Question to the Democrats regarding voting...

SUPERPOKES

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
10,395
7,558
113
DFW
How much fraud in voting is okay???



DMN front page story today:

Side note: Didn't know former OSU baseball great Jimmy Barragan was a news writer for the DMN these days!

Dems still struggling for effective counterargument to GOP claims

By JAMES BARRAGÁN Austin Bureau jbarragan@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN — Democratic state Sen. Royce West of Dallas was making a point.

The number of prosecutions for voter fraud cases in the state of Texas is low. In its 15 years, the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit has prosecuted a few dozen cases in which offenders received jail time, none of them involving widespread fraud.

And though his colleague, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, was talking about another voter fraud indictment in his home county of Gregg, that was one case in one county in a state of 254 counties and 30 million people.

But Hughes had a ready retort: “How much fraud is OK?” “How much fraud is OK?” he repeated. “I want to know.” Game, set and match.

Hughes pushed forward with his bill, an omnibus piece of legislation he says will reduce voter fraud and opponents say will suppress the votes of marginalized communities. The argument is a familiar one to followers of voting legislation over the last two decades, as Republicans in statehouses across the country have moved to stiffen voting regulations, arguing that such changes are necessary to combat voter fraud.

And it’s an effective point.

It puts the proposal’s opponents in the unenviable position of having to defend the low level of fraud cases that happen as a normal part of any large election system. Who wants to be pro-fraud? “The difficulty for Democrats is that it’s kind of hard to sell the argument that you won’t eliminate 100% of fraud but that even a small number of cases isn’t a big deal,” said Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas who researched arguments over voter fraud bills.

“For the public, even one case can legitimize the view that fraud is rampant and impacts the outcome.” “In their over 20 years of this being an issue. … Democrats have never come up with an effective counterargument,” Miller said. That’s because Americans by and large do not trust the government’s handling of elections and perceive that there’s more voter fraud than actually exists, he said.

Historically, voter fraud was a problem both parties took part in. In the 19th century, Boss Tweed ran the Democratic political machine in New York, and no conversation about voter fraud in Texas is complete without discussion of Lyndon B. Johnson’s primary race for the Senate in 1948, which he appeared to have lost until 202 additional ballots were found in a precinct that gave him the victory.

But over the 20th century, Miller said, American elections changed drastically to protect against voter fraud. “The average American does not realize how well regulated our elections are in terms of the incredible amount of transparency that we have,” he said. “There are a lot of checks on it. Checks on voters, checks on election officials, [and] audits.”

Lack of knowledge That lack of knowledge leaves an opening for those who want to cast doubt on the integrity of elections. During a news conference this week, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state needed “as close to zero tolerance” for voter fraud as it could get. “The other night during the debate, one of the Democratic senators said, ‘Sen. Hughes, why do we need this bill? We have less ballot fraud than we used to have,’” he said. “Really?

So how much did we used to have? ... How much do we have now?” The problem, Miller said, is criminals will always find a way around the rules, and while they will get close, no election system will ever be 100% foolproof. “If you have one case of voter fraud out of a million votes cast, on one hand, that’s not very many,” Miller said. “On the other hand, that’s more than zero.”

Patrick, a Republican who has advocated for voter fraud bills for years, compared election security to a bank account. “Don’t you want your bank to be secure?” he asked. “Is it okay for someone to hack in and steal 10% of what you have, or 5%? Or do you want all 100% of your money to be protected in your bank.”

But Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, said the idea should be flipped on its head. “Just because occasionally there’s a bank error doesn’t mean we should shut down ATMs. We have to make it better,” Rottinghaus said. To do that, lawmakers would dedicate more resources and people to elections, like some of the state’s major counties have done. Instead those counties, Harris in particular, are being attacked for the new voting options they offered.
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
How much fraud in voting is okay???



DMN front page story today:

Side note: Didn't know former OSU baseball great Jimmy Barragan was a news writer for the DMN these days!

Dems still struggling for effective counterargument to GOP claims

By JAMES BARRAGÁN Austin Bureau jbarragan@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN — Democratic state Sen. Royce West of Dallas was making a point.

The number of prosecutions for voter fraud cases in the state of Texas is low. In its 15 years, the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit has prosecuted a few dozen cases in which offenders received jail time, none of them involving widespread fraud.

And though his colleague, state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, was talking about another voter fraud indictment in his home county of Gregg, that was one case in one county in a state of 254 counties and 30 million people.

But Hughes had a ready retort: “How much fraud is OK?” “How much fraud is OK?” he repeated. “I want to know.” Game, set and match.

