> Do you feel an onus to actually propose a mechanism by which these fraudulent voters can predict the future?
Actually, yes. It's called voter registration fraud, and it works by registering people who don't actually exist or are not eligible voters.
If you'll accept that we have no way of verifying if someone votes as someone else, and no way of even noticing if that impersonated voter doesn't vote, then any fraudulent voter registration is essentially open season for anyone with the knowledge of it. We wouldn't know about it, and we couldn't know about it unless we actually verified people are who they say they are.
This essentially means the argument that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist needs a big asterisk next to it that says, "assuming no fraudulent voter registration, but if there is some, we have no way at all of measuring how much in-person voter fraud is occurring."
So now you're shifting the conversation to voter registration fraud, not voting fraud. So it seems you're agreeing with me that the voter id laws are again a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Fortunately, voter registration is a process that can be tightened as is needed, and registrants can be made to show proof of identity, proof of citizenship, and every other proof needed. But to intentionally do a poor job at voter registration so that you may then pass draconian voter id laws is pernicious. But the crucial difference is again the time needed to register voters happens independently of elections, and these results can be contested by all parties well before elections actually occur, not the day of elections.
If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups.
> So now you're shifting the conversation to voter registration fraud, not voting fraud. So it seems you're agreeing with me that the voter id laws are again a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
No. A voter ID law would solve the problem of, "any known invalid voter registration can allow untrackable voter impersonation because the impersonator will never be verified."
That is in-person voter fraud. It takes place after fraudulent voter registration, and voter ID stops it. There's no rational interpretation that it doesn't.
> Fortunately, voter registration is a process that can be tightened as is needed, and registrants can be made to show proof of identity, proof of citizenship, and every other proof needed.
But it doesn't, and even that implies no mistakes or corruption takes place. If even a single one does, that's decades of scot-free voter impersonation that can be done. It also assumes fraudulent voter registration hasn't already happened (!!) which is also unverifiable (particularly since states legally can't require voters to verify their citizenship).
> If we don't try and muddle different concepts, and conflate separate concerns, [...]
I'm not muddling them at all! I can't get you to follow logic rationally without claiming racism. Clearly Voter ID would stop impersonation of fraudulently registered voters. That doesn't mean it's the best way to stop it, but it verifiably would, so it's dishonest to claim otherwise.
To give you credit, though, this is a totally fair argument:
> we again see that voter id laws are unnecessary, onerous, and in reality intended to supress the turnout of minority groups.
I mean, it's a stretch to claim intent, but if you state it like this, it's totally reasonable:
> Voter ID laws are unnecessary, onerous, and disproportionately affect minorities. Enacting them would cause more problems than it'd solve.
There it is! Just, you know, leave out the unfair parts:
> In-person voter fraud doesn't happen. Voter ID laws wouldn't fight it. Anyone who disagrees must be racist.
These are the parts that make it tough to have a rational discussion.
>If even a single one does, that's decades of scot-free voter impersonation that can be done. It also assumes fraudulent voter registration hasn't already happened (!!) which is also unverifiable (particularly since states legally can't require voters to verify their citizenship).
Nothing you said here is true, why are you saying this? Parties can, and regularly do, challenge voter roles, make them appear in person and prove their citizenship and identity[0]. It's also untrue that states can't legally require voters to verify their citizenship, why are you trying to pass this misinformation as true?[1] Lastly, elections are left to the states and local governments - the federal government does not run them.
Again, past your deceit, there are legal ways to prevent, find, and challenge voter registration fraud. The way to prevent voter registration fraud is to prevent voter registration fraud, not try to disenfranchise minorities.
As to your claims these tactics aren't racist, I'm a believer in calling a spade a spade - so we'll have to disagree. But the facts are:
1. Republican party officials __have been found in court to research ways in which blacks vote, then crafting legislation to 'surgically' disenfrachise them__.
2. Republicans have been suing in order to rollback protections of the Voting Rights Act - you know, the act passed by congress by its champion Martin Luther King Jr.
3. Republican voter id laws have been getting struck down in court because they 'have a disproportionate and disparate impact on minority communities'.
4. Republican voter id laws have been empirically shown to disproportionately lower turnout among minority voters in studies[2]
5. Republican governors have been closing dmv's and cutting dmv hours in minority-majority areas, and instructing employees not to advertise or discuss the free ID's that courts have decreed must be available to voters.
I understand that it's fashionable to cry 'race card' every time evidence of racism is presented, but personally I'm of the belief that if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck - we should call it a duck.
If it makes you feel better, I don't believe that these Republicans are racist, I just think they implement racist laws because blacks largely vote democratic and they'd rather suppress them than actually do the hard work of outreach. But alas, it's largely useless to try and separate their intent from their actions - the end result is that they are seeking to disenfranchise voters based on their skin colors.
> Nothing you said here is true, why are you saying this? Parties can, and regularly do, challenge voter roles, make them appear in person and prove their citizenship and identity[0]
No--that's proving residence. I said they can't require voters to prove their citizenship. [1]
I didn't say parties can't challenge voter rolls, either.
> If it makes you feel better, I don't believe that these Republicans are racist, I just think they implement racist laws because blacks largely vote democratic and they'd rather suppress them than actually do the hard work of outreach. But alas, it's largely useless to try and separate their intent from their actions - the end result is that they are seeking to disenfranchise voters based on their skin colors.
That may be true. I'm not a Republican, though, so it seems unfair to dismiss my arguments based on unrelated actions. Some of them probably are legitimately racist, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to verifiable potential for voter fraud.
I'll go as far as to say that some degree voter fraud is likely acceptable and expected in a system that strives to ensure nobody is hindered in their exercise of voting. Any inconvenience is going to turn people away and you can't possibly verify any more rigorously without adding inconvenience. The discussion is in where the line is.
Actually, yes. It's called voter registration fraud, and it works by registering people who don't actually exist or are not eligible voters.
If you'll accept that we have no way of verifying if someone votes as someone else, and no way of even noticing if that impersonated voter doesn't vote, then any fraudulent voter registration is essentially open season for anyone with the knowledge of it. We wouldn't know about it, and we couldn't know about it unless we actually verified people are who they say they are.
This essentially means the argument that in-person voter fraud doesn't exist needs a big asterisk next to it that says, "assuming no fraudulent voter registration, but if there is some, we have no way at all of measuring how much in-person voter fraud is occurring."