Trump abolishes controversial commission studying voter fraud

  • Thread starter Thread starter niceatheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me be among the first to applaud Trump for taking this action.
 
I’m not applauding that loudly. It was never actually meant to do anything, other than to exist for a little while.
 
From the Brennan Center for Justice
at New York University School of Law:

The Commission was created in the wake of President Trump’s repeated assertions that millions voted illegally in the 2016 election. For years, exaggerated claims of fraud have been used to justify unwarranted restrictions on voting access. The president’s invented legions of illegal voters are the most extreme such claims in recent memory. His statements have been almost universally rejected; for example, a recent Brennan Center survey of local election officials found just 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting out of over 23 million ballots cast in the surveyed jurisdictions.

There is strong reason to suspect this Commission is not a legitimate attempt to study elections, but is rather a tool for justifying discredited claims of widespread voter fraud and promoting vote suppression legislation. Election experts are concerned the Commission will highlight isolated incidents of fraud, which constitute a tiny fraction of ballots cast, as a maneuver to recommend suppressive laws at the state and federal level.

 
Last edited:
Yes, that is a well reasoned opinion from a respected public policy institute. I’m curious what sort of “evidence” you had in mind.
 
This is good because it tells us that Trump did lose the popular vote despite the many, many claims to the contrary around here.

I applaud Trump to correctly responding to facts and also calling Steve Bannon out for having lost his mind, which I knew long ago, but most on the right didn’t.

This has been a good day for Trump.
 
There is a problem with voter registration in the country.

There is a HUGE problem with some states (largely democrat/leftist) who have virtually no safeguards to ensure that only authorized people vote. These states seem to welcome the potential, if not the actual commission, of voter fraud.

The use of electronic voting machines open up the potential for massive fraud in our elections.

This voter fraud commission grossly overstepped their bounds and I’m glad they are being shut down.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
There is a problem with voter registration in the country.

There is a HUGE problem with some states (largely democrat/leftist) who have virtually no safeguards to ensure that only authorized people vote. These states seem to welcome the potential, if not the actual commission, of voter fraud.
Click to expand...
And there is so few convictions on voter fraud that I think the risk is minimal.
 
Of course you do.

Some states have virtually no safeguards to ensure that only authorized people vote.These states seem to welcome the potential, if not the actual commission, of voter fraud. With very little safeguards in place, how would one know how prevalent actual voter fraud is?

Convictions does not equal commission.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Of course you do.

Some states have virtually no safeguards to ensure that only authorized people vote.These states seem to welcome the potential, if not the actual commission, of voter fraud. With very little safeguards in place, how would one know how prevalent actual voter fraud is?

Convictions does not equal commission.
Click to expand...
And yet, there is few convictions and little evidence this is actually happening, so why all the concern if not to repress votes from people that tend not to vote Republican?
 
I don’t care how people vote.

I do care if people who aren’t supposed to be voting are voting.

Again, how would one know how prevalent it is (ie: how would you GET evidence that it’s happening) if there are no safeguards against it happening.

If I can walk up to the voting booth, tell them my name is Eric Holder, and vote under his name…there’s a problem. That means someone can do that with my name as well (actually, they can’t , because my state has common sense voting laws).
 
Boatswain2PA said:
I don’t care how people vote.

I do care if people who aren’t supposed to be voting are voting.

Again, how would one know how prevalent it is (ie: how would you GET evidence that it’s happening) if there are no safeguards against it happening.

If I can walk up to the voting booth, tell them my name is Eric Holder, and vote under his name…there’s a problem. That means someone can do that with my name as well (actually, they can’t , because my state has common sense voting laws).
Click to expand...
Well, given the amount of interest there is from Republicans, I would expect that there would be many concrete examples of this if it were prevalent. There aren’t. Tells me there isn’t much of a problem.

Now, to vote as Eric Holder, you would have to show up at Eric Holder’s voting district and vote and then hope that Eric himself doesn’t show up and say, hmm, someone voted in my name - time to call the police. Again, that doesn’t seem to happen, so…
 
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you, but I’ll try one more time in case you want to try to understand it.

Many states with the most lax voting rules don’t seem to CARE about voting integrity. Since they don’t CARE about it, they don’t LOOK for violations.

If you don’t look, you won’t find it. I hope you can understand that, but if you can’t, then there is no reason to continue a discussion with you.

Yes, I would have to show up at Eric Holder’s district. But the rest of your paragraph is not accurate. If I voted for Eric Holder (and it wouldn’t be difficult to do as his ballot was offered to someone else a few years ago), and then Eric Holder showed up and tried to vote, they would have absolutely no idea who voted in his stead because they didn’t collect any actual information from me. In that case, Eric Holder would have to prove he was who he said he was (imagine THAT!!) and the fraudulent vote would be discarded.

However what would happen if Eric Holder didn’t vote? What if Eric Holder had died? My fraudulent vote would count.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you, but I’ll try one more time in case you want to try to understand it.

Many states with the most lax voting rules don’t seem to CARE about voting integrity. Since they don’t CARE about it, they don’t LOOK for violations.

If you don’t look, you won’t find it. I hope you can understand that, but if you can’t, then there is no reason to continue a discussion with you.

Yes, I would have to show up at Eric Holder’s district. But the rest of your paragraph is not accurate. If I voted for Eric Holder (and it wouldn’t be difficult to do as his ballot was offered to someone else a few years ago), and then Eric Holder showed up and tried to vote, they would have absolutely no idea who voted in his stead because they didn’t collect any actual information from me. In that case, Eric Holder would have to prove he was who he said he was (imagine THAT!!) and the fraudulent vote would be discarded.

However what would happen if Eric Holder didn’t vote? What if Eric Holder had died? My fraudulent vote would count.
Click to expand...
Well, the problem is you can’t explain it to me in a way that convinces me there is a problem. For example, your Eric Holder example. Even if it were to happen the way you said it does, we wouldn’t necessarily be able to catch the fraudster, but we would know that the fraud (or an honest mistake) happened. So you should be able to present some evidence that this happens frequently, but you haven’t. So, you need to provide some evidence this is happening with a frequency that demands a strong legal response for me to accept there is a problem and you haven’t done so yet.
 
Do the states events report fraudulent attempts? How about we take a look at that, collect some actual data to see how many times there has been attempts?? Nope, can’t give out that data because it would HAVE to have personal info.

So some states don’t seem to care, have very lax standards, and don’t want to share data that could show, or not show, a problem.

Or, we could allow for common sense voter ID laws and the whole point would (mostly) be moot.

Nope…that’s RACIST!!!

I am for common sense gun laws. I think we already have a bunch of those (prohibited people, prohibited weapons, and background checks). Wanna add bump stocks…sure, that’s common sense too.

I’m also for common sense voter ID laws.

Just makes sense for me to have to show that I AM Eric Holder before I vote his ballot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top