Hughes pushed forward with his bill, an omnibus piece of legislation he says will reduce voter fraud and opponents say will suppress the votes of marginalized communities. The argument is a familiar one to followers of voting legislation over the last two decades, as Republicans in statehouses across the country have moved to stiffen voting regulations, arguing that such changes are necessary to combat voter fraud.

And it’s an effective point.

It puts the proposal’s opponents in the unenviable position of having to defend the low level of fraud cases that happen as a normal part of any large election system. Who wants to be pro-fraud? “The difficulty for Democrats is that it’s kind of hard to sell the argument that you won’t eliminate 100% of fraud but that even a small number of cases isn’t a big deal,” said Patrick Miller, a political scientist at the University of Kansas who researched arguments over voter fraud bills.

“For the public, even one case can legitimize the view that fraud is rampant and impacts the outcome.” “In their over 20 years of this being an issue. … Democrats have never come up with an effective counterargument,” Miller said. That’s because Americans by and large do not trust the government’s handling of elections and perceive that there’s more voter fraud than actually exists, he said.

Historically, voter fraud was a problem both parties took part in. In the 19th century, Boss Tweed ran the Democratic political machine in New York, and no conversation about voter fraud in Texas is complete without discussion of Lyndon B. Johnson’s primary race for the Senate in 1948, which he appeared to have lost until 202 additional ballots were found in a precinct that gave him the victory.

But over the 20th century, Miller said, American elections changed drastically to protect against voter fraud. “The average American does not realize how well regulated our elections are in terms of the incredible amount of transparency that we have,” he said. “There are a lot of checks on it. Checks on voters, checks on election officials, [and] audits.”

Lack of knowledge That lack of knowledge leaves an opening for those who want to cast doubt on the integrity of elections. During a news conference this week, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said the state needed “as close to zero tolerance” for voter fraud as it could get. “The other night during the debate, one of the Democratic senators said, ‘Sen. Hughes, why do we need this bill? We have less ballot fraud than we used to have,’” he said. “Really?

So how much did we used to have? ... How much do we have now?” The problem, Miller said, is criminals will always find a way around the rules, and while they will get close, no election system will ever be 100% foolproof. “If you have one case of voter fraud out of a million votes cast, on one hand, that’s not very many,” Miller said. “On the other hand, that’s more than zero.”

Patrick, a Republican who has advocated for voter fraud bills for years, compared election security to a bank account. “Don’t you want your bank to be secure?” he asked. “Is it okay for someone to hack in and steal 10% of what you have, or 5%? Or do you want all 100% of your money to be protected in your bank.”

But Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, said the idea should be flipped on its head. “Just because occasionally there’s a bank error doesn’t mean we should shut down ATMs. We have to make it better,” Rottinghaus said. To do that, lawmakers would dedicate more resources and people to elections, like some of the state’s major counties have done. Instead those counties, Harris in particular, are being attacked for the new voting options they offered.
There is no fraud that is acceptable. However reality dictates that there will always be some. In the modern times, say past 30 years or so, there is no example of fraud successfully controlling the outcome. With the exception of the racist electoral college in favor of the republicans. So if we eliminate the electoral college and value everyone's vote equally, we would have the cleanest elections possible. The only reason the right wants these restrictive laws is to suppress minority vote.
 

SUPERPOKES

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
10,395
7,558
113
DFW
There is no fraud that is acceptable. However reality dictates that there will always be some. In the modern times, say past 30 years or so, there is no example of fraud successfully controlling the outcome. With the exception of the racist electoral college in favor of the republicans. So if we eliminate the electoral college and value everyone's vote equally, we would have the cleanest elections possible. The only reason the right wants these restrictive laws is to suppress minority vote.
Explain how the Electoral College is racist. And why are these laws only suppressing minority votes? In fact, how are these laws suppressing voting, period?
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
Explain how the Electoral College is racist. And why are these laws only suppressing minority votes? In fact, how are these laws suppressing voting, period?
Ok, once again for the illiterate. Try reading, if you can, the negotiations by James Madison in 1887 regarding the 3/5 compromise. The only reason for the compromise was to keep slavery legal. Slavery is racist. I should not have to point that out. As for suppressing , don't be stupid. The right wants to suppress minority votes so they push laws to that end. They know full well minorities are the least likely to have state issued id's. That is how they affect their rotten goal. Dehumanize anyone not wanting a fascist government. Name calling and the like.
 

iasooner2000

2nd Team
Sep 12, 2011
607
759
93
Oh good grief; the Civil War and A Lincoln settled this in the 19th Century. It was the Southern Dems that refused to let it go completely
 
