Here’s another report from Florida.

Please observe the asymmetrical drop in Democratic Party registrations. Given that there is not one shred of evidence that there were thousands of people who voted illegally in the last election, the cure is quite obviously worse than the disease — unless, of course, the disease is that Democrats win elections.

Grog, is there any evidence that any of the “felons” who supposedly commited voter fraud did anything that a voter ID law would have prevented?

Me and 75%of Amer­i­cans are para­noid, but the 25% who are fab­ri­cat­ing a voter sup­pres­sion con­tro­versy, aren’t.

Really? So what did Penn­syl­va­nia House Repub­li­can Leader Mike Turzai mean when he said that “Voter ID … is gonna allow Gov­er­nor Rom­ney to win the state of Penn­syl­va­nia”?

I understand the argument that you only see people voting illegally when you look very close, and you only look that close when the election is razor-thin. This also means that instances of illegal voting are so uncommon that they could only possibly affect those razor-thin elections. But it bears mention that when squeaky elections such as happened in Minnesota are examined, no evidence is found of the types of illegal voting that would be prevented by a voter ID law.

Grog refuses to address that fact.

The law serves no legitimate purpose.

Okay, the peo­ple “await­ing trial” were falsely accused.  Got it.

In America, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. RIght?

How about the peo­ple con­victed?  Were they falsely convicted?

Did any of them get convicted for voting under someone else’s name? (answer: no). Did any of them do anything that a voter ID law would have prevented? (answer: no).

I notice you refuse to address that. At least acknowledge that a voter ID law is irrelevant to these accusations — and that these instances you’re talking about are irrelevant in a discussion about voter ID laws.

If felons are able to vote ille­gally and are only caught because the
elec­tion was close and some­one took a closer look, what makes you
think dead peo­ple don’t vote?

Because when they looked very closely, they found no dead voters. What makes you think dead people DID vote? Simple paranoia?

And you still haven’t answered my question about requiring voters to provide proof of owning a menorah.

“Await­ing trial” means absolutely noth­ing, except that a bull­shit pro­pa­ganda orga­ni­za­tion made an unproven alle­ga­tion.

Okay, the people “awaiting trial” were falsely accused.  Got it.  How about the people convicted?  Were they falsely convicted?

If felons are able to vote illegally and are only caught because the election was close and someone took a closer look, what makes you think dead people don’t vote?

I want to inject just a related point regarding felons in Minnesota.

According to Minnesota state law, if someone is found guilty of a felony, that person is not allowed to vote while he or she is serving a sentence. However, once the sentence is done, full voting rights are restored.

If someone is accused of a felony, and is awaiting trial, that person retains voting rights until and unless found guilty. If you’re merely “accsed” of something, you’re not “guilty” of it.

So a listing of people who have been accused of, or even found guilty of, a felony, does not necessarily constitute a list of people ineligible to vote. You’d need a list of people who have been convicted of a felony, and who have not yet completed their sentence (including any probation or community service, etc.).

You have no way of know­ing that. You have no way of know­ing that voter ID laws sup­press turnout and you have no idea how many ille­git­i­mate votes are being cast.

Nor do you. Yet you seem to believe you know that the number of suppressed votes doesn’t exceed the number of illegitimate votes. Either that, or you don’t care.

As I’ve mentioned before, I do security for a living. I have to deal with that sort of uncertainty all the time. It’s why I got into statistical analysis in the first place. Statistical analyses give inferences of likely outcomes, recognizing that there is uncertainty in the specific results. But one of the things statistical analysis does is quantify that uncertainty, so that you can get a general idea of what’s going on and why.

The statistical analyses that I performed on the voter impersonation vulnerabilty give a vanishingly small likelihood of the number of in-person false-identity votes being greater than the number of legitimate voters being driven away from the polling booths. By “vanishingly small”, I mean on the order of thousandths of a percent chance.

The only time any­one cares to look into voter fraud is after a close elec­tion — like in Coleman/​Franken

A race where Voter ID would have reduced the number of felons voting by…zero. Unless, of course, by sheer coincidence some of those felons lacked appropriate identification. Of course, by that logic, we could reduce the number of felons voting to zero by simply eliminating voting altogether.

Judge Simp­son of Penn­syl­va­nia wrote n his rul­ing, that a voter ID require­ment is “a rea­son­able, non-​​discriminatory, non-​​severe bur­den when viewed in the broader con­text of the wide­spread use of photo ID in daily life.”

Might it have something to do with his own partisan leanings?

There is evi­dence that voter fraud exists.

Of course. I acknowledged as much. But the kind of voter fraud that exists is not the kind that gets fixed by requiring people to show identification at the polls. The point isn’t to throw random security measures at the problem, though.

Just as you don’t build a massive armed fortress to protect a run-of-the-mill Twinkie, you don’t build a massive armed fortress to protect the Hope Diamond from being stolen…but build it in a different state than that in which the diamond resides.

Funny how a state like Ohio, who has some of the most lib­eral vot­ing rules regard­ing time and ease in the nation, is get­ting sued by the Obama admin­is­tra­tion.

And why is the Obama administration suing them? Are they just unlucky?

And even though the early voting hours are now uniform, the suit still stands.  hmmmmm

Or, are you just going to pre­tend that wasn’t the case?

No, I’m not.