ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
For the Danes.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Might someone recognize him? Sure, in any individual case the odds might be low, but if the scale of fraud is large a 1% chance each time is likely to happen.
It depends, someone here linked one time to a story about wide-scale fraud done by a political machine it Chicago that went on for years, and only came out because someone got cut out of a deal, and snitched. What's more, on questions where one side is strongly politically invested in a particular answer, I don't think you can assume the normal truth-seeking process will work as usual. I've seen this in the transgender issue, where the pro-trans side was knowingly and deliberately hiding studies that showed the evidence for gender affirming care is poor. Normally this would be a scandal, but there's been no professional consequences as far as I can tell. The voter-ID question seems to draw the same kind of zeal, so I'd fully expect people in a position to say something to look the other way, because doing otherwise would be inconvenient for the narrative of their tribe.
What you're saying might work in states where institutions are politically mixed, and the sides keep each other in check, though.
I'd add "requires being able to make fake forms of ID."
Are there not states that don't require any ID? The Google summarizer thing seems to be under the impression that there are quite a few.
The "But once it's actually done" part is assuming the conclusion
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. If you want to tell me "there's in no evidence for X", "what kind of evidence would you see, assuming X happened" is a perfectly valid question to ask,
[Many states have rules about signing an affidavit], and they can compare signatures after the fact.
It looks like you forgot to include a link. How many states, and how often are these signatures compared? How reliable is the signature comparison method to begin with?
And you keep not addressing the part where there aren't any complaints about people being told they've already voted. Sure, you can make a safe bet about who is likely to vote and who isn't, but safe bets still sometimes lose.
What do I have to address here? This seems to show that unless someone loses the bet, you will not be able to show there was fraud after the fact, just like I suspected. Further, if you're particularly good at making these bets, losing a few won't even matter, because a part of your argument is "the amount of fraud is miniscule, so there's no reason to enhance integrity".
A hurdle doesn't have to be insurmountable to be a hurdle.
A hurdle that you only have to overcome once, is not much of a hurdle. You can even sweeten the deal. We had people people here recount the absurdity of the American approach to ID, just include in the law that whatever ID document you're proposing shall be valid in all American institutions, public and private alike, and you will have actually reduced the total amount of hurdles people have to overcome.
I don't study the governments of other countries, but from what I've heard they have different laws on how people get IDs. But I do study pay attention to American politics, and I have seen American Republicans repeatedly target things like early voting which is primarily used by Democrats. I'm not accusing them of this in a vacuum.
Well, I'd like to hear some details on what you think is so different, because I've often heard American progressives just outright lie about the state of laws in other countries (for example there were similar arguments about abortion laws, where conservatives pointed out late term abortion is illegal in Europe, and progressives tried claiming the law is dead letter, which is complete nonsense). Also, if there is some version of ID-law that Democrats would support, it's rather suspicious that they never argue try offering a counter-proposal, and instead just go on and on about how voter ID is unnecessary, racist, voter suppression.
Sure, unironically might be a better world then we live in today, particularly if this includes certain "greatest allies" of yours.
More options
Context Copy link