  • Like
Reactions: OUSOONER67

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
Oh good grief; the Civil War and A Lincoln settled this in the 19th Century. It was the Southern Dems that refused to let it go completely
Well then you must be in support of eliminating the old slave protecting law. It defeats one citizen one vote. If the right's polices are so good then they will win lots of presidencies without the rigged election. Why so scared?
 

launch

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2003
7,954
12,223
113
Baaaaahahahahaha


CxQpAV3XAAEJlqj.jpg
 

Tulsaaggieson

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2010
2,432
1,958
113
Stillwater
Ok, once again for the illiterate. Try reading, if you can, the negotiations by James Madison in 1887 regarding the 3/5 compromise. The only reason for the compromise was to keep slavery legal. Slavery is racist. I should not have to point that out. As for suppressing , don't be stupid. The right wants to suppress minority votes so they push laws to that end. They know full well minorities are the least likely to have state issued id's. That is how they affect their rotten goal. Dehumanize anyone not wanting a fascist government. Name calling and the like.
Wow....so minorities are the least likely to have ids. I checked with the minorities I know. They all have ids. Some of them asked me to tell you to stop being racist by thinking they don't have ids.
 

SUPERPOKES

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
10,395
7,558
113
DFW
Ok, once again for the illiterate. Try reading, if you can, the negotiations by James Madison in 1887 regarding the 3/5 compromise. The only reason for the compromise was to keep slavery legal. Slavery is racist. I should not have to point that out. As for suppressing , don't be stupid. The right wants to suppress minority votes so they push laws to that end. They know full well minorities are the least likely to have state issued id's. That is how they affect their rotten goal. Dehumanize anyone not wanting a fascist government. Name calling and the like.
You are not explaining why minorities are more likely to not have state issued id’. Please explain why minorities don’t have id’s. Can you provide some numbers or are you just making assumptions based on your own biased beliefs?

As for the 3/5 Compromise, that’s long been gone and I really don’t see how that in today’s world, where every person has a vote in their state, the Electoral College is racist. If anything, a person‘s vote is more likely to matter in the Electoral College system, especially in smaller states. The smaller the state, the more their vote matters. Eliminating the Electoral College would de-value everyone’s vote.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner2000

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
You are not explaining why minorities are more likely to not have state issued id’. Please explain why minorities don’t have id’s. Can you provide some numbers or are you just making assumptions based on your own biased beliefs?

As for the 3/5 Compromise, that’s long been gone and I really don’t see how that in today’s world, where every person has a vote in their state, the Electoral College is racist. If anything, a person‘s vote is more likely to matter in the Electoral College system, especially in smaller states. The smaller the state, the more their vote matters. Eliminating the Electoral College would de-value everyone’s vote.
That is a blatant lie. The electoral college cheats in favor of the right wing. You know it and that is why you want to keep it. Fairness scares you cowards.
 

launch

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Jan 12, 2003
7,954
12,223
113
I doubt that your friends say that. The federal elections commission has repeatedly stated low income minorities are the most likely to not have state id.
Lololol you replied to the wrong post.

While yore here though, you never did comment in other threads on the Jim Eagle voting policies in blue states like Delaware, NJ, Colorado etc.
 

2012Bearcat

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 30, 2010
16,551
14,391
113
That is a blatant lie. The electoral college cheats in favor of the right wing. You know it and that is why you want to keep it. Fairness scares you cowards.

Is this what Rachel told you?
I do love how you try to use the nations slavery history to ridiculously try to make your point but you fail to use history for the electoral college. Try reading up on why the Founding Fathers created the electoral college. You might find Federalist #68 very informative or you can choose to continue to allow yourself to be manipulated.
 

Tulsaaggieson

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 29, 2010
2,432
1,958
113
Stillwater
I doubt that your friends say that. The federal elections commission has repeatedly stated low income minorities are the most likely to not have state id.
No I was curious a while back and asked. They all have ids. Some of them even said that people believing they don't have ids is racist. But I can play along.

Any minorities on the board not have a valid form of id? I'll wait....

Also when you are checking your wallets and purses (see not sexist) does someone thinking you don't have an id seem racist to you?
 

OKSTATE1

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
33,374
32,527
113
Edmond, Oklahoma
I thought everyone is given a birth certificate at birth? And if you have ever held a job, had to have a social security card. And if you ever drove car legally had to have driver’s license?

If you joined the military did you need an ID? Certainly military gives you an ID. If you ever was thrown in jail were they not able to identify you? How they do that?

So, are some also saying many AA’s are unable to get access to an airplane because of no ID? Never heard of AA saying it was racist to have to have an ID to get on a plane.

