Ethics Dunces: Apparently 30% Of Democratic Voters

Rasmussen Tweet

We must begin with the fact that polls of all kinds have the approximate credibility of palm readers. Rasmussen, however (and Gallup) disgraced itself rather less than its competitors in measuring the election trends before November. The verdict of Ethics Dunces would still hold if the percentage was 20%, 10% or 100%, however. The polling results above were published on November 20; maybe fewer people are convinced now that the election was stolen, since the various challenges filed in court have been failing. The statistics above still prompt these observations:

1. If Democrats think that their party steals elections, making it a threat to Democracy, why do those Democrats continue to identify with a party that cheats? The only explanation can be that they do not support Democracy, and believe that their will should be imposed on their fellow citizens by illegal means, They are totalitarians by philosophy and nature.

2.What kind of party attracts 30% of its supporters from the ranks of anti-Democratic cheats? (It’s a rhetorical question.) Is it rational to trust such a party, or give it power over our lives?

3. Like so many poll questions, that one is badly phrased and ambiguous. Did responders believe that that the cheating did ensure that Biden won, or that it was done to ensure he would win, though he may well have won anyway?

4. Because of the poor framing of the question, we can’t tell whether the 47% of all voters who answered in the affirmative are cognitively challenged, believing something did occur when the evidence so far is circumstantial and inconclusive, of if they are the only ones not in denial (or lying), since the evidence that Democrats tried to ensure Biden’s election by undemocratic means is overwhelming.

5. As I have stated in several earlier posts (like this one) there is no question that the election was stolen. I am less certain that the election was stolen by fraudulent votes or other manipulations of the vote total.

43 thoughts on “Ethics Dunces: Apparently 30% Of Democratic Voters

  1. 1. If Democrats think that their party steals elections, making it a threat to Democracy, why do those Democrats continue to identify with a party that cheats?

    The question, as you say, is inherently ambiguous. When Brett Kavenough was confirmed, if I were asked in a poll “Do you believe Kavenough was treated improperly?” I would answer, “strongly agree”; then when asked what party I identified with, I would answer “Democrat”.

    However, the latter question has an ambiguous timeline. I was in fact a Democrat who found the confirmation stunt disgusting; as a direct result, I am no longer a registered Democrat. It is more accurate to say I was disgusted with my own party’s actions? Or would it be more accurate to say I was unaffiliated and disgusted?

    Which answer is more likely to point the party on notice to improve its behavior?

    I held out as a Democrat for years, hoping that having moderates as registered members would influence it to stop being insane. The Kavenough episode is what ultimately prompted me to give up on the party. (I’ve since seen many moments where I wish I were still a member so I could quit).

  2. I’m not convinced that there was widespread cheating on the part of voters themselves as there was on the part of the Democrat Party and some of its election officials.

    Many years ago, I worked the polls as a Republican inspector in a largely Democratic district. The day of the election, the local Republican official advised me to cut off the polls right at 6 PM (when Indiana’s polls close) to reduce the number of Democratic votes the precinct would get. I did not do that. Whoever was in line to vote at 6 PM was going to be allowed to vote.

    My guess is that there were poll workers and election officials this year ready and willing to do what they could to reduce Republican votes or disqualify Republican ballots any way they could, as well as to facilitate a Democratic vote in any way possible.

    No doubt there were instances of voter fraud in this election, but the election was stolen by the minions working for the Democrats in precinct after precinct across this country. Their ethics were corrupted from the top of the heap and trickled down.

    As for the poll itself, it is a post-election poll, after all. What one believes before the election may not be what one believes once it’s over. Is it possible that one interpretation of the 30% is that many Democrats are looking at the same evidence the Republicans are – the refusal to allow observers, the vote dumps, the suspicious discrepancy of those dumps being Democrat over Republican – and have come to believe their party cheated?

    • Good morning, A.M.

      You wrote: “I’m not convinced that there was widespread cheating on the part of voters themselves as there was on the part of the Democrat Party and some of its election officials.”

