NightlyPoe said:
Are you under the impression that all IDs in a state's database are on the up and up? Heck, many of the controversy about this exists specifically because of rules making it more difficult to obtain fraudulent IDs. Such as the S. Dakota controversy earlier in the thread.
Also, many states do have same-day registration and more will in the future.
2. Impersonation. Not sure how that works because you need to show the voter registration (and ID depending on state) at the poll for voting. So now you have to look like them AND have their ID and/or voter registration card. But I'm going to ask how many people do you really think are impersonating others for the sake of voting and not something like...credit card fraud, loan fraud, etc... You know, something lucrative for such extensive work.
Again, you've stumbled onto one of the main controversies. Those who declare voting fraud to be non-existent use it to try and stop laws that require tighter standards for voting identification. Many states don't require any state-issued ID (photo or otherwise) whatsoever. For example, here's California's website which says you don't need an ID, but to be on the safe side the first time you vote, a sample ballot will do.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/what-bring/
Looking at Wiki (grain of salt noted with the source) and assuming my quick count is right, 17 states require photo IDs, 16 require non-photo IDs, and 17 don't require IDs at all.
3. Messing with mail-in ballots? Uh, how?
How to mess with ballots whereby no one sees the person voting? Voting for grandma or someone else in your household you know won't vote themselves, setting up a fake registration(s) remotely and getting multiple ballots sent that way.
Again, I'm sure my imagination for criminal behavior is wanting.
4. Unmatched signature.
I was explaining why it was so difficult to catch someone and why the numbers would be low and an example where a person was basically caught, but you would never show up in a count of voter fraud. You unfortunately base a lot of the rest of your post around the idea that I am only including failed attempts. In another scenario, the person votes and that is also how the play ends. And it also leaves you, again, not addressing the issue of human nature because you believed that I made some sort of error.
I've come to the conclusion you are not very well versed in the voting process. Some of your possible fraud methods are based on a premise that doesn't match the voting process itself.
Actually, I think we've more established that about you. You seem to believe that the measures taken to prevent voting fraud are already in place everywhere, when the very controversy exists because attempts are being made to put them in place and Democrats are resisting their implementation.
At this point, your cognitive dissonance makes me wonder if you actively want voter fraud to be pervasive.
I rather find it to be a remarkable act of political will to tell a big lie long enough that people believe it. 10 years ago when this was getting started, the idea that voter fraud just never happens was greeted with chuckles even on the left. But now it's greeted as a fact.
|
