The Noncitizen Voting Myth
Are noncitizens voting in U.S. elections? A Heritage Foundation database cites just 70 cases over more than 20 years.

The fear that millions of newly arrived illegal immigrants are swaying federal elections by voting unlawfully has become a recurring theme in debates over immigration.
The idea has so much buy-in that earlier this year, House lawmakers passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which calls for states to "take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote" in federal elections. Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), who co-sponsored the Senate version of the SAVE Act, implied that it was a timely—and urgent—attempt to ensure election integrity.
"As millions of illegal immigrants enter our country because of President [Joe] Biden's failed border policies," Tillis said, "it is crucial we safeguard our democratic process by ensuring only American citizens can register and vote in our elections."
The Supreme Court even weighed in on the subject in August. In a 5–4 decision, it allowed Arizona to require proof of citizenship for people registering to vote using a state form (but rejected a request to impose the same restriction on people using a federal form).
It's been illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections for a century. But beyond that, there's little evidence to suggest that many noncitizens are voting in federal elections, let alone in large enough numbers to sway those races.
In 2017, the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit, interviewed election officials "who oversaw the tabulation of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 general election," including in many jurisdictions with high populations of noncitizens. The officials "referred only an estimated 30 incidents of suspected noncitizen voting for further investigation or prosecution," amounting to "0.0001 percent of the 2016 votes in those jurisdictions," according to the Brennan Center.
The conservative Heritage Foundation, which frequently warns about the danger of noncitizens voting, comes to a similar conclusion. Its database of "election fraud cases" includes around 70 instances of noncitizens voting illegally since 2000, representing under 5 percent of the database. Many of those cases involved lawful permanent residents who were "encouraged by a government official to vote or falsely told that they were eligible," wrote American Immigration Council Senior Fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
The trend holds even in states that have recently become election integrity battlegrounds. A 2023 study analyzed by The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler recorded "fewer than 1,000 noncitizen votes out of 3.4 million cast in the 2020 election in Arizona," or 0.0003 percent (assuming 50 percent turnout among registered noncitizens). "At the upper range," using "less precise records," Kessler continued, the study indicated less than three-quarters of a percent of voting-age noncitizens in the state "may have voted." A 2022 Georgia audit found that just over 1,600 noncitizens had tried to register to vote in a 25-year period—but none had successfully registered, and none had voted.
It's easy to see how a noncitizen might try to register to vote without malicious intent. Federal law requires that local motor vehicle offices allow people to register to vote, and as of last year, 19 states plus the District of Columbia allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses. They and other noncitizens could understandably, but falsely, think they could answer "yes" when asked if they'd like to register to vote.
The line between noncitizen voter registration and noncitizen voting is often blurred by the media and politicians. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen found that over 3,200 people with federal noncitizen identification numbers were registered to vote in his state and swore that he would "not tolerate the participation of noncitizens in our elections," but his press release didn't mention whether any of those people had actually voted. "State investigations on noncitizen voter registrations that throw out splashy numbers often end up quietly taking them back when they do a bit more investigating," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. States that aim to rid their voter rolls of noncitizens risk targeting people who are eligible to vote, including naturalized citizens. Florida and Texas both dropped expansive voter citizenship audits for that reason.
Some argue that an immigrant who breaks the law by illegally crossing the border wouldn't shy away from breaking the law by voting as a noncitizen, but that's counterintuitive. Someone trying to live in the country covertly most likely wouldn't want the unwanted scrutiny and prosecution that voting illegally could bring—the tradeoff simply isn't worth it. A noncitizen who votes in a federal election is subject to a fine and up to a year in federal prison and might also face deportation or revocation of legal status.
People who point their fingers at noncitizens after elections are decided by slim margins would do well to realize what countless audits and studies have concluded: A vanishingly small number of the country's noncitizens end up on voter rolls and even fewer of them actually end up voting.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Since it essentially never happens, and voting is important as evidenced by how considerably awful the past 3.75 years have been under Biden-Harris, make it a capital punishment crime.
If it never happens, there should be no issue with having a bit more security than a check box on a form that most states don't verify citizenship.
Capital punishment should be reserved for govt officials engaging in heinous activities will performing their duties or abusing their position. Any non-citizen caught voting should just be exported and be barred from returning.
Don’t be stingy. Capital punishment for all democrats!
I follow the NAP.
Ok, so based on democrat actions, capital punishment for all democrats?
If it never happens, there should be no issue with having a bit more security than a check box on a form that most states don’t verify citizenship.
Oh, I get it. The argument that we need proof of citizenship to register in order to prevent non-citizens from voting doesn't work, since it happens almost never. But that just means that we need to require proof of citizenship because...wait, did you actually make an argument?
The claim is only that it's almost never detected.
In States where asking for ID at a polling place is prohibited under law, there's no mechanism in place to detect instances of literally anyone showing up and claiming to be a registered voter who died since the last election cycle, or who doesn't attempt to vote by other means, or who potentially never actually existed.
All that's required for someone to vote in CA is to show up to any site within the same county as the registration they're voting on, and to verbally state a name and street address (it's illegal for a poll worker to ask for any kind of confirmation). In the event that someone who votes "in person" also sends in the mail-in ballot that the law requires be sent to all registered voters, the law states that the in-person vote is supposed to supersede the mail-in ballot.
If I knew for a fact that someone I know in L.A. or Orange County has voted by mail (anyone with a "male" or androgynous name, anyway, I'd maybe have trouble claiming to be named "Sara" in a state that's this trans-accomodating), I could go to any of hundreds of sites anytime within a 3-week timeframe (10/17-11/8 this year) and give their name/address to the workers there and I'd be allowed to cast a vote which would cause their mail-in ballot to be discarded and there would be virtually zero possibility that I'd be discovered to have done it. The only way to get "caught" trying to vote fraudulently would be to show up and try to vote in-person on a name/address that's already been voted in person.
If someone could get an ineligible or fabricated name/address combo registered in CA, that registration could be used to enable any non-citizen who can remember the name/address to vote freely without any danger of being detected (since nobody else is ever going to show up to try to cast that vote).
The fact that something isn't widely detected within a system which is designed to make such detection extremely difficult, if not impossible, isn't a reliable indicator of how frequently it is or is not actually happening.