How about buying liquor at a liquor store?

Never once in my life heard of a minority not be able to provide an ID for whatever they wanted to do.
 

SUPERPOKES

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
10,395
7,558
113
DFW
I don’t know of ANY school any more that doesn’t make their students wear an ID. Most jobs make their employees wear an ID. Just about any form of identification that has a picture of you is considered acceptable identification when it comes to voting. If anything appears to be true from this argument is that Democrats want to get rid of IDs to make it easier for non-citizens to be able to vote.
 

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
27,104
37,196
113
I don’t know of ANY school any more that doesn’t make their students wear an ID. Most jobs make their employees wear an ID. Just about any form of identification that has a picture of you is considered acceptable identification when it comes to voting. If anything appears to be true from this argument is that Democrats want to get rid of IDs to make it easier for non-citizens to be able to vote.
STOP BEING FACTUAL. LESS FACT. MOAR FEELS.
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
Holy shit! Is this Toon reincarnated? What kind of stupid do you suffer from?
You are a moron. You live in your messiah's fantasy world. Right is wrong, left is right, up is down. Lies are facts. The earth is flat and so on. You found the biggest serial liar and hold him up to be your gold standard of truth.
 

Cowguy

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2001
11,539
1,555
113
Ok, once again for the illiterate. Try reading, if you can, the negotiations by James Madison in 1887 regarding the 3/5 compromise. The only reason for the compromise was to keep slavery legal. Slavery is racist. I should not have to point that out. As for suppressing , don't be stupid. The right wants to suppress minority votes so they push laws to that end. They know full well minorities are the least likely to have state issued id's. That is how they affect their rotten goal. Dehumanize anyone not wanting a fascist government. Name calling and the like.
You do know that the 3/5 compromise came from the northern states, right? Counting a slave as a whole person would have given southern states too much power.

This EC revisionist history is so dumb and leftists trying to turn it into a racial thing is even dumber.

The EC was all about balancing power across the states. Period.
 

Sunburnt Indian

All-American
Nov 7, 2001
3,903
9,737
113
Edge of the Comancheria
Holy shit! Is this Toon reincarnated? What kind of stupid do you suffer from?
I am Congolese-Cherokee-Caucasian. I obtained a photo ID to vote all by myself. My black school teacher paternal auntie obtained a photo ID to vote all by herself. She once told me the Africans would one day catch on to the Democrats' mountain of empty promises. Are we seeing signs of it today?

I am pro picture ID to vote and pro Electoral college. I want U. S. citizens only voting. I don't want Gay Bay, L A, Chicago, New York and Boston deciding presidential elections.

Medic007 would score higher than his opponent in my 60 question 60 minute time limit M test. How do I know? Both shout so with their every post.
 

glflyer

2nd Team
Gold Member
Jul 31, 2015
799
597
93
You do know that the 3/5 compromise came from the northern states, right? Counting a slave as a whole person would have given southern states too much power.

This EC revisionist history is so dumb and leftists trying to turn it into a racial thing is even dumber.

The EC was all about balancing power across the states. Period.
That is false. James Madison used the 3/5 compromise( the group he was compromising with was the southern states who wanted to make sure slavery stayed legal), to get them to join the union. So , no it was a COMPROMISE that in his writings Madison hated, thus it was for the south.
 

Cowguy

Heisman Candidate
May 29, 2001
11,539
1,555
113
That is false. James Madison used the 3/5 compromise( the group he was compromising with was the southern states who wanted to make sure slavery stayed legal), to get them to join the union. So , no it was a COMPROMISE that in his writings Madison hated, thus it was for the south.
Show your work.
 

07pilt

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2012
14,300
5,636
113
You do know that the 3/5 compromise came from the northern states, right? Counting a slave as a whole person would have given southern states too much power.
Now think this through. If you are a slave state whose representation in congress is partly based on your population of slaves, would you want your say in a presidential election to be based on the votes cast, or based on the number of representatives you have in congress?
This EC revisionist history is so dumb and leftists trying to turn it into a racial thing is even dumber.

The EC was all about balancing power across the states. Period.
Not according to the Federalist Papers.
 

07pilt

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Nov 16, 2012
14,300
5,636
113
Show your work.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

John Madison July 19 1787
 

iasooner2000

2nd Team
Sep 12, 2011
607
759
93
Good Lord you are obtuse; the Southern Strategy was when there were how many “States” that were needed to defeat King George ? Was Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana (or Texas, et al) part of this horrible plan ? Were slaves fighting along side their owners granted their freedom (at least in Northern colonies) ?
In addition to the above, which party was called Democrat or Republican in that era ?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts