The Third Debate

[Seriati]

Seriati, is there anything that could persuade you?

On which point?  That we should a safe and secure voting system that we can have high confidence in because it prevents and deters illegal voting?  No.  That to me is a basic tenant.

As to whether or not voter fraud has influenced a specific election?  Absolutely, I can be influenced.  Show me that we have reasonable controls designed to detect fraud (which we currently do not) and then the lack of catching it would to me be a prima facie demonstration that it didn't occur that would take specific evidence to rebut.  That's why I've repeatedly asked for you guys to explain to me a reasonable system to detect and prevent any of the forms of fraud that I listed.  I honestly don't understand the reluctance to answer my challenge, unless you believe that no such measures exist or could exist, in which case I'm unlikely to be persuaded.

You reject studies that find no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and you reject as heresay reports that Voter ID bills had political intent.

Negative evidence is not rejected or rejectable.  I specifically stated that I don't believe the measures we take to detect fraud would be likely to catch any of the frauds I indicated (and yet we do catch and refer for prosecution at least 100s to 1000s per cycle).  I reject hearsay because when you have a law that is supported by 10's of millions the personal opinion of anyone as to why its being pursued is completely irrelevant.  The same way, you can support increasing the minimum wage because you believe it has good purposes notwithstanding that some of its architects pursued and supported it specifically because it disadvantaged poor black workers.   Unless you can show me that for 10's of millions of people the goal is to disenfranchise eligible minority voters you haven't demonstrated anything of merit by trying to explore the "reasons".  I don't believe in cabals controlling us all, even if the cabals believe they have that power.

You also reject the evidence from all of the legal decisions against Voter ID laws, such as the ones in North Carolina and Texas?

What evidence?  I support the courts in their efforts to fine tune any Voter ID restrictions to prevent anyone who is entitled to vote from being able to do so.  I support free IDs, I support allowing provisional votes and obtaining IDs later, heck, I'd support killing two birds with one stone and requiring state officers be available to issue IDs (presuming proper documentation) right next to polling stations.  Given how important they are and how important this right is, why the heck wouldn't you support that?  Have I ever complained that any states' specific Voter ID law was overturned?  To me though this is a matter of scope, it can not be the right answer that no Voter ID law works, it can't just can't, because the only reason that would be the case after the objections are satisfied is to specifically allow for fraud to occur.

Your side is asserting that this unmeasured, invisible problem requires significant remedies.  Given that you provide no evidence to back your claim, what evidence would you require to reassess your position? In other words, what standards of evidence do you expect to be held to, and what standard of evidence do you hold others to?

I think I've been clear.  Before I give any weight to your argument from ignorance (ie that because we haven't found a crime it doesn't exist) you'd have to establish an effective methodology to catch and prevent such crime from occurring.  Do that, and you'll persuade me that voter fraud isn't a problem, because I've never tried to disenfranchise any citizen.

Now to be fair, if we make a good system that prevents voter fraud, its very likely that those seeking to game the system will shift their focus to other ways to cheat - like say issuing voter IDs as a matter of right to non-citizens.

In the meantime, did you know that RNC is legally barred from engaging in "“ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud."  Legally barred from trying to remedy vote fraud?

For apparently racist reasons in a Southern state, the RNC mailed minority voters a letter and then challenged any voter who's letter was returned as address undeliverable.  Clearly the racist motivation is an issue, but what's actually wrong with such a challenge, presuming that it's undertaken in good faith?  Several people have suggested such a way to "study" whether voter fraud occurs, and here that methodology has been thrown out because it was misused.

So seriously, describe an effective way to catch voter fraud if you want me to rely on it doesn't exist.

[Seriati]

No, its not the definition of systematic disenfranchisement.  That would be a system that is designed for the purpose of disenfranchising voters

Quite aside from the fact that there is significant evidence that such laws were actually designed with the intent of disenfranchising voters, "systematic disenfranchisement" does not require intent - it just requires that the system in place has the effect of disenfranchising voters.  Clearly, the laws struck down recently by the courts did have this effect, and clearly, they were part of the legal systems of the states that enacted them.  By definition that is systematic disenfranchisement.

Really?  So the laws disenfranchised people because of the color of their skin?  Show me where the law does that.

Do you describe it as systematic disenfranchisement that those who don't register to vote are not permitted to vote?  Do you find it as systematic disenfranchisement that obtaining a mail in ballot has a deadline, where if you miss it and can't get to the state in time to vote you can't vote?

I'm not objecting to the part where this is an intentional part of the system, I'm rejecting that disenfranchisement is the intent.  There is literally no, not one, single citizen for whom it is impossible to take the steps to vote under this system.  The most extreme cases that can be proffered are little old ladies who were borne before the advent of birth certificates, and they are easily accommodated under the rules.  So pretty much, there is no citizen this disenfranchises, inconveniences sure.  Lots of things in life are inconvenient but this burden is literally de minimus.

[cherrypoptart]

From Drudge:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Man-Accused-With-Filing-Fake-Voter-Registration-Applications-399027631.html

A former resident of Alexandria, Virginia, is facing up to 40 years in prison after he allegedly used fake names to fill out voter registration applications.

Vafalay Massaquoi, 30, is facing four felony charges related to allegations of voter registration fraud, the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office said. Each charge carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

In the spring of 2016, Massaquoi was registering new voters as an employee of a local advocacy group. According to the Commonwealth's Attorney, Massaquoi fabricated applications and used fake names to fill out the registration forms.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111029767.html

"A 74-year-old woman tasked with opening envelopes sent by Miami-Dade County voters with their completed mail ballots was arrested Friday after co-workers caught her illegally marking ballots, resulting in an unknown — but small — number of fraudulent votes being cast for mayoral candidate Raquel Regalado."

http://6abc.com/politics/action-news-investigation-voting-from-the-grave/1575596/

Republican candidate Donald Trump has made allegations of fraud at polls in the City of Philadelphia.

So, Action News dug through a decade's worth of election and death records to see if there was any truth to the claim.

Some of what Action News investigation found was stunning.

Rita A. Pezzano, who passed a decade ago, was found listed as an active voter. Her daughter-in-law was shocked when we shared the news.

"I was about seven months pregnant when she died," said Audrey Marchiano.

"So she has been dead about 10 years now?" asked Investigative Reporter Wendy Saltzman.

"Yes," said Marchiano.

Pezzano passed in 2006. But state voting records show the South Philadelphia native still listed as an "Active Voter" who cast ballots in 2008, 2012, 2014, and the 2016 primary election.


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/

CHICAGO (CBS) — Susie Sallee was buried in 1998. Yet records show she voted in Chicago 12 years later.

Victor Crosswell died in 1994, but records show he’s voted six times since then.

And then there’s Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993.

“It’s crazy,” Sharon Stevens Anderson, Stevens’ daughter, tells CBS 2’s Pam Zekman. “I don’t see how people can be able to do something like that and get away with it.”

Those are just a few of the cases CBS 2 Investigators found by merging Chicago Board of Election voter histories with the death master file from the Social Security Administration.

In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just the tip of the iceberg.

And if Trump hadn't put the country on high alert to look out for voter fraud we might not even know, just like we didn't in past elections.

There are more reports of machine vote flipping but that could be voter error as was pointed out so I'll hold off on jumping up and down and pointing and yelling, "See! See!" until we get something more definitive on that.

[Seriati]

To be fair to Seriati, the sort of thing he's concerned about is precisely the thing that would lack the kind of data that sounds convincing. That's almost the point of the complaint in the first place - it's a potential systemic hole that at present has no recourse or method of detection. It's like saying there's a hole in the floor of the house. Maybe it's never even bothered anyone, but fixes don't have to remedy wrongs done so much as prevent them.

My complaint is that the house is kept intentionally dark, and Greg and AI seem to be insistently arguing that there is no reason to turn on the lights and that the lights may never be turned on because there are no holes in the floor.  There proof is that hardly anyone who goes into the house ends up in the basement without taking the stairs.  We know that people do end in the basement, and some didn't take the stairs, we just have no proof that its a lot of people.  Why not turn on the lights and find out what is happening?

[D.W.]

And if Trump hadn't put the country on high alert to look out for voter fraud we might not even know, just like we didn't in past elections.

Except that in every presidential race I can remember... it was an issue.  We just didn't have a candidate preemptively rejecting the results of the election because of it, weeks before the day of said election... 

[Seriati]

And if Trump hadn't put the country on high alert to look out for voter fraud we might not even know, just like we didn't in past elections.

Except that in every presidential race I can remember... it was an issue.  We just didn't have a candidate preemptively rejecting the results of the election because of it, weeks before the day of said election... 

I was listening to the debate, are you confused about what he said?  He literally said it would be a real time decision, that is in no way the same as preemptively rejecting it ahead of time.

[D.W.]

Two ways to stamp this out.
Actual data base management to make sure registered voters aren't corpses.  Instead of just sharing a name with another voter who is alive and well...

Encourage people to vote!
If voter turn out didn't suck as badly as it does, a fraudulent voter couldn't hide nearly as easily.

As long as they are free, I don't have any issues with voter ID (single piece of state (any state's) photo ID).  Beyond that, there's not much you can do that isn't going to be wielded as a political tool to suppress one side or the other.

[D.W.]

And if Trump hadn't put the country on high alert to look out for voter fraud we might not even know, just like we didn't in past elections.

Except that in every presidential race I can remember... it was an issue.  We just didn't have a candidate preemptively rejecting the results of the election because of it, weeks before the day of said election... 

I was listening to the debate, are you confused about what he said?  He literally said it would be a real time decision, that is in no way the same as preemptively rejecting it ahead of time.

I was, and you are kidding yourself if you missed the implication.  Then again, he only said it for the attention and outrage it caused.  It kept the spotlight on him and lets him rile up his base with the specter of voter fraud, which will likely spur turn out on his side.  It's a solid tactic even if it is a scare tactic and an insult to democracy itself.

[Seriati]

I was, and you are kidding yourself if you missed the implication.  Then again, he only said it for the attention and outrage it caused.  It kept the spotlight on him and lets him rile up his base with the specter of voter fraud, which will likely spur turn out on his side.  It's a solid tactic even if it is a scare tactic and an insult to democracy itself.

I'm not kidding myself.  By "implications" you mean the hours, then days of deliberate spin by talking heads trying to make this into the worse statement ever?  Said it at the time, it's no worse and no more than what Al Gore did.

[D.W.]

And the "I'll keep you in suspense" line?   

The audible audience laughing didn't seem to require any spin.  Nor did the moderator pressing him on the question. 

[Seriati]

And the "I'll keep you in suspense" line?   

Doesn't that literally mean what I said?  That it's a real time decision that isn't getting answered right now?

The audible audience laughing didn't seem to require any spin.  Nor did the moderator pressing him on the question. 

I think this is just an example of everyone (possibly including me) hearing what they want to hear rather than what was said.

[D.W.]

I suppose my point is, he was being a tease.  It was intentionally childish and inflammatory.  He COULD have said, "If the vote is extremely close and I have reason to be suspicious of an outcome I cannot say I would immediately concede." 

But that's not what he did.  He insinuated he may just decide he wouldn't concede even if there weren't highly specialized circumstances.  He further went on to qualify that by talking about widespread voter fraud.  Now, as I've said before, he's doing this for effect.  For THIS effect.  He wanted everyone to hear what "I wanted to hear".  It would keep media attention on him (priority #1) and it will also motivate his base (priority a distant #2), oh and then there is priority #3, leave the door open for even MORE attention focused on Trump even after he looses.  As now he can either refrain to concede or do so and later claim he was bullied into it and everyone knows in a fair election he would have been the obvious winner.

[Seriati]

I suppose my point is, he was being a tease.  It was intentionally childish and inflammatory.  He COULD have said, "If the vote is extremely close and I have reason to be suspicious of an outcome I cannot say I would immediately concede."

And?  I can think of about ten thousand things he could have said, and ten thousand more I would have said if I was debating Clinton.  The man is a terrible debator, he's got a winning hand of policies, facts and opponent issues and he constantly manages to foot fault and make himself look worse.

It is not in the least unreasonable to say you won't accept the results of a rigged election.  Can you imagine Hillary saying she'd accept the results of a rigged election that she lost?  I sure as heck can't.

But that's not what he did.  He insinuated he may just decide he wouldn't concede even if there weren't highly specialized circumstances.  He further went on to qualify that by talking about widespread voter fraud.  Now, as I've said before, he's doing this for effect.  For THIS effect.  He wanted everyone to hear what "I wanted to hear".  It would keep media attention on him (priority #1) and it will also motivate his base (priority a distant #2), oh and then there is priority #3, leave the door open for even MORE attention focused on Trump even after he looses.  As now he can either refrain to concede or do so and later claim he was bullied into it and everyone knows in a fair election he would have been the obvious winner.