      It seems to me that vote cheating would not have happened without the assistance of voters, whether they are Democrat Party minions or not. The people filling in mail-in ballots are participants in the scheme. That would make them accessories before and/or after the fact.

      Oh, and we are seeing the same things in Georgia right now. Gov. Abrams and her cohorts in the media are opening telling people from all over the country to get registered to vote in the January run-off so that Democrats can take control of the Senate. Awful. I blame that idiot Georgia governor and the Secretary of State for this. Why on earth would they agree to a change in the rules? They won the election. They should have stomped on Abrams and her cronies. But, no, in a showing of some stupid idea of bipartisanship they agreed to change the rules to allow for this kind of chicanery. If the Republicans lose the Senate as a result, those two morons should be blamed.

      jvb

      • I just read some articles on Fox News that the Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger has something like 250 investigations going regarding schemes to illegally register people for the January runoff.

        I am not seeing where they changed the residency rules, although I did see that the state election board extended the use of absentee ballot boxes for this election.

        What am I missing?

      • In cases where mail-in ballots are filled out for a different person or where multiple mail-in ballots are sent in by an individual voter, yes, that is a voter issue. I’m not sure that happened all that much or in a way that affected the election.

        Certainly, anyone who thinks that’s okay has been corrupted by the higher-ups in the party.

        But I believe mishandling of ballots by poll workers, last minute vote dumps, backdated postmarks and other antics like that outside of the hands of voters caused this mess.

  3. When you wonder if the respondents may be confused if they were answering the question “did the cheating ensure Biden’s win” or “was the cheating meant to ensure his win, but he would have won with out cheating”…it should help your evaluation when several pre-election polls indicated that a large portion of democrat voters were reasonably certain Biden would lose despite their support of him.

    My guess is, they answered the question “did cheating ensure Biden’s win”.

  4. Jack wrote:

    As I have stated in several earlier posts (like this one) there is no question that the election was stolen. I am less certain that the election was stolen by fraudulent votes or other manipulations of the vote total.

    Embrace the healing power of “and.”

    Occam’s razor suggests that both general methods you mentioned were proximate and causative. The only actual question (in my mind, at least) is to what comparative degree, and that question is academic.

    • Occam’s razor suggests nothing of the sort. As Trump’s legal team shrinks, the allegations of conspiracy stretch to accommodate such apparent socialist activists as, um, Bill Barr, in an increasingly silly attempt to continue a narrative in which any election irregularities or misdeeds were part of a coordinated effort, rather than the usual jumble of occasional laziness and/or malfeasance. There’s not even evidence that the incidents in question are unusual.

      One is on firmer ground stating that the slant of the media and culture is anti-Trump. It most certainly is. Whether this is a result of a preconceived agenda is an interesting question. But it’s odd, to say the least, to believe that the media is slanted left AND that the general populace would be immune to such slant and so would thus require a vastly intelligent (yet visibly stupid) and extremely widespread (just generally invisible) conspiracy to push some battleground states towards one end of the battelground.

      • “There’s not even evidence that the incidents in question are unusual.” Wrong on its face. The entire scenario involving mail-in ballots is unusual, indeed unprecedented.

        Conservative pundit and writer Larry O’Connor is quite right, writing in answer to his own question. how a party would you go about stealing an election:

        First, they’d make sure that the voter rolls were full of ineligible voters. Deceased people, non-citizens, and people who have moved out of state would not be purged from the rolls, and there would be no mechanism in place to purge those ineligible voters.

        Further, they wouldn’t have any preemptive check to ensure that only eligible voters registered in the first place. For instance, you can’t get a job in this country without showing a passport, birth certificate, or green card for a standard I-9 form. This ensures that only people eligible to legally work here get a job. There is no such citizen check when you register to vote. It’s on the “honor system” that you are a legal citizen when you fill out your registration form. And, let’s face it, why would someone who breaks our immigration laws by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally ever break our election laws, too? That’s a solid policy there.

        Next, they’d modify existing election laws so that voters could mail-in ballots on a whim and not for a specific “absentee voting” reason. This way, in-person voting (the most secure kind of voting) would diminish, and mail-in voting (the least secure) would increase.

        Next, they’d send a ballot to every voter on the voter rolls regardless of whether they asked for an absentee ballot or not. This way, millions of live ballots are floating in the system and are outside the tight custodian controls of the election apparatus in your state.

        Now that they’ve hypothetically flooded the zone with millions of ballots that have been sent out to everyone, regardless of their eligibility to vote, they would need the policy to count every vote that came in, even votes that shouldn’t be counted.

        • The first two paragraphs of O’Connor’s description outline a scenario that’s been generations in the making, so by definition, that’s not unusual. If anything, it works contrary to accusations of Democratic corruption–if this axis has been doing this for generations, there’d be a lot more Democratic presidents.

          The remaining grafs, though slanted, outline a scenario about which nobody disagrees. We are then supposed to leap to the conclusion that this situation was abused in an organized way by one party in particular a rate that is unusual for corruption–ie, that it changed the outcome of the Presidential (and apparently, ONLY the Presidential) election. There is no serious evidence of this, which is why fiery insinuations of conspiracy are getting wilder and wilder and wilder.

          • 1. No it doesn’t because the Democrats have been vigorously opposing efforts to clean up the rolls, under the rubric of “voter suppression.”
            2. Nobody is saying that there is proof that the election result has been changed. I certainly haven’t. It might have been changed, but might have been isn’t enough to mandate any remedies.
            3. Except, of course, outlawing mail-in voting.

            • Well, then the unpurged rolls have been ripe for (apparently solely) Democratic corruption for a long time, so the situation is not unusual.

              The language of “overturning” the election, and that Trump won by “millions,” is in constant use by Trump’s legal team. You may not personally be saying this, but this is what is being said.

              • Here’s the thing, though. It wouldn’t have to be widespread or a big conspiracy to accomplish their goal of defeating Trump — and you have to admit that everything in the media has been all Trump, all the time, how he is worse than Hitler and Stalin put together.

                All you have to have is some workers in a few deep Blue cities, like just to pick a couple at random, Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta — and engage in some malarkey to fix the results. They could get some tips from Cook County on how to do it.

                Note that I am not saying this happened. But there are many, many folks absolutely convinced that something like this did happen (at a minimum).

                And, since the media has been telling us for four years that a)Trump’s election was illegitimate and b)There was nothing ever in the history of this republic that has been more necessary than to get him out.

                Logically that leads to the proposition that the ends justify the means. Why should we not believe that they did what they’ve been saying for the last four years?

                ==========================

                And here is the other thing. The Democrats in charge of these deep blue cities have gone out of their way to act in a suspicious manner. If they were cheating, these are the actions they’d take to ensure no one could tell that they were. If they weren’t cheating, then these are the actions they’d take to ensure everyone can tell they have a room temperature IQ. Which is it, do you think?

                =========================

                And lastly, I personally am unconvinced that the alleged counting fraud happened as people think. But I — and everyone else with a brain — know that there are hard core activists who would do anything to defeat Trump. Having millions of mail-in ballots floating around the state is an open invitation to those folks.

                Why would Democrats do that and not Republicans? Well, I’ve said more than once that I think Republicans in general tend to attract a better class of people. I’ll stand by that.

                • Michael Flynn added his endorsement today to a petition, already endorsed by one of Trump’s lawyers, calling for the President to temporarily suspend the constitution and instate martial law to override the election. If you think that one party is a paragon of virtue and the other is conniving, you’re not looking hard at both.

                  There is no serious evidence of widespread fraud. Again and again, various allegations are aired in a court of law pale dramatically to unchecked nonsense uttered at press conferences or ad-hoc hearings. Furthermore, the size of the alleged conspiracy would dwarf anything the Democratic party has managed to do in terms of organization and realization. Pelosi can’t manage a haircut. The idea that her party would be working secretly with Brian Kemp and Bill Barr to tilt an election–and only the presidential election, and only slightly–is about as far from Occam’s Razor as you can get.