A bit OT, the democrats are trying to fabricate the whole ‘MAGA are Nazis’ thing again……
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/watch-hateful-leftists-flying-nazi-flags-get-rude/
FTA:
A disgusting attempt by left-wing activists to embarrass Trump supporters over the weekend did not go as planned, as MAGA nation put a stop to their efforts in epic fashion.
As Storyful reported, Trump supporters held a Trump boat parade and fundraiser in Jupiter, Florida on Sunday. The event was organized by Carlos Gavidia, who has previously hosted several of these “Trumptilla” events.
But some sinister Antifa-like scum decided to cosplay as Neo-Nazi Trump fans to ruin the party and humiliate the Trump campaign. A boat with Trump and Nazi flags is seen approaching the “Trumptilla” event, and they try to make a show of how MAGA they are.
The claim is only that it’s almost never detected.
Right! And that just proves that they are just super devious about it!
Seriously, are you going to say that Republicans in control of the apparatus to investigate these things that cry voter fraud all the time, like Texas AG Paxton, haven't found all the fraud because they are incompetent? Or what?
Try reading it again. He explains at length how hard it would be to identify fraudulent voting by non-citizens in California. It doesn't require them to be super devious or investigators to be incompetent, it only requires the system to make it nearly impossible to catch.
And what incentive do people have to vote fraudulently? When ~40% or more of the population doesn't vote in Presidential elections legally, how many people do you really think would ever try and cast a vote fraudulently? Nearly impossible to catch? To me, it looks like BG is making a lot of assumptions about how easy it would be based only on knowledge of voting security from a voter's perspective. It is probably a good thing, but there is undoubtedly quite a bit that they do to try and identify fraud and vulnerabilities that we simply have no clue about.
If someone could get an ineligible or fabricated name/address combo registered in CA, that registration could be used to enable any non-citizen who can remember the name/address to vote freely without any danger of being detected (since nobody else is ever going to show up to try to cast that vote).
In CA (same in my state of FL), to register to vote you provide, your birthdate, address, full name, state or country of birth, and either a state ID number or the last 4 digits of your SSN. Registering under the name of a non-existent person should not be possible, as they should be able to easily verify that the name and birthdate on the registration form matches the state ID or last 4 of the SSN provided. Similarly, a person that exists, but is not eligible to vote because they are under 18, or aren't a U.S. citizen should also have their registration rejected with a basic search for that ID information. (Which is why providing proof of citizenship upon registration seems kind of silly. Does a SSN not have that status included? Do official state IDs not have at least place of birth if not citizenship status included?)
People are really left with only the option of impersonating a real U.S. citizen that either is already registered or is not registered and unlikely to do so. Which means, again, that someone has to go to the trouble of finding someone to claim to be. Which, again, leads to the question, why would they?
The closest statewide election result I can remember is Florida 2000, where Bush won by just over 500 votes. More typically, a statewide race is "close" if it is only ~10,000 votes difference between the top 2 candidates. Why take even a 0.001% chance of being convicted of a felony and doing jail time, screwing up future employment prospects, and more, all for the even smaller chance that committing voter fraud would make a difference in an election?
Even with that, finding evidence that there was fraud in an election is going to be much easier than catching someone that isn't just being stupid. The hypotheticals BG gave that involve real people still could leave officials with clear evidence that two different people cast ballots under the same name, for instance.
And while he focused on CA, I mentioned Texas and other states with Republicans in charge of elections with plenty of incentive to find any evidence that fraud is occurring at significant levels. Even if they can't find the perpetrators to prosecute them, hard data showing that X number of people did, in fact, cast fraudulent ballots would be a significant find to support their routine claims. Instead, we get the usual reports along the lines of, "X number of people registered to vote might line up with people with similar names in some other database that says that they aren't citizens."
Republicans have been making claims about how 'easy' it is to commit fraud for most of the last 20 years. But that didn't stop them from passing laws in some states that they had at least part of a state legislature under their control to make mail voting easier. At least, until Trump starting talking bad about it in 2020, they did.
"in CA (same in my state of FL), to register to vote you provide, your birthdate, address, full name, state or country of birth, and either a state ID number or the last 4 digits of your SSN. Registering under the name of a non-existent person should not be possible, as they should be able to easily verify that the name and birthdate on the registration form matches the state ID or last 4 of the SSN provided."
In CA, the SSN/Taxpayer ID box on voter registration cards is clearly marked as "optional", and for people who were (or who claim to have been) born in a different State, someone from CA SS office would have to contact the county authorities, who at best could verify that there was a baby with a given name born in that county that day (if it were registered with the county) but might not even be able to verify that much; when I needed to get a copy of my Birth Certificate from Colorado my grandmother went to the hospital where I was born to get the hard copy, not to any government office.
Not to mention that without a federal level registry, anyone who dies in a different state from their birth is likely to have a death certificate on file with their birth certificate, meaning an organized group (such as a political party, or "community organizing" group of any ideology) who knows the name and DOB of someone who was born and died in two different states could use that birth record to register a non-existent voter in at least 49 states. Same might apply for anyone who was naturalized in one state and died somewhere else (or is still alive but left the country), or for using the name of anyone living as an "expat" in a foreign country since US Law doesn't include any way for the government to actually accept the renouncement of "birthright" citizenship.
On top of that, there are a lot of states where deaths aren't cross-referenced with voter rolls with any regularity, and only inactivity can get an existing registration scrubbed. In those places, especially when vote by mail is widely used (again, in CA every registered voter is sent a mail-in ballot to their last known address since 2020), anyone who chose to could continue to fill in and send the ballot issued to a deceased parent/grandparent or other relative by changing that person's mailing address to their own (something that wouldn't even be seen as irregular if they were also the executor of the estate, or inherited the relative's home), as long as the ballot submission doesn't miss an election cycle (in many states just the Presidential election year general election is enough) they'll continue to receive "valid" ballots which could be fraudulently cast with virtually zero possibility of detection.
The motivation for voter fraud in CA is a bit nebulous since there are so few competitive elections in the state due to widespread gerrymandering of safe districts for both parties, but the fact remains that anyone who did choose to try it could easily have (or create) numerous opportunities to do so without meaningful risk of detection. The fact that the design of the system makes it easy doesn't prove that it's happening, but it does mean that lack of detected instances can't be taken as proof that it's not happening, either. Absence of proof doesn't equate to proof of absence, especially in a context where potential evidence is deliberately made very difficult to detect.