And again, that's you hearing what you wanted to hear, not what he actually said.  It's okay to read your beliefs about what he says and means into what he said, it's not okay to claim that he said what you think he meant.

[AI Wessex]

It is not in the least unreasonable to say you won't accept the results of a rigged election.  Can you imagine Hillary saying she'd accept the results of a rigged election that she lost?  I sure as heck can't.

It's completely obvious that he says it to confuse and control the discussion.  He also lies outright for the same purpose.  (Normal) people shake their heads when he says these things and say to themselves, "What is wrong with him?"  He's playing you, Seriati, and you're buying it.

[D.W.]

it's not okay to claim that he said

DW:  "But that's not what he did.  He insinuated he may..."

I believe the man chooses his language almost as cautiously as HRC.  Terrible debater or not, I don't think this was a miss step.  I believe it was a calculated ploy.  One that is playing perfectly to both party audiences. 

[AI Wessex]

To be fair to Seriati, the sort of thing he's concerned about is precisely the thing that would lack the kind of data that sounds convincing. That's almost the point of the complaint in the first place - it's a potential systemic hole that at present has no recourse or method of detection. It's like saying there's a hole in the floor of the house. Maybe it's never even bothered anyone, but fixes don't have to remedy wrongs done so much as prevent them.

My complaint is that the house is kept intentionally dark, and Greg and AI seem to be insistently arguing that there is no reason to turn on the lights and that the lights may never be turned on because there are no holes in the floor.  There proof is that hardly anyone who goes into the house ends up in the basement without taking the stairs.  We know that people do end in the basement, and some didn't take the stairs, we just have no proof that its a lot of people.  Why not turn on the lights and find out what is happening?

Where have you suggested how to do that?  I think you're just complaining that since you can't prove it isn't happening we have to assume that it is happening, and if it's happening a little we should assume it's happening a lot.  You need to demonstrate how pervasive it is before anyone can assess how to solve it.  So far, we know roughly how many people are being denied the opportunity to vote through systematic disenfranchisement, and that is a very large number.

[TheDrake]

For apparently racist reasons in a Southern state, the RNC mailed minority voters a letter and then challenged any voter who's letter was returned as address undeliverable.  Clearly the racist motivation is an issue, but what's actually wrong with such a challenge, presuming that it's undertaken in good faith?  Several people have suggested such a way to "study" whether voter fraud occurs, and here that methodology has been thrown out because it was misused.

IF everything were done equitably, across all counties and communities, maybe it would be in good faith. But these things are almost never equally applied, just like the Florida recounts targeting specific precincts.

Along with that problem, is that 500,000 homeless citizens all have the right to vote. Colorado has the following law:

[T]hose who cannot afford regular or adequate shelter may use a park, vacant lot, or homeless shelter as “home base” for registration purposes... Basically, if the elector intends the given location to be their home base, they may give any physical location as an address.

Try getting a mail carrier to deliver to Golden Gate Park. Minnesota also:

People who are homeless may register to vote by using the location of where they sleep as their address. This could be a shelter, a friend’s place or outside. If it is outside, the voter should write a description of its location on line four of their voter registration application. For example, ‘in the NW corner of Jefferson Park near the intersection of Winston Ave. and Smith St.’

This clearly does open up a possibility for fraud. If you can find enough people to pose as homeless, then I guess you can sway a close election. But with the alternative being the disfranchisement of a half million people, I'm gonna accept some fraud as a necessary evil.

[Wayward Son]

On a more positive note, here is something we can actually do to monitor the accuracy of vote counts in some areas (about half the country, if I read the article right).

http://hubpages.com/politics/How-to-Monitor-the-Honesty-of-the-Vote-Count-Anywhere-in-America-This-Election

[cherrypoptart]

Isn't this the thread where we were talking about Trump not accepting the results of the election?

People here may not have said it but plenty of people in the media went on and on about how that undermines our democratic ideals and strikes right at foundation of our entire system of government.

I don't remember if I actually wrote that it would be funny if Hillary was the one who narrowly loses and then challenges the results, or if I just thought it to myself.

But here we are. Hillary is challenging the results of the election.

And that's fine by me. I'm not going to freak out about her challenging the results of the election and casting a cloud of doubt over our democratic process. If it was Trump I would want him to make sure all the legitimate votes were counted and counted accurately and all the fraudulent votes were kicked out of the tally, so it's all good. But what's not so good is observing the double standard where the media isn't freaking out about what she's doing the way they would be if it was Trump. But it's worth it anyway just to see the poetic justice of it all and witness the Democrats and the media once again getting hoisted by their own petard.

[Kasandra]

I knew you would jump in on this .  Wasn't it Trump's team that said that he didn't really mean that the vote was rigged (though he said it repeatedly), but that he legally had the right to challenge results if he thought there might be some question as to the accuracy of the count?  Did you forget that?  As I recall, you thought that made a lot of sense back then.  Just sayin'

[Pete at Home]

For apparently racist reasons in a Southern state, the RNC mailed minority voters a letter and then challenged any voter who's letter was returned as address undeliverable.  Clearly the racist motivation is an issue, but what's actually wrong with such a challenge, presuming that it's undertaken in good faith?  Several people have suggested such a way to "study" whether voter fraud occurs, and here that methodology has been thrown out because it was misused.

IF everything were done equitably, across all counties and communities, maybe it would be in good faith. But these things are almost never equally applied, just like the Florida recounts targeting specific precincts.

Along with that problem, is that 500,000 homeless citizens all have the right to vote. Colorado has the following law:

[T]hose who cannot afford regular or adequate shelter may use a park, vacant lot, or homeless shelter as “home base” for registration purposes... Basically, if the elector intends the given location to be their home base, they may give any physical location as an address.

Try getting a mail carrier to deliver to Golden Gate Park. Minnesota also:

People who are homeless may register to vote by using the location of where they sleep as their address. This could be a shelter, a friend’s place or outside. If it is outside, the voter should write a description of its location on line four of their voter registration application. For example, ‘in the NW corner of Jefferson Park near the intersection of Winston Ave. and Smith St.’

This clearly does open up a possibility for fraud. If you can find enough people to pose as homeless, then I guess you can sway a close election. But with the alternative being the disfranchisement of a half million people, I'm gonna accept some fraud as a necessary evil.

Some Chicago cemeteries have their own voting precincts.

[Pete at Home]

I knew you would jump in on this .  Wasn't it Trump's team that said that he didn't really mean that the vote was rigged (though he said it repeatedly), but that he legally had the right to challenge results if he thought there might be some question as to the accuracy of the count?  Did you forget that?  As I recall, you thought that made a lot of sense back then.  Just sayin'

The hypocrisy of both sides is thick here.

There was foul play on both sides of this election and anyone who does not recognize this is uninformed or hypocritical.

[cherrypoptart]

Like I said, I don't mind her challenging the election and asking for recounts. That's fine.

The problem is she and those in the media said before the election that what she is doing now would be something to really freak out about.

[Pete at Home]

Florida vote counting law requires a paper ballot recount if the election result is within .5%, which it was. 

Agreed as to the first recount.

[Greg Davidson]

Hillary is not challenging the results of the election.  Jill Stein got a lot of funds raised to fund recounts (Clinton made no effort to initiate such an effort), and so far in one state where a recount has been requested (which would not affect the outcome of the election), Clinton has signed on as an interested party. 

[Kasandra]

The problem is she and those in the media said before the election that what she is doing now would be something to really freak out about.

No she didn't.  She was talking about Trump's wild accusations that the vote was rigged against him.  Keep your facts straight if you can.

[Pete at Home]

Hillary is not challenging the results of the election.  Jill Stein got a lot of funds raised to fund recounts (Clinton made no effort to initiate such an effort), and so far in one state where a recount has been requested (which would not affect the outcome of the election), Clinton has signed on as an interested party.

I think that position is to Hillary's credit, and I hope it mends fences with disaffected Sanders supporters

[Seriati]

The recount passion is pretty much bald faced hypocrisy.  I find it interest the amount of media accounts that state there is no evidence of voter fraud in the articles.

Of course, there wouldn't be, and there likely never will be, because we don't have an effective system in place to detect voter fraud.  These gaps are pretty big, if even one of the results changes, it pretty much is proof that the no fraud brigade was selling a big ole lie.

[Pete at Home]

" The recount passion is pretty much bald faced hypocrisy"

I disagree. There's a difference between saying I want a recount based on observed irregularities, and saying, "if I lose the upcoming election it will be because you cheated" without evidence.  And the millions of illegal voters defense stinks.

[cherrypoptart]

> Seriati

> Of course, there wouldn't be, and there likely never will be, because we don't have an effective system in place to detect voter fraud.

Exactly.

If there was massive voter fraud, what kind of evidence would there ever be to prove it?

You won't get an answer to that question because as you note, there wouldn't be any.

We don't have the systems in place to detect it, and not only that but in the places where it would occur, Democrat voter strongholds, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to make sure we never have the ability to detect massive voter fraud. After that, they jump up and down screaming that there is no evidence of it, like I just heard them do on an NPR story about this. It's just hard to take them seriously at all. It's almost like they are purposefully trolling this whole thing.

[D.W.]

So upon realizing this the RNC set about perpetrating mass voter fraud?   

Good news for the right!  It worked.  (Pssst, I know you did it.)

Now you can use your ill gotten win to push for real election reform. 

You know, unless you just want to keep this politically convenient bugbear around to point at in the event things don't go your way.

[NobleHunter]

If there's no evidence, how do you know it happens?

[Kasandra]

Trump said so.  Millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.  What more does anyone need to know?

[cherrypoptart]

These are some comments I've seen. I know they are true because I saw them on the internet. But in any case they make perfect sense.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In 2016, California issued 605,000 Driver's licenses to undocumented (illegal) immigrants. Another, 830,000 undocumented applicants have sought driver's licenses.

After California passed its law to provide driver's licenses the department of motor vehicles hired 1,000 part time employees to deal with the onslaught of undocumented (illegal) immigrants applying for the licenses.

In California, all you need to register to vote is, you guessed it.....A driver's license."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Its not baseless. Come to California and you will see it rampant. Sanctuary cities allow people to register when they get a license. Illegals get licenses. They check no ids so they can walk in and vote. This is how Democrats stay in power. Put it into all these cities with heavy illegal population and I can guarantee its happening. Proven, they find dead people on the rolls also in cities like LA, Chicago and New York."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/behind-trumps-baseless-theory-of-massive-voter-fraud-152724213.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Democrats set up a system that makes it as easy as possible for illegals to vote and massive voter fraud to take place with no mechanism to detect it or gather evidence about it, it just seems absurd for anyone to then take their claims that there is no evidence to support massive voter fraud seriously. That's another one of those truthful lies we were talking about. Just like when there was supposedly no evidence that Hillary's server had classified information on it. Why? Because she deleted all the emails and bleached them. Now I can see why Democrats would say all this, just because that's how they play the game. But I think it's also just playing the game when they pretend that anyone would actually take any of their claims about evidence and lack of it seriously. If people really think those claims about lack of evidence when the whole system is rigged to suppress any such evidence should be taken seriously, that's just being unrealistic.

[cherrypoptart]

Let me put it this way.

Is it true that in California, undocumented immigrants can get a drivers' license?

Is it true that all you need to vote there is a driver's license?

So what mechanism is there in place to stop someone with a driving license from voting when they are not supposed to?

And what mechanism is in place to detect this after it happens?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, I looked up how to write license to drive and I couldn't find a clear decision so I just used all three variations to be on the safe side.

[cherrypoptart]

> NobleHunter


> "If there's no evidence, how do you know it happens?"

The real answer is we don't know that it happens.

We also don't really know that it doesn't happen.

It's just an assumption made either way.

If there is no evidence to support something but there also wouldn't be any evidence to support it even if it were true, what does Pascal's wager suggest is the more appropriate assumption?

Both sides are making a Pascal's wager here. For Democrats it is safer to assume there isn't massive voter fraud but for Republicans it is safer to assume there is.

In that way, both sides are being completely logical, and self serving, in their approach to the issue.

I expect that if the situation were reversed and Democrats thought that if there was massive voter fraud it would work against them and if Republicans believed that if there was massive voter fraud it would work in their favor, the Democrats would be the ones making the claims of massive voter fraud without evidence and the Republicans would be the ones calling that patently absurd.

[TheDeamon]

And what mechanism is in place to detect this after it happens?

There should be a register of everyone who voted in a given election. It may or may not detail how they registered, or what voting method they used, but it should include their place of residence.

You could "audit" that register, but I think I've already covered(prior to the election) the issues likely to be encountered there.

I do think Hillary's popular vote win is legit, but fraud in regards to the margins wouldn't surprise me. Going so far as to personally suspect there may have been 100's of thousands of illegal immigrants voting between California and New York alone. Possibly even getting into the 1 million vote range, but they're going to be nearly impossible to detect short of doing a background check on literally every person who voted. Which would arguably require a warrant, but outside of the secret national security courts, I doubt any other court would grant such a general search warrant.

[cherrypoptart]

Well at least there is one Democrat who admits what is really going on here:

Bryan Dean Wright

I'm a Democrat. Here's how Hillary and the recount campaign leaves me feeling

"Saturday, Hillary Clinton announced that she had joined a recount effort in at least three Midwestern states, questioning whether “an accurate vote” will be reported to the Electoral College. This comes on the heels of a concession speech where she told her supporters that, “We must accept this result… Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” Hours after Clinton delivered her remarks, President Obama joined his nominee in asking the same of the country – and my Democratic party. It was a moment of pride for many Americans. We could celebrate a peaceful transition of power, even if we didn’t like the result.

It’s now clear that Clinton’s speech wasn’t genuine. According to her campaign, they’ve had lawyers, data scientists and analysts combing over election results starting “the day after the election,” or the day of her otherwise thoughtful concession speech. Their goal:  find evidence that would suggest a hacked result, despite the president – and my former colleagues in the intelligence community – stating clearly that there are no signs of foreign tampering at the ballot box.

As a Democrat, I am frustrated and ashamed. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I realize that America’s history was built not just on its gallant winners but also on its noble losers. Why would Clinton do this? Some suggest it’s a vengeful ploy to make Trump look illegitimate in the eyes of the American people. But I suspect that this is the last, embarrassing gasp of a flailing politician, unable to accept defeat with grace..."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/28/im-democrat-but-heres-how-hillary-and-recount-campaign-leaves-me-feeling.amp.html

[Kasandra]

I commend you for finding a Democrat to criticize Hillary.  Nice job!

[Pete at Home]

Cherry, are you claiming that Californians have done away with voter registration?

[cherrypoptart]

I'm looking it up on Snopes and other places now.

http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

> Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver's licenses in 2015, the first year they have been able to enjoy that benefit, officials said Monday."

So that part is true.

California also has moter-voter registration. The key point though is that when this is used the person registering to vote is supposed to prove their eligibility. And the key question is, "Do they?"

More from Snopes:

> California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said that the new law is actually more secure:

>     The way automatic registration works is relatively simple: Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver's license or state ID. The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State's office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms...

 >    "... Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things," California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters "have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That's arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury," Padilla said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They key part there is "Potential voters have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship."

There seems to be a loophole big enough to drive a tractor trailer through right here. It says that the vast majority of the time people show a document that reflects citizenship. First of all, why isn't it every single time? Second of all, what is "the vast majority of the time?" Eighty-five to ninety percent of the time could be considered the vast majority of the time and yet that would still leave room for hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes.

So this Snopes debunking is really more just "truthful lies". I think I'm never going to get tired of using that because it's such a great way to put it. While it is supposedly debunking this it is actually explaining exactly how it could be happening and why we would never know if it is. Nobody in the government in California has any interest in stopping it, finding out if it's happening, or doing anything about it even if they did know.

I would also be curious to know if copies of the documents proving eligibility to vote are made and verified or if the DMV worker just takes a look at it, nods, and then does the deed. It's not like fraudulent documents are hard to come by.

[Pete at Home]

" that would still leave room for hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes."

As a cap. If you assume that every illegal got a license, and every one that could register fraudulently did so. And that every registered illegal actually did vote, in contrast to citizens who mostly don't vote.  If you ask me, that sounds a little stretched. 

But even if all those assumptions are spot on, you still concede that hundreds of thousands isn't 1-2 millions, right?  That Scarecrow's numbers are sheep poo?

[TheDrake]

Snopes used kind of a terrible quote there.

LATimes had this to say:

What about people in the country illegally who are able to obtain driver's licenses in California under a law passed in 2013?

Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration.

So, there's a citizen license, and a noncitizen license. You gotta prove you're a citizen to get the normal kind, is how I read it. Note that there are LOTS of other forms of ID that prove your citizenship, so when he says "the vast majority are showing birth certificate or passport", it cannot be construed as "only the vast majority show ID". Other IDs include a military ID and a certificate of naturalization.

[TheDrake]

I would also be curious to know if copies of the documents proving eligibility to vote are made and verified or if the DMV worker just takes a look at it, nods, and then does the deed.

That probably depends on the ethnicity of the applicant and the political preference of the clerk. 

[Pete at Home]

I would also be curious to know if copies of the documents proving eligibility to vote are made and verified or if the DMV worker just takes a look at it, nods, and then does the deed.

That probably depends on the ethnicity of the applicant and the political preference of the clerk. 

I doubt it. Too many Republicans with vid cams on their cell phones these days. 

[TheDeamon]

I would also be curious to know if copies of the documents proving eligibility to vote are made and verified or if the DMV worker just takes a look at it, nods, and then does the deed.

That probably depends on the ethnicity of the applicant and the political preference of the clerk. 

I doubt it. Too many Republicans with vid cams on their cell phones these days.

There are Republicans in California right now?

[cherrypoptart]

> Pete at Home

> But even if all those assumptions are spot on, you still concede that hundreds of thousands isn't 1-2 millions, right?  That Scarecrow's numbers are sheep poo?

Well that's only looking at illegals. Massive voter fraud has been going on since long before they even came into the equation. We still have the antics of the casual Democrat like what James O'Keefe caught at least one Democrat operative admitting to on camera, a guy who had been invited to the White House by President Obama hundreds of times and promptly lost whatever position it was he had when the video came out. President Obama's fingerprints are all over these types of shenanigans which shouldn't be surprising considering that "community organizer" is just a trumped up name for a voter fraud specialist.

The real questions are simple. Is there motive? Is there intent? Is there opportunity? If the answers to those are yes the only thing that stops massive voter fraud is the integrity of the people who know they could get away with it if they wanted to, and there is ample evidence that such integrity often is not present.

[Pete at Home]

> Pete at Home

> But even if all those assumptions are spot on, you still concede that hundreds of thousands isn't 1-2 millions, right?  That Scarecrow's numbers are sheep poo?

Well that's only looking at illegals. Massive voter fraud has been going on since long before they even came into the equation. We still have the antics of the casual Democrat like what James O'Keefe caught at least one Democrat operative admitting to on camera, a guy who had been invited to the White House by President Obama hundreds of times and promptly lost whatever position it was he had when the video came out. President Obama's fingerprints are all over these types of shenanigans which shouldn't be surprising considering that "community organizer" is just a trumped up name for a voter fraud specialist.

The real questions are simple. Is there motive? Is there intent? Is there opportunity? If the answers to those are yes the only thing that stops massive voter fraud is the integrity of the people who know they could get away with it if they wanted to, and there is ample evidence that such integrity often is not present.

But Scarecrow specified 1-2 million illegals voting, did he not?

I'm not trying to humiliate or corner you, Cherry. Just trying to create an environment where we all admit the flaws we recognize in our favorite candidates.

[cherrypoptart]

It's hard to imagine that it could really be that many. That implies a systemic failure of the entire system. But we really have no idea. Hopefully with Republicans in complete control now something will finally be done to make our election system more secure against fraud. Whether it's actual or just potential fraud, as we can see not having a system that would leave evidence of fraud if it were actually taking place undermines the faith people can have in our entire government.

It's funny that was exactly the point Hillary was making right up until the moment it worked against her too. If she thinks that as many as ten thousand votes could have been counted wrong that's pretty huge. As we can see it doesn't take millions to swing an election. The number of millions in voter fraud was most probably arrived at by that being the number needed to swing the popular election back to Trump's favor. If Hillary had won by only a couple of hundred thousand votes, that's probably the number that would have been thrown out there for consideration. So yes it seems high but because we don't know what the number of fraudulent votes might have been and have no way to determine it after the fact within our current framework and because that is how many fraudulent votes Trump needs to give him a mandate, that's where it probably came from.

[yossarian22c]

Actually Cherry it wouldn't be that hard to detect massive voter fraud.  Select 10,000 voters at random from a state where you think fraud occurred and go ask them if they voted.  It would require a modest budget but would give you an idea of how much fraud of the type you are describing occurred.  It wouldn't lead to arrests, but if you found 1,000 people on the roles who claimed they didn't vote then you know there was massive voter fraud, if you find 10 there may be a small problem.  If you find none then you can rest safe.  With all the effort Republicans have put into voter fraud it is hard to believe someone wouldn't have conducted a study like this IF they really believed in voter impersonation type election fraud.  The fact that none of the state legislatures, think tanks, or conservative organizations have published this kind of data leads me to believe they don't believe they will find it or have done the studies and not published the results because they found no voter impersonation fraud.