polls on election day and then vote: that means that a lot of people can register and vote on election day, driving the numbers even higher.
4. The Wisconsin recall election was the most important election in that state's recent history -- the contending parties were far more organized and angry, and individual votes were potentially far more crucial because the outcome was potentially far closer than in the 2012 Presidential.
What you are suggesting is not just a few isolated cases of voter fraud, but fraud on a massive scale: that would have been discovered, and many if not most of the perpetrators would presently be in jail awaiting trial on felony charges.
If you regularly rely on sources like The Blaze and Breitbart for your "facts" you are bound to see conspiracy after conspiracy where none exists.
Regular shaves with Occum's Razor help clear away the fuzzy logic.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I have mixed feelings on that one.
In one sense, voting is definitionally a "privilege", as one does not have an innate ability to vote without a government first being formed for him to vote in.
In another sense... Individuals have an absolute right to consent (or not) to government. With this in mind, it seems difficult to argue that individuals do not have a right to exercise the modicum of influence afforded to them on/by a government which is otherwise imposed on them without their consent.
If I have a right not to be robbed, then surely it is not a mere "privilege" afforded to me by the robber to entreat him to at least leave me with my shoes. Clearly, this is my right, and were he to then take my shoes he would be violating me yet again.
Chew on that for awhile.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I posted earlier,. It is one of the few privileges of the government, at the founding only a limited where "allowed" to vote. Even now there is restrictions set out.
Yet as pointed out we have the right to be governed by consent. I think though a non vote is a vote of no confidence and just because others picked a ruler shouldn't mean we have to submit.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
And I also simultaneously showed a case where the person didn't vote twice. I suspect most people registered multiply are unaware of their "ability" to vote twice, and most of those who are aware would prefer not to break the law. How many does that leave? Is it even statistically significant at that point? Also, one vote in each of two districts is less significant than two votes in one district.
And since we're sharing anecdotes, I've only ever, personally, known one individual who admitted to voting twice, in different jurisdictions. As his happens, that person voted Republican.
And just how many people go to the bother of finding dead people to vote for? You aren't convincing me this is statistically significant.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I don't disagree, but I'll submit that a vote for a third party is as much a vote of "no confidence" in a system dominated by two other parties, and doesn't in any way imply consent to governance by either of those two parties.
And I also simultaneously showed a case where the person didn't vote twice. I suspect most people registered multiply are unaware of their "ability" to vote twice, and most of those who are aware would prefer not to break the law. How many does that leave? Is it even statistically significant at that point? Also, one vote in each of two districts is less significant than two votes in one district.
And since we're sharing anecdotes, I've only ever, personally, known one individual who admitted to voting twice, in different jurisdictions. As his happens, that person voted Republican.
And just how many people go to the bother of finding dead people to vote for? You aren't convincing me this is statistically significant.
so what youre saying is we should go of the honors system when it comes to elections. Events that ultimately affect our livelihoods. Pablo the illegal: "Si Senor, i am John Doe, i pinky swear, ese". Poll worker: "well he did pinky swear, you're good to go sir"
and you just showed an example of someone voting illegally, not get caught, no one knows about it, its didnt go into some data base that studies illegal voting. yet at the same time you are trying to tell me that fraudulent voting isnt significant because studies and reports say so. Duh, because its impossible to get caught, impossible to report, and impossible to quantify.
and him being a republican should be even more reason for you to support honest voting, so the socialis... fascist... er i mean the democratic party can win and spread their totalitarian Godless agenda
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Yes, I have met one person, in all my life, who has voted twice. Stop the presses! :lol: If I were to take a statistical inference from my experience (which I shouldn't), I would be forced to conclude that voter fraud is incredibly rare.
Incidentally, I'm not a democrat. I've never voted for a democrat, nor do I plan to start. I vote Libertarian, or not at all. I mentioned that this person voted Republican, because I have literally yet to encounter one single person who is concerned with all this supposed rampant voter fraud who isn't also a Republican and who isn't getting their talking points directly from some partisan GOP blowhard.
This is relevant because, not only do you first have to convince me that voter fraud is statistically significant, you also have to convince me that it isn't evenly distributed between parties, so that one party benefits exclusively. Otherwise I just don't see an issue. I'm far from convinced on either count.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Ive not met anybody that has stolen anything of value of more than a couple bucks. Therefore I conclude theft is not a major issue. People should stop investing into security systems and anti-theft devices, and we should stop wasting police resources trying to combat this non-existent problem.
But anyway, I wonder, if its only republicans that are concerned about voter fraud (though rightfully so due to some many stories of felons voting, illegals registering, and delaying military votes, things that bolster dems chance of winning) then why is it that over 80% of the country supports voter ID, and even 3/4ths of democrats do, even after their party elites started making it a partisan issue. (years prior it was a bipartisan issue, that virtually all dems were on board with, including being spear head by the likes of Jimmy Carter.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Your analogy fails somewhat. I didn't say we should legalize voter fraud, any more than I'd argue we should legalize theft. Also, theft has a specific victim, whereas voter fraud does not. This further differentiates the two. Voting is, by its nature, a statistical business. There's no point spending money and effort on any aspect of voting if it is statistically insignificant, as the money and effort spent won't have any effect on the outcome. Whereas each and every victim of theft is significant, and therefore each and every act of theft is worthy of special response.
I simply don't see this as an issue requiring special attention beyond the means already in place.
Incidentally, security systems are not, as it happens, a cost-effective means of dealing with theft, in general and in my opinion.
Polls do little but convince me that there is an agenda supported by pollsters, or those who finance them.
I am not among those who view the statistical methodologies (and sociological assumptions) made by the likes of Gallup as valid.
Last edited:
Your analogy fails. I didn't say we should legalize voter fraud, any more than I'd argue we should legalize theft.
I simply don't see it as an issue requiring special attention. Security systems are not, as it happens, a cost-effective means of dealing with theft, in general and in my opinion.
Polls do little but convince me that there is an agenda supported by pollsters, or those who finance them.
I am not among those who view the statistical methodologies (and sociological assumptions) made by the likes of Gallup as valid.
so in other words, you're saying you won't let facts get in the way of you not supporting proving you are who you say you are when it comes to voting.
also i said no such thing concerning legalizing theft, I simply claimed it isnt an issue based off the same criteria you used to say voter fraud isnt an issue.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I'm saying that the entire industry of public opinion polling is, and always has been, fraudulent, and it's beyond a stretch to describe their results as "facts".
Can you share any actual, real facts concerning the statistical significance of voter fraud, and its effect on election outcomes?
By the way, sharing an opinion poll about what the supposed "public" thinks actually furthers my claim as to the fraudulent nature of the use of such polls in public discourse. Even if I accept the results of the poll (which I don't), what the American people think has precisely nothing to do with whether voter fraud is, in fact, statistically relevant.
You sharing this "fact" is, therefore, a red herring disguised as useful data. As are all such opinion polls: substituting bogus and irrelevant "facts" for meaningful and relevant data, which is usually much more difficult to generate than is a "percent of Americans agree" type figure.
Yes, as I do all too frequently, I hit "post" before I'd finished fleshing out my point. My bad. Anyway, I've done a much better job of shredding your invalid comparison since then.
As I said:
Also, theft has a specific victim, whereas voter fraud does not. This further differentiates the two. Voting is, by its nature, a statistical business. There's no point spending money and effort on any aspect of voting if it is statistically insignificant, as the money and effort spent won't have any effect on the outcome. Whereas each and every victim of theft is significant, and therefore each and every act of theft is worthy of special response.
Last edited:
so youre telling me that the possibility of a stolen election, isnt significant, that the effect to the victim, which just would so happen to be around 160 million people, isnt significant. That the future of our country, the stability of the economy, the value of our currency, the unemployment, which countries we go to war with and why, our laws, our constitution arent significant. You telling me a crime in which it is virtually impossible to get caught, is easy to do, and where there is little to no accountability on something that determines the future prospective of an entire country and its peoples, isnt significant.
Wow! sorry sir, you arent worth my time. Requiring ID to vote, proving who you are, is common sense.