In CA, the SSN/Taxpayer ID box on voter registration cards is clearly marked as “optional”
I had downloaded that voter registration card as I was writing my comment. It does not say "optional" for the SSN box. It says, directly in front of it to the left, "If you do not have a CA driver's license or ID card, list the last 4 numbers of your Social Security Number, if you have one." I don't see anything about a taxpayer ID anywhere on the card.
The CA Sec. of State website also has a FAQs about voter registration. Answers to questions there make it clear that even with a DL, a person's eligibility still goes through further processing to be verified.
Am I automatically registered to vote when I submit the online application?
No. The online voter registration application is an easy avenue for submitting your information, but the information you provide in your online application still must be verified by your county elections official. If you have a California driver license or identification card and submit an online voter registration application, the Department of Motor Vehicles is simply sharing a copy of your signature on file so that it can be transferred to your voter registration record. No matter how you turn in your registration application – online or paper – when it comes to determining a person's eligibility to vote, preventing duplicate registrations, and adding a person to California's official voter rolls, all the same safeguards are in place. Your county elections official will contact you when your voter registration application is approved or if more information is needed to confirm your eligibility.
...without a federal level registry...
That's a good idea. Why not have something like that?
The partnership [ERIC] allows states [there are around 30 participating in it now] to use and share government data — from election offices as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Social Security Administration — to eliminate dead voters from the rolls, find the few people in every federal election who illegally vote twice, and also register eligible voters when they move to a new place.
There were a bunch of states participating in exactly that kind of data sharing that would allow them to share information to keep voter rolls accurate, but, for some reason I can't figure out, a few red states are leaving that plan. This ERIC thing has been around for years, but apparently, the conspiracy minded started pushing politicians in some states to do away with it. Sounds to me like it is the kind of thing that you, in particular, would support expanding to include more states.
On top of that, there are a lot of states where deaths aren’t cross-referenced with voter rolls with any regularity, and only inactivity can get an existing registration scrubbed.
I'd be interested to know where you get this information, given that you have been inaccurate with a couple of claims that I've seen and mentioned.
Absence of proof doesn’t equate to proof of absence, especially in a context where potential evidence is deliberately made very difficult to detect.
No, the system is not "deliberately made very difficult to detect." First off, that would be a claim you'd need to support with evidence itself, that legislators have had the motivation you are ascribing to them. Second, I already mentioned that it would be easier to find that there was fraud than it would be to find out who had done it. The same can be true for other crimes.
The most important thing to keep in mind when you talk about voting rights, is that it is a right. Anything that would be an extra hurdle in the way of someone exercising their right to vote has to be fully justified by well-established facts, not hypotheticals. The absence of evidence doesn't mean an absence of evidence truism does not shift the burden of proof away from people that claim to want voting to be more secure, when their proposed security measures add time and difficulty to a person exercising their most basic right in a democratic republic - the right to vote for their government.
"And while he focused on CA, I mentioned Texas and other states with Republicans in charge of elections with plenty of incentive to find any evidence that fraud is occurring at significant levels. "
Laws like voter ID requirements which make fraud very easy to detect are likely to prevent most attempts at it since the low probability of success is a strong disincentive. Texas is also another example where the overall political balance skews strongly in one direction at the various levels; statewide elections in TX are rarely competitive for Dem candidates who are in alignment with the national party, but in certain areas the same is true of GOP candidates at local/county levels (Houston and Harris county are almost as "deep blue" as many parts of California). When large scale fraud isn't possible and the races aren't close, there's no "return" to balance motivation of small scale fraud against the high level of risk involved with attempting it there. Vote fraud probably is particularly rare in a place like TX, considering the strong countermeasures and lack of utility in attempting it anyway. It's highly possible that fraudulent voting isn't common at all in CA, but mainly because with a 60-70% bias in voter registration statewide and the size of the overall population the sheer scope of what would be necessary to change the outcome of most elections would be huge (not to mention that in state/local elections the general election ballot often either has two candidates from the same party, or an incumbent running unopposed, and no number of fraudulent votes could make a difference there). In the 2016 Presidential election for example, HRC's margin in the national popular vote was 2.86 million votes, more than half of that margin came from L.A. County (where her margin was 1.69 million), and with a margin of in of 3.45 million votes, the state of CA alone accounted for 120% of that advantage. If someone were looking for an underhanded way to alter results in California, it would be far easier to manufacture some kind of "printing error" on the ballots in key counties which swapped the party identity of the candidates as opposed to trying to organize an army of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voters with each of them casting 5-10 manufactured votes (unless the State Dem party is already taking advantage of the millions of undocumented/illegal immigrants in the state to pad out those margins just to be able to skew the national popular vote for PR purposes). So many voters in CA are slavishly and unthinkingly partisan in their voting that listing trump as the "Democrat" on the ballots in L.A., Ventura, Sonoma, San Francisco, and Marin counties might actually flip the results of the final vote.
Your pretense that the motivation and extent to which voter fraud might be perpetrated is somehow spread evenly across all states/counties/precincts, or that the design of the laws from place to place is the only independent variable affecting the rate of detected fraud attempts without affecting the instance of attempted fraud is ridiculous on its face. The most likely places where there's going to be widespread fraud (almost certainly perpetrated by activists aligned with both parties) is in "swing" states and races where the margins are narrow and the state/local laws aren't designed to enable detection of false votes; the most likely place where there's going to be systemic fraud is Illinois where the Daly family machine held nearly absolute power in Chicago for a century or more, and where it's just accepted by the locals that certain cemeteries in Cook County are going to have higher rates of voter turnout than many apartment buildings.
Laws like voter ID requirements which make fraud very easy to detect are likely to prevent most attempts at it since the low probability of success is a strong disincentive.
Voter ID laws are for going to the polls to vote, and do not change voter registration. Congress made voter registration (for federal elections) somewhat uniform in order to prevent some states from making the process arduous selectively for citizens less likely to vote for the party in power. Besides, from what I have seen, only a few states, like Texas, have such strict requirements on photo ID that the ones the voter must have are ones harder to convincingly fake, like state IDs and passports, military ID, etc.
So many voters in CA are slavishly and unthinkingly partisan in their voting that listing trump as the “Democrat” on the ballots in L.A., Ventura, Sonoma, San Francisco, and Marin counties might actually flip the results of the final vote.