                  There’s a much saner explanation: A media campaign, stirred by a pandemic that’s spooking millions, helped a President (whose communication techniques already leave plenty to be desired) once again attract millions of fewer voters than his opponent, and in battleground areas, where more money and attention would be paid, Biden squeaked by with an Electoral College vote that this time followed the popular one. This may have been difficult for some to believe on Election Night, but it’s not difficult now. Trump lost. Our election system wasn’t particularly messier this time around than it always is, and increasingly hysterical attempts to say otherwise are an embarrassment

                  • So you are saying that the Republican Party and lots of elected Republican officials and representatives and governors have signed this petition? Please post the link to Fox News or CNN. Or is it one lawyer and one former Trump official?

                    There were 50 former intelligence officials that asserted, without evidence, that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian operation. Oh, and Adam Schiff, whose endorsement practically guarantees that it is a lie.

                    I am actually old enough to remember the 2016 election, not to mention 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, and 1968. Yes this one was noticeably messier than past elections. Perhaps not messier than 1876 or 1860, or 1796 (wasn’t that the tie?), but those are rather high thresholds
                    My state — North Carolina — had roughly 5.6 million votes cast. Of those, about 3.6 million were absentee/early voting and 1 million mail in votes. We have several large metropolitan areas. Despite that, North Carolina’s results were essentially complete on election night. Texas had 11.3 million votes cast and they also were able to get their results in on election night.

                    Pennsylvania — did you perhaps notice that they didn’t have their results in by election night? By the next night? By the next night? Why do we think that was?

                    Sure, it might well be as innocent as the driven snow, or it might be more like the London black fog of 1952. If you cannot see that there is the appearance of malarkey (and yes, I use that particular word advisedly), that can only be because your eyes are tightly shut.

                    Many states were doing things this election that had never been done on this scale before. Given the existing atmosphere, they owed it to us to make the utmost efforts to be open and transparent with their process. When, instead, they were furtive and secretive about it, just what did they expect us to think?

                    When they — and you — simply say, over and over, ‘move along, nothing to see here’ — it just fans the flames.

                    I do not want to believe in a major conspiracy. You, however, seem intent on forcing that belief down my throat.

                    • Two weeks ago, Giuliani said there was so much evidence of widespread fraud and other misdeeds that would overturn the election that his team couldn’t process it all. Yesterday, Bill Barr said there was no evidence of substantial fraud. This means either a) Giuliani inexplicably decided not to give heaps of evidence to the Department of Justice, b) Bill Barr is either horridly complacent or part of a vast conspiracy, c) Giuliani was grandstanding and in fact does not have any solid evidence of substantial wrongdoing.

                      C is the most likely to me. I’m not shoving it down anyone’s throat or telling anyone to move on. I’m expressing an opinion.

                    • C is correct, as I suggested at the time. It was also an unethical statement, and perhaps sanctionable.

                      I do find the progression amusing, as Democrats have moved from “No evidence of voter fraud” as its denial for years, to “no widespread voter fraud” to “no voter fraud that would change the results.”

                      I will not allow them to try to go back to the first denial, as they most surely will try to do.

                  • Thanks for alerting me to that petition, which is absurd. Also irrelevant, and it cannot be laid on the doorstep of the Republican Party. I would rank it about as fair and responsible as the impeachment articles against Trump, however.

                    • The difference between the Democratic responses seems largely a semantic argument. I don’t think any Democrat meant “Absolutely nobody did a single thing wrong in an election involving millions of people in an unprecedented situation” even if they said “There’s been no fraud.” And saying that something isn’t widespread is about the same as saying it didn’t have any significant effect.

                      As for the petition, I wouldn’t argue that it has signature significance for the Republican party, only a reminder that unethical louses are abundant on both sides of the aisle. A troubling side effect of latching onto an election conspiracy seems to be a belief that only one party would behave abominably. The belief that one political party would have unethical members trying to tilt things in their favor, while the other is nothing but noble souls upholding democracy, is bias, plain and simple.

                    • No, Gully, Democrats have been denying the need for the most basic ballot integrity measures, like voter ID, by claiming that voter fraud is a myth. That was and is a lie. And if you excuse and facilitator individual fraud, you encourage what we saw in this election. Check the rationalization list, especially “Don’t sweat the small stuff.”

                    • A troubling side effect of latching onto an election conspiracy seems to be a belief that only one party would behave abominably.

                      Here is Glenn Greenwald.

                      http://greenwald.substack.com/p/biden-appointee-neera-tanden-spread

                      But what really distinguished Tanden when it came to unhinged and toxic behavior was her repeated (and obviously baseless) claims that Hillary only lost because Russian hackers invaded the U.S. voting system and clandestinely changed Hillary’s votes to Trump’s, costing the real winner — Hillary — her rightful place on the throne, behind the Resolute Desk.

                      Four days after the 2016 election, Tanden began strongly implying, if not outright stating, that Russian hackers changed the vote totals, and that this is why “Trump was as surprised as everyone else” by his victory. When I highlighted her conspiratorial claims, she did not deny their obvious meaning, but rationalized them by insisting that her conspiracies were not as bad as Trump’s refusal, in advance of the election, to acknowledge the legitimacy of an election that had not yet taken place:

                      Tanden’s insistence that Russia changed the voting results through hacking did not end once her traumatic shock in the weeks after Hillary’s loss dissipated (if it ever did). After The Intercept published an anonymous, evidence-free document in June, 2017, allegedly sent by NSA employee Reality Winner, which led that site to claim that “Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials,” Tanden returned to pushing this bizarre conspiracy theory, demanding that I “retract” my post-election criticism of her for peddling this Russia-changed-the-votes madness — as if this NSA document published by The Intercept proved vote-changing hacking by Russia.

                      This conspiracy-mongering led by Tanden and other prominent liberal activists had a corrosive effect on the ability of Democrats to perceive basic reality, to put that mildly. A 2018 poll from Economist/YouGov — conducted more than a year after Trump’s inauguration — found that a large majority of Democrats (66%) believe that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.”

                      Thereafter, Hillary herself took to calling Trump an “illegitimate” president, further fueling the destruction of confidence and faith among Democrats in the legitimacy of the vote totals and specifically the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

                      Democratic leaders and their media allies love to patronizingly warn that conservative media outlets and their audiences are prone to spread and believe crazy conspiracy theories. They purport particular worry when such conspiracies are designed to undermine faith and trust in the U.S. electoral system itself.

                      Yet few have done more to destroy such confidence and faith than Neera Tanden, achieved by disseminating over the course of several years some of the most unhinged, evidence-free and deranged conspiracy theories in which she deliberately deceived Democratic partisans into believing that Moscow’s dastardly hackers invaded the sanctity of the U.S. voting system to change Hillary’s votes to Trump’s. And it worked: at least as of 2018, large majorities of Democrats believe that this utterly unproven but dangerous assertion is true.

                      If Joe Biden succeeds in empowering someone like Neera Tanden without extreme opposition from supposedly adversarial journalists, not only Democrats but also these media outlets will lose whatever lingering credibility they have to denounce conspiracy theories and to defend the legitimacy of U.S. elections. And they will deserve that fate. You can’t run around expecting people will take you seriously when you warn of the dangers of toxic, moronic conspiracy theories when you yourself embrace, elevate and promote the most prolific and reckless purveyors of them.

                      Appointing Neera Tanden is like appointing Harvey Weinstein or Vinson Filyaw to any position in the Justice Department (let alone as head of a sex crimes task force).

                      One point on which I differ from Greenwald is that ” they will deserve that fate”. To quote the film Joker, they will “fucking deserve” that fate.

                  • It was in response to this in your comment:

                    The language of “overturning” the election, and that Trump won by “millions,” is in constant use by Trump’s legal team. You may not personally be saying this, but this is what is being said.

                    It’s hard to tell which comment because of the way the thread is stacked up.

                    • Do you honestly think that anyone, Democrat or Republican, meant that not a single incident of voter fraud has ever existed? Of course not. What “no voter fraud” means is that it’s insignificant.

                      Broadly speaking, the two parties’ takes on elections are as follows: Democrats believe that Republicans use Voter ID laws and roll purging as an excuse to eliminate potentially Democratic voters and win unfairly; Republicans believe that Democrats engage in widespread voter fraud in order to win unfairly. When Democrats lose an election, there’s talk of voter disenfranchisement; when Republicans lose an election, there’s talk of voter fraud. This is not to imply that both claims are of equal validity, but one should be careful that one’s own biases are not the reason one takes one more seriously than the other.

                    • What’s “insignificant”? If voter fraud robs my vote of its impact, then it’s significant. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument, especially since they had no idea how much fraud there was or is. A House race was just decided by 6 votes. If voter fraud isn’t decisive, that’s just moral luck.

                    • This is in response to Gully’s comment at 7:34pm:

                      Yes, the Democrats were fond of saying things like ‘not a single case’ when referring to voter fraud. Seemed pretty clear to me, albeit absurd.

                      To be more precise, the Democrats asserted without evidence that there has been no voter fraud in this country. I can be naïve at times, but I am aware that there is no Easter Bunny.

                      It does occur to me that perhaps this stance stems from the thought that most of the presidential elections I can think of where fraud played a real part favored the Democrats.

                      I think perhaps not since Andrew Jackson lost his first election has it really gone against them. I guess you could make an argument for Stephen Douglas, but I think the Democrats rigged that one themselves. Doubtless Jack would be able to chime in here.

                      Democrats assert, without evidence, that voter ID laws suppress the vote. Most Americans, regardless of party, according to all the polls (ugh) feel differently.

                    • Interesting observation. Governor Abrams declared 2020 was the cleanest election in election year history, including going way back to just after the signing of the Magna Carta.

                      jvb

                    • Hehe, it seems WordPress is trying to suppress this thread — they’ve run out of Reply buttons……

  5. They may simply be playing to statistics. Ask yourself: “What are the minimum facts that would be required for that statement to be true?”

    It only requires that:

    1. In “several”states, say three or more out of 50;

    2. There was at least one corrupt Democrat poll worker (out of what – thousands?);

    3. Who destroyed at least one Trump ballot OR falsified at least one Biden vote.

    Given the number of crazy/unethical people generally, is this so unlikely? Even if the party as a whole did not plan it, even if they did not encourage it, even if they did in fact take every reasonable precaution against it, I wouldn’t call it implausible.

  6. It was really apropos that I just read the lead WSJ editorial from Monday entitled ‘The Price of Bad Polling’.

    If we really want to point to fraud in this election, there it is.

    Here is a sampling: Susan Collins trailed in every poll I can see, but won reelection by nearly 9 points in Maine.
    The Cook Political Report listed 27 House races as tossups — the Republicans won, wait for it, 27 of those, a clean sweep (They also won a number of the ‘lean Democratic’ races).
    The RCP national average showed Biden up by 7.2, the 538 average was 8.4. Biden actually is ahead by about 4.
    The news media was speculating that Democrats might win 10 or more seats in the House, and 6 or 8 in the Senate. They barely held on to the House, and currently are up 1 seat in the Senate.

    All those forecasts were wrong in one direction — it’s tough to find examples where the GOP underperformed the forecasts.

    Could this relentless media bias have swayed enough voters to make a real difference in the election? Certainly it could have. It might have swung a few tenths of a per cent in, say, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin: Then look at the electoral college. It might have meant the difference in the GOP taking back the House.

    The people doing the polling and the people touting them — don’t try to convince me that they believed them, especially not after 2016. They may be the real fraudsters here — and I don’t know if there is a real remedy available.

  7. “What’s “insignificant”? If voter fraud robs my vote of its impact, then it’s significant. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument, especially since they had no idea how much fraud there was or is.”

    Jack, you have rightfully decried the insistence on government action when the benefit is small (“If it saves just one child…”). Insisting on retooling election laws based on the assumption of widespread fraud is unethical. It’s much easier to advocate for Voting ID as harmless than it is to say it’s going to fix a huge problem of which nobody can quite find proof.

    I would agree that the margins have gotten too skinny for much productive argument! Have a good night.

    • . The benefit of making certain, or as certain as possible, that elections have integrity and that the public trusts their outcome is not small, and the analogy between “if it saves one life” rationalizations for restricting rights and preserving the right to vote and have one’s vote count is terrible. The integrity of our system is existentially crucial; if fraud is easy, and it is, then the entire system is at risk. Government protections like requiring IDs and not allowing insecure methods like mail-in balloting to infect elections is not “changing election laws.” Voter IDs were deemed necessary and reasonable by the Supreme Court decades ago. Allowing ballots to be mailed in without applying for for them WAS an election law change, and designed to make cheating easier, because it was well understood that the method was easily abused.

      Nice try at shifting the goalposts, though…

      • The goalposts remain the same. We both want elections with integrity, and we both recognize that a certain level of fraud is inevitable in any system with millions of people participating.

        Voter disenfranchisement is a well-documented problem with Voter ID. The question is, would it happen to an extent that the integrity of the election would be threatened, vs. the amount of voter fraud happening in the system as it stands now. You may find that this stands to reason; others don’t. This is why it would be a golden opportunity for proponents of Voter ID to make a case, *with solid, clear evidence,* that this election had an unusually large and effective amount of fraud. The evidence, to put it very gently, is wanting, and in lieu of evidence, some people are proposing a conspiracy that is growing as ridiculous as it is enormous. This is bad. Sydney Powell telling people in Georgia to stay home and not vote unless her unproven conspiracy theories are accepted is a more evident threat to election integrity than mail-in ballots.

        • “Voter disenfranchisement is a well-documented problem with Voter ID.” No, it’s not. Documented by who? When there were hearings on the matter, somehow complaining citizens managed to fly to Washington, which requires ID. Justice White’s majority opinion explaining why voter ID is necessary is as valid now as when it was written. The “documentation’ is based on anecdotes and assumptions, compounded by confirmation bias.

          • Thanks for pointing that out. I wanted to see the evidence for voter disenfranchisement. I don’t see it; it is used a hammer to prevent election reform. The arguments go one of two ways. The first, it is a “papers, please” position that the oppressive, evil state intends to keep the poor and minorities from the polls. The second is that voter IDs are a poll tax which the poor and minorities can’t afford to pay, so voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities from the voting booth. Both are preposterous.

            jvb

            • The Voting Rights Act was enacted because of a well-documented history of voting discrimination and disenfranchisement at the local level. Shelby County vs. Holder challenged this, successfully and I’d say rightfully, because things have changed since 1965; nevertheless many polling places closed soon afterwards, and those decisions to close, of course, were often political and designed to favor one party over the other. I think you’ll grant that there were some bad actors here. Voter fraud may be more widespread than this disenfranchisement, but, at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, there is no solid evidence that it is.

              Personally I think Voter ID is perfectly sensible, though why people think that a widespread conspiracy to rig software accordingly would somehow be stopped by a plastic card that any teenager who wants beer can manage to get is beyond me.

              • Voter fraud may be more widespread than this disenfranchisement,

                Than what disenfranchisement? Show us some evidence that this decision caused any disenfranchisement, what polling places closed and why, and how did that disenfranchise voters. We need some examples, not just a throwaway line.

                You also claim without evidence that voter id disenfranchises people — let’s have some proof of that.

                The business I am in I see a goodly number of lower income folks — I ask every one of them for ID, and they don’t seem to have a problem with that. If you don’t have a driver’s license the state will provide an identification card at no charge. That is every bit as good an ID as a DL.

    • “If it saves one child” is an appeal to emotion, a thought-terminating cliché, and a dishonest framing of the argument.

      Retooling to prevent fraud is exactly ethical because trust is an essential component required for civilization to function. Fraud is always harmful no matter the volume because it itself is a direct attack on trust.

      Retooling election laws to increase enfranchisement at the cost of trust is akin to removing all the counterfeiting measures on currency. When nobody can tell if a note came from the government or the library’s Xerox machine, then the value of that currency simply disappears with the trust.

Leave a Reply to Rich in CT Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.