Besides being a ridiculous fantasy hypothetical, you are clearly placing "unthinkingly partisan" on only one party's base, contrary to reality. This is an example of the kind of negative partisanship that has come to define U.S. politics in my adult lifetime. It was really just odd reading that paragraph. You had spent so much time and effort trying to convince me that it was super easy to register fake people to vote and commit fraud that way because it would be so hard to catch, then you go and invent scenarios where Democrat election officials and workers commit massive fraud that would be trivially easy to catch.
The most likely places where there’s going to be widespread fraud (almost certainly perpetrated by activists aligned with both parties) is in “swing” states and races where the margins are narrow and the state/local laws aren’t designed to enable detection of false votes; the most likely place where there’s going to be systemic fraud is Illinois where the Daly family machine held nearly absolute power in Chicago for a century or more, and where it’s just accepted by the locals that certain cemeteries in Cook County are going to have higher rates of voter turnout than many apartment buildings.
If "widespread fraud" as you are using it here, perpetrated by individuals and groups that aren't election workers or officials, is committed by both parties, then that would tend to cancel out, you'd think, in swing states. Especially if neither side could judge how much fraud the other was committing, then add polling uncertainty, they'd have a hard time knowing how much fraud to commit, wouldn't they? And the more they commit, the more likely the voting statistics give it away. When one county has historically voted 5% lower than some other county for Party A, then all of a sudden, they are equal without corresponding jumps elsewhere, that is something that would draw attention.
And this is the other reason why large scale fraud is unlikely. Data has gotten so deep and easy to access and analyze, that significant shifts from prior voting patterns get people looking for explanations. (This is how we can be virtually certain that the real culprit in Gore losing in 2000 wasn't the Supreme Court, but Miami-Dade County's butterfly ballot design. Pat Buchanan did much better in Miami-Dade than anywhere else with similar demographics. It just so happened that Bush was slot 1 of the ballot design, Buchanan was slot 2, and Gore was slot 3. But on the left of the ballot, Bush was on top with Gore right below him.)
In the end, this isn't 50+ years ago in Chicago or elsewhere that has plenty of history of election fraud. There have been no cases of election fraud involving thousands of votes that I have heard of in the whole country in over 30 years of voting. That's a record that tells me that fraud on that scale is going to require a lot of evidence before I'll accept that it is happening without our knowledge.
The fact that the form allows for registration by people who have neither a CA DL number (who would be required to affirmatively opt-out of automatic registration when they got their license), or a SSN means that filling in that field is not a precondition for being registered as a voter in CA. If it's not required for registration, then by definition, it's optional whether or not the word appears literally on the form.
Also, if you believe that because the law and a government website says that something will be done a certain way in California, I can only assume that you've never personally visited the state, let alone witnessed the actual operation of the government here first-hand.
[Voter ID laws are for going to the polls to vote, and do not change voter registration. ]
In places with ID laws, the possibility of someone showing up to vote under the name of someone who's died since the last election and successfully casting a ballot is reduced to virtually nil. In California, where anyone showing up knowing the person's name and street address can claim to be that person with no chance of detection as a fraud, their chance of casting a ballot is at or near 100% with the chance of the fraudulent vote being detected is at or near 0%; as long as they continue to do so in at least the general election every 4 years, that registration won't get purged from the rolls. I can't imagine what part of that could be hard to comprehend, so I'm left with the conclusion that you're simply choosing not to see something that you wish weren't true?
[Besides being a ridiculous fantasy hypothetical, you are clearly placing “unthinkingly partisan” on only one party’s base, contrary to reality.]
Maybe the GOP voters in CA are as slavishly partisan as the Dems are. Since they make up less than 40% of the electorate in the State, and less than 30% in the area where I've lived since 1992, their behavior is literally irrelevant to the outcomes of State, Local, or Federal elections that I've voted in through my entire adult life. The current balance of elected officials in CA is that the Dems have controlled every statewide office for over a decade (and the one non-Dem Governor we've had in the last quarter-century was a moderate who got elected outside of the regular process). The Dems hold 75% super-majorities in both houses of the State Legislature, and have had more than 2/3 super-majorites almost uninterrupted for 20 years (there was one term when the GOP got above 40% of the State Assembly seats for two years). The L.A. County Board of Supervisors has had 4 or 5 Dems (out of 5 seats) for 20 years, the L.A. City Council has had at lead 14 of 15 seats held by Dems for at least that long, and the last non-Dem L.A. Mayor left office in the 1990s. None of that is hypothetical, but I suppose I could see how someone who's never been to California might not believe the reality that it's been a one-party State for decades (and is also currently circling the drain, probably not coincidentally).
[If “widespread fraud” as you are using it here, perpetrated by individuals and groups that aren’t election workers or officials, is committed by both parties, then that would tend to cancel out, you’d think, in swing states. Especially if neither side could judge how much fraud the other was committing, then add polling uncertainty, they’d have a hard time knowing how much fraud to commit, wouldn’t they?]
Your premise seems based on the idea that whatever fraud is or isn't happening in various places is a completely new phenomenon with a different group of potential perpetrators in every individual election cycle. As you mentioned about Chicago "50 years ago", the political machines, party "organizers" and activist groups that would be perpetrating it have existed for centuries, and while they've constantly got new people coming onboard in every new cycle, they're not replacing their "middle management" and community-level leadership that frequently.
While I don't think the either party is ethically above doing as much "cheating" as they think they can get away with (especially in places where it can alter outcomes), that's hardly a justification to just not enact reasonable (some might say "common sense" countermeasures to prevent such behavior. In some places, that can be as simple as having everyone mark their finger with indelible ink once they've voted, but in places with more intact infrastructure, it could mean asking people showing up to vote to present a government-issued ID to prove that they are who they're claiming to be; especially when the registration system is, by law, connected to the issuance of such ID because 30 years ago Democrats seemed to believe that getting a Driver License was somehow less difficult than registering to vote, and treated the addition of the federal "Motor-voter" law as a huge win for democracy (even though it's also the cause of why there's any controversy around giving licenses to illegal aliens, which was a complete non-issue until Bill Clinton signed the law requiring that anyone getting a license should then also be registered to vote).
Nations which currently require that people voting in person (many of these countries also only allow in-person voting) show ID include: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Sweden, Swizterland, and the UK.
Only USA, Australia and New Zealand don't have national-level requirements for all voters to show proof of identity, and of those three only the USA has any amount of land border with other countries.
If you do come back to this thread, I'll leave it with this event in Alabama. This is why I don't trust that "election security" efforts will do any such thing, and why I expect that they will prevent more citizens from casting their vote, as is their fundamental right, than it will ever prevent people from committing fraud.
https://apnews.com/article/alabama-voter-purge-allen-secretary-state-judge-6cec74a5bc2afef14beae6827d4cf971
Summary: The Alabama efforts to target and inactivate over 3000 alleged "non-citizens" registered to vote forced over 900 to show up with documentation proving that they were citizens, another 1000 were reactivated after the Alabama Sec. of State's office double checked the data that they used, and in the end, "“A few” of those disqualified indicated on voter removal forms that they were noncitizens, according to Helms’ written testimony."
At least 159 people from the list were “disqualified” after the purge in August, meaning they will be removed from the voter rolls.
Some were legal voters who submitted removal forms by accident or based on confusing instructions from local election officials, according to court documents.
None of this should have ever affected legal voters. They should not be harassed into having to show up with documents, probably having to take time off of work to make it to government offices only open during normal working hours. No action to 'purge' voter rolls should be sweeping up orders of magnitude more legal voters than they catch dead people, felons without civil rights restored, or non-citizens. If anything, the proportions should be reversed.
And if you want to play the game of thinking that making it difficult to find fraud is by nefarious design, I could do the same with all of these voter ID, voter roll purges, changes to absentee procedures, and so on. Just like the judges recognized when they struck down Republican changes to NC election laws in 2016, they seem to target groups likely to vote for Democrats with "surgical precision".
[None of this should have ever affected legal voters. They should not be harassed into having to show up with documents, probably having to take time off of work to make it to government offices only open during normal working hours. No action to ‘purge’ voter rolls should be sweeping up orders of magnitude more legal voters than they catch dead people, felons without civil rights restored, or non-citizens. If anything, the proportions should be reversed.]
So, you don't think that activists could frauduelntly vote as dead people on "non-ID" states, but also don't think that any attempt to maintain the integrity of the registration rolls is justified unless the final outcome of cross-referencing with other databases is known before it's attempted?
Seems like you not only refuse to believe that fraudulent voting could go undetected in a system designed to make detection difficult or impossible, and also you're in favor of making the kinds of fraud that could easily go undetected as simple as possible while also accepting the fallacious logic that if it's not being detected, then that proves it's not happening?
What's wrong with just doing our voting the way that they do it in France, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark? Through most of my lifetime, the left has generally been very excited about the idea of "emulating" one or more of those countries (although usually, there's little to no overlap between the policies which would supposedly emulate them and how those places are actually governed)
Someone trying to live in the country covertly most likely wouldn't want the unwanted scrutiny and prosecution that voting illegally could bring—the tradeoff simply isn't worth it.
They would not want the unwanted scrutiny and prosecution that murder could bring, right?
the tradeoff simply is not worth it, right?
So then Laken Riley and AJ Wise are not really dead?
Maybe they never even existed?
They would not want the unwanted scrutiny and prosecution that murder could bring, right?
Picture it:
An illegal immigrant just traveled from Guatemala spending 2 weeks in a shipping container. Elated to be reunited with his loved ones, he rushes to meet his wife only to find her in bed with another man. In a blind rage, he rushes out to register to vote and then, 5 months later, votes in a federal election.
To Eduardo, the calculated risk of punishment was worth the infinitesimally small chance that he may cast the deciding vote; revenge is a dish best served cold he thinks to himself as he is transported to the border for deportation.
I was unaware illegals only stayed on country for a couple of months. That there would be no incentive to vote for Democrats seeking amnesty for them.
We see cases of non citizen voters voting yearly. Most caught on accident since most states don't investigate. And when they try to, like with Arizona, democrats sue.
Arizona tried passing a law solely to compare citizenship databases with people who voted in elections. Democrats sued. If no non citizens are voting, what's the fear there?
and THIS
"Most caught on accident since most states don’t investigate. And when they try to, like with Arizona, democrats sue."
Since Democrats refuse to look, and sue to prevent anyone else from looking, it must not be happening.
And Ostridge's putting their head in the sand prevents danger.
Here's my point.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here's you.
That’s how wrong you are.
Oh.
idk if wrong so much as lolwtf
You didn’t have a point. You gave a hypothetical scenario in a seemingly appeal to ridicule. To dismiss any concerns. The follow up being worse.
Your story is one that is quite frankly bad. Many illegals have been getting away with being illegal for years or even decades. Many of them even start to apply for welfare or benefits.
We just had a DoJ case where the illegal not only voted but also committed identity fraud to do so.
But your bad attempt at mockery ignores the actual actions that we have actually seen.
You didn’t have a point
Oh no.
In landscape format, that puts you far left and Jesse in the center. Probably close.
Profound assessment. Airtight logic too.
Cite? With links too if those are available.
Here you go.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-hasty-generalization/
https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/ad-populum-fallacy-work/
Now you know the issue with your original post, consider implementing that next time.
Nope to both sides of the comma.
Or not.
"Jesse in the center. Probably close."
You think Jesse, the paelocon, is in the center? That's like saying Reagan was a Communist.
How is Jesse a paleoconservative?
He’s doesn’t know. He just throws around words he doesn’t understand. Although it’s less of a problem for him than it is for Sarc.
"Paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programs and large-scale demographic change, the decentralization of federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and non-interventionism in the conduct of American foreign policy."
No, that's not Jesse (and a lot of his fellow travelers) at all. *eyeroll*
“Paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration,
Jesse's talking about ILLEGAL immigration.
Y'all always want that bit ignored so you can make your idiot point.
It makes everything else you say ring hollow.
Did that seem somehow clever to you?
Yeah. I'm pretty proud of that one.
It doesn’t take much for you to impress yourself, does it?
As opposed to the usual conformity: "Here's my comment. Do I fit in? I hate leftists. I love Trump. I hate illegal immigrants. I hate Democrats and think Republicans are perpetual victims except the RINO Republicans JesseAZ, Mother's Lament, do I fit in? Do you like me?"
Yeah, I'd rather be independent, unique and goofy. Even if I'm only impressing myself, I'm having a good time.
Oh shit, I'm SQRLSY. Uh oh.
"Oh shit, I’m SQRLSY. Uh oh."
LOL! You would need to be in a manic phase to be SQRLSY. With a healthy supply of coke handy.
And a fresh bucket of shit.
So you look at a population defined by it's breaking laws for financial gain and immediately assume they would never violate the law for financial gain. Typical middle-class leftist delusion.
I don't know how you got that from my comment.
I meant that the fact that the motivations for murders and illegal voting are very different. The fact that the forrmer occurs despite the repercussions is not applicable to the latter.
But since you asked: No I don't think that. I think many illegals would commit crimes for financial gain, but I do not see voting as a financial gain. It is a moderate risk very low reward crime. Only an idiot would think their vote matters enough to risk it. Illegals are likely too motivated and smart for that.
Typical middle-class leftist delusion
Come on! With Nardz gone, these "leftist" insults are so weak. Try harder, please.
Define moderate risk as a percentage. Mainly so I can laugh in your face since it will invariably be higher than the actual number since the majority of states don't even check, let alone impose any punishment when it does happen.
I don't know. It is a politically charged issue with wildly disagreeing opinions. That's why I stayed vague.
Since you are preemptively laughing in my face anyway, why don't you tell me? What percentage of illegal voters are caught or punished?
Or better yet, tell me what an illegal immigrant would consider that risk to be, because that is the only relevant issue in motivation/deterrence.
If they can get registered in California (where something like 25% of the nation's "undocumented" population resides), the closest to scrutiny they'd face would be purchasing a stamp or two for the return postage on the mail-in ballot that the state will automatically send them come election season.
No muss, no fuss, no real possibility of detection.
That's hardly analogous,
Law enforcement actually has the authority and tools available to pursue and arrest murderers. In most areas, around half (sometimes more) end up getting caught, and the penalty is severe including deportation after the prison sentence is served (in non-sanctuary states, at least).
In states with officials who won't "clean up" voter rolls to account for occurrnaces like death and criminal disqualifications, and where it's illegal for poll workers to ask for ID from anyone attempting to vote, there's virtually no "scrutiny", and even less risk of getting caught voting illegally (whatever information law enforcement would need to track perpetrators is likely to never actually exist so there's no meaningful danger of consequences.
Most murders have intense emotional motivation and are relatively impulsive, hence undertaken with little regard for the consequences. An illegal voter, on the other hand, would be going through the time-consuming and inconvenient process of voting, in cold blood, in order to have a one-millionth share in the outcome of an election. Surely you're not really this stupid.
Evidence would suggest otherwise.
Inconvenient in the act of checking a politician's name on a ballot and handing it to a helpful harvester? Wow, terribly inconvenient and time consuming.
It's clear you don't want to talk about illegal voting...
around 70 instances of noncitizens voting
fewer than 1,000 noncitizen votes
over 3,200 people with federal noncitizen identification numbers were registered to vote
These numbers don't give me comfort when the should be zero.
States that aim to rid their voter rolls of noncitizens risk targeting people who are eligible to vote,
Ok, lets work to minimize that risk. It's no excuse to just give up.
Like many things in this world getting to zero is not really possible, what is needed is to get to the lowest number possible without significant side effects. Side effect here being to remove eligible voters from the voter rolls. There are real efforts to maintain the rolls, and these don't get the recognition that these efforts deserve. Ask yourself this question how much more do you want and are you willing to pay for that effort? Because getting closer to zero will cost more money.
"There are real efforts to maintain the rolls"
And those efforts are not sufficient it would seem. Advocating for government competency, as futile as it may be, doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate for it.
Maybe FEMA or the Secret Service could oversee this since they haven recently shown superior performances.
"And those efforts are not sufficient it would seem."
When the fraud rate is a decimal followed by many, many zeroes, they clearly are sufficient.
The fever dream of illegals voting (and/or stolen elections) is one of the more terrifying elements of the MAGA takeover of the GOP, since it requires turning off your brain to believe it.
DETECTED fraud rate. Which could be significantly different from the actual fraud rate. We don't know, and any attempt to tighten up the system so it can be identified is fought tooth and nail.
Honestly, I think they should making voting either in person and secret OR absentee with your vote being public. I'm actually not convinced having secret voting is a net positive even for in person voting, but at least there's the possibility of verifying that the person voting is who they claim to be. Not that most places let even that minimal verification take place.
Look. If these were comprehensive numbers, I would agree with you. Zero is not feasible on this scale.
However, these are the numbers we find when we are deliberately not looking at this. Where the system is almost completely designed to not allow investigation. If there is no identification required, no storage of who actually voted what, and no verification of if a registered voter is even actually alive, finding any of these is pure chance.
So, no these relatively low numbers are not encouraging.
“when we are deliberately not looking at this”
When they’re trying to find voter fraud they … don’t look at it? What?
“Where the system is almost completely designed to not allow investigation.”
You can buy data about voters. Lots of it. Where, when, which elections (midterms, school board, tax referendums), etc. Political organizations pay a lot of money for it because it’s detailed and accurate.
So your argument is that we can track everything about voters, we can track how many people voted, where they voted, which method they voted by, and when they voted (date and time). We can match vote totals at each of those places to the number of voters at each if those places.
Yet you think it’s impossible to investigate? It’s easy. That’s why the Trump voters in the Villages who voted in Florida and another state in 2020 were caught. It’s why cases of illegal voting are easy to characterize as intentional or a mistake by the voter (the vast majority of illegal votes are honest mistakes).
“If there is no identification required, , and no verification of if a registered voter is even actually alive, finding any of these is pure chance.”
Let’s unpack this:
“no storage of who actually voted what”
This should never, ever, ever happen. We have a secret ballot for a variety of important and valid reasons. No one needs to know how you voted, just that you did or didn’t cast a ballot.
“If there is no identification required”
Identification is required to register to vote. If you aren’t registered, you can’t vote. So your hypothetical illegal voter would have to either know the name of a person who is already registered (and that they wouldn’t be voting themselves, since two votes would lead to the illegal vote being thrown out), or they would have to register using false documents (different ones for each fradulent registration), all to … cast a single vote in an election with thousands or millions (depending on the race ans state) of total votes. Maybe there’s someone out there with a civics kink that big, but I doubt it.
“no verification of if a registered voter is even actually alive”
If there’s an easy way to automatically inform the elections office of the SS# of every dead … oh, wait. They don’t have voters’ SS#? Well, maybe name … oh, wait. That’s exactly how innocent people get falsely arrested for serious crimes, never mind greatly exaggerating someone’s death.
But you seem to be so sure this would be easy.
How would it work, exactly, without accidentally disenfranchising live people on the remote possibility that someone may be dead and someone else might cast their vote? I would also point out that people get caught for this, as well, although it again seems to be Trump voters who believe our system isn’t as secure as it ends up being.
“So, no these relatively low numbers are not encouraging”
It should be, especially since they keep catching Trump voters doing the fraudulent things that supposedly happen all the time.
I'm not saying that there aren't serious issues and even real reasons why we do keep these.
However, all the analysis in the world cannot help if the data is deliberately not kept.
And every time that the dead or moved are purged from voter rolls, it raises a cry of panic. It does have potential false-positives, yes. However, not doing it leaves us open to fraud that we have patently prevented ourselves from even being able to find. The same goes for voter ID laws or requiring in-person voting. The most basic of security measures are decried from the heavens as suppression.
So when we turn a blind eye, you cannot say that we see nothing.
If you have no mechanism to check, and one or the other party actively fights against any kind of implementation of some rudimentary mechanism, it means they aren’t actually trying to find it. That’s the whole point.
Most democrats efforts are to quash any efforts to clean up the voting rolls. So don’t start with your bullshit. You democrats revel in election fraud.
Reason's staff seems to think making the perfect the enemy of the good is a valid argument.
Uh, that's all the "voter fraud is a bug problem" people like you have. Election security will never be perfect, but it gets really close.
Except for the rampant Democrat enabled election fraud.
Like in Georgia? Does it ever embarrass you to say transparently false things?
I don’t say anything ‘false’. So I wouldn’t know. Not like you. You’re a lying propagandist, and mindless thrall to the neo Marxist democrat party.
Why being such a servile creature to a group that will bring about your own destruction is baffling to me. Do you really believe that you will somehow have a seat at the table when your Marxist revolution is complete? It’s far more likely that once your usefulness is complete that you will be purged. If only to provide an example to everyone else to fall in line. Or do you just hate the idea that people should be able to make their own choices?
An any event, you have no credibility here. You’re largely seen as a weak fool of extremely limited intellect, with no integrity or decency. Perhaps a cut above Shrike, but likely equivalent to Sarc. How does that make you feel? Being lateral to a rageaholic, deranged leftist hobo lifelong severe alcoholic?
The people who are eligible vote can easily show they are eligible. It is a false scare.
The "noncitizen identification number" part seems like a clear lack of accounting. Everything points to there being no interest in actually finding or preventing the fraud. The whole article basically just uses blunt denial as proof that the problem doesn't exist.
It's usually the obligation of the party making the claim to provide the proof of that claim, rather than the other party providing proof of the negative of the claim.
You get that, right?
And how, pray tell, is someone supposed to get that evidence when we don’t even do basic shit that European countries do? Or when jurisdictions do blatantly illegal shit like destroying documents they’re supposed to keep for a certain time period (looking at you Pennsylvania)?
"These numbers don’t give me comfort when the should be zero."
There is no such thing as a perfect system. There never will be a perfect system. If your standard is perfection, you have an unreasonable standard.
"OK, lets work to minimize that risk. It’s no excuse to just give up."
No one is giving up. A higher chance of disenfranchising a legal voter isn't worth potenitally lowering the tiny, tiny number of illegal votes to a tiny, timy, tiny number.
Infringing on a right that's as basic and vital to our democracy as the right to vote in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist is unjustified.
Your party works round the clock to ensure rampant election fraud favoring your kind.
My kind? You mean libertarians? We don't really have a party, since the "official" party is basically an out-of-season Halloween contest, with Mises caucus paleoconservatives dressing up as liberty lovers, plus the people actually dressing up in costumes for the convention.
Libertarian? What the Hell makes you a libertarian?
My issue profile. My comments here reflect.my belief in capitalism, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and limited government.
You seem to be under the delusion that cultural conservatism (using the power of the state to enforce moral and social beliefs) are libertarian. It isn't.
Of course it's "justified"! Justified by the need to scare people into voting MAGA...
4 years of Harris should be enough to scare people into voting MAGA.
Like so many of the claims of voter fraud those making the claims routinely target voter rolls rather than the actual vote. There is evidence that a small number of non-eligible people get on the voter rolls, but no real evidence that they vote.
Parody
Democrats sued Arizona for looking at people who voted dumdum.
Democrats sued because people were being harassed.
Please provide your citation. This is a lie since it didn’t even get through one cycle before being sued.
You lie as most liberals do.
Right now in Arizona there are 30,000 voters using federal only forms because they refuse to prove citizenship and Feds don’t investigate. There are 200k voters using state forms that didn’t prove citizenship and the democrats sued to allow them to vote.
Democrats do everything in their power to disallow any verification if citizenship. Then leftist morons like yourself and rush in to lie about it to defend it.
Bullshit. You just want election fraud because you can’t win otherwise.
Then getting them off the rolls is bad...why?
Why not just require re-registration every 2 years? If voting is so important, you will do it.
My car has to be re-registered every 2 years. Driving is so important, I do it.
And they know right away when it is lapsed. Almost like they have a database verifying registration. Amazing technology.
Harder to get a passport than to vote. And voting can have worse outcomes.
"What's in the box?"
"70 cases"
"Can I look in the box?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"Just trust us, it's 70 cases"
"I'd like to look in the box"
"No looking in the box, it's the rules, trust us, 70 cases."
70 cases in the last 24 years is WAY too many. 30 cases in the 2016 election alone is WAY, WAY too many.
These numbers will begin rising soon, if Democrats don't find a way to squash the data on it.
Bullshit.
Is the number convicted the summation of all criminals? Yes or no shrike.
Riveting reply. You have convinced me.
I’m not trying to convince you, I’m just dismissing your comment as bullshit. If the number is that low, there’s no point in bothering to do anything about it. But you provide no argument, mere assertion.
People are admittedly committing crimes, but the number is low. So who cares. Did I summarize this right?
A) define low
B) based on shoplifting convictions, shoplifting numbers are low. Cost loss says different, but we can ignore that too right?
"Did I summarize this right?"
No.
All crimes are not equal. Some, like jaywalking, aren't worth the time and effort to prosecute, given the that it won't change the larger situation in the slightest.
Does it bother you to be as dishonest as Chemjeff, but on the other side.
No, your comments are bullshit Shrike. Arizona alone has major problems because of you democrats. And now you’re suing to ensure that ineligible voters will be able to fraudulently vote democrat next month.
You should think long and hard about that. Because once we all accept elections are largely rigged, the government is no longer legitimate and there is no rule of law. Should that happen, it will be time to deal with our democrat problem.
I don’t think that will work out well for you and your fellow travelers.
Remember in 2017 when Trump established a committee to investigate election irregularities and 44 states refused to cooperate? I find it amazing that even 70 cases were found because with the constant refusal to even look prevents finding anything.
That's not where the numbers came from, so why are you talking about some performance politics stunt from years ago?
You have zero credibility here.
I didn't say that the number came from there but that there is a history of obstruction towards any investigations of vote fraud.
According to ... who? The same people who believe that the 2020 election was stolen? Because Kris Kobach is very, very, very aggressive at trying to find voter fraud, and his investigations found almost none. Right along the same lines as everywhere else.
If you want to claim there's some sort of nefarious conspiracy in favor of voter fraud, you may want to see what the people who really, really, really want to find it have ended up discovering. It will make you look less foolish.
Trump lost by how many votes in 2020?
A little more than how many he won by in 2016, in a lot of the same states.
If it is not a problem, then why the fuss over requiring an ID when actually at the ballot box?
There are often arguments that there are not very many examples of voter fraud, but there there also is not much investigation into voter fraud. Oft sited court cases from the 2020 fiasco neglects that barely any court cases were actually heard because it's next to impossible to prove standing in election cases.
To me as an independent, I find it interesting that Democrats have claimed stolen elections for multiple decades, but Republicans claim it once and it's the end of democracy. There clearly is a double standard.
Nearly the entire planet requires some sort of ID to be able to vote, but not in the USA because it's racist. Forget that in most states these very same people have to produce their ID's for almost every government interaction including registering to vote in the first place.
The requirement to present an ID is not racist in even the smallest way and to claim so is deeply and profoundly insulting to the very people that anti-voter ID proponents claim to be protecting.
If after there is voter ID laws, there are no increase in cases of voter fraud, that is good. Even still there will be a benefit in that voters will feel better about the security of our elections. It is very clear that Democrats don't believe that the elections have been safe for decades upon decades except that 2020 was the absolute safest election in all time.
I there is massive fraud or not at this point is not as important than the reality that voters don't trust the results.
It's not a problem bur there is political capital in pretending it is, and stirring up the base.
If it's not a problem why do you fear verifying it isn't a problem shrike?
Can you imagine how badly the democrats would be crushed if we had objective news organizations and election were clean? It would be the end of the Democrat party.
For YEARS I've heard Democrats rail against voter ID laws as racist, "Jim Crow on steroids," attempts to "disenfranchise" black voters. This, despite the fact most black Americans support voter ID laws, as do most other demographics. To you, I guess that wasn't an attempt to stir up the base. But non-Democrats efforts to ensure election security IS pretending there is a problem when there isn't, just to stir up the base?
People support voter ID laws when they've been led to believe they're necessary.
In your native Britain, what efforts have you made to repeal the totally unnecessary requirement for voter identification? I'm assuming Britain and almost every other Western nation is just racist and backwards in requiring voter identification, not to mention eschewing massive mail-in balloting.
The circumstances, context and processes are different. And in addition, Britain's last Civil War isn't still bubbling away underneath its politics
So it's only racist for the US to have voter ID laws. Got it.
Have you heard of the special pleading logical fallacy?
Now please address the second part, universal mail-in ballots. Does Britain do that? Why not? Is it considered the least secure way to conduct an election? Or is it racist too, but only for the US, not to have massive mail-in balloting?
So it’s only racist for the US to have voter ID laws. Got it.
When you see how voter ID laws are used, then yes, indirectly. For example, Alabama introduced a voter ID law and promptly closed down or reduced hours in DMV in predominantly black counties. They did rescind that after an outcry. Texas introduced a voter ID law where acceptable and invalid ID types were chosen for which groups would be most affected, e.g., expired CCW, good, student IDs bad.
Have you heard of the special pleading logical fallacy?
Well enough to know that it's an informal fallacy not a logical one.
universal mail-in ballots. Does Britain do that?
No. Britain is a much smaller country with a less politicised voting system. So it's easy enough for people to get to vote in person, though mail-in ballots seem fairly easy to do.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-vote/postal-voting
Do you have a cite shrike?
No, but he has child porn. Oodles of it.
But non-Democrats efforts to ensure election security IS pretending there is a problem when there isn’t, just to stir up the base?
Basically. Republicans claiming rampant fraud are lying demagogues with the single goal of stirring up hatred and bigotry towards anyone they perceive as being in the country illegally.
When Dems have accused non-Dems of racism for wanting voter ID laws, was that trying to stir up hatred and bigotry (or attempting to paint their political opponents of bigotry)?
You love to accuse others of racism, homophobia, hatred, and bigotry. For someone definitely not a leftist or Democrat, you sure have adopted their handbook for identity politics.
I disagree with Democrats on most things, but in this case they're correct. When Republican politicians and pundits make accusations of rampant fraud with nothing to back it up but feelings, stirring up racial hatred amongst people in their base, it's not wrong to call it what it is.
It's easy to claim there isn't fraud when you and Dems oppose every measure to prevent and detect the fraud. You can invent motives all you want, but that's what it comes down to.
Also, you've twice now skipped over the Dems (and you) doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, i.e. stirring up racist hatred by claiming all efforts at election security are motivated by hate and racism, thereby ratcheting up racial tensions.
A Heritage Foundation database cites just 70 cases over more than 20 years.
Election fraud is a non-problem.
Also, you’ve twice now skipped over the Dems (and you) doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, i.e. stirring up racist hatred by claiming all efforts at election security are motivated by hate and racism, thereby ratcheting up racial tensions.
No, it’s not the same. There is a difference between acting and reacting.
Republican politicians and talking heads act first by claiming (non-white) illegals are illegally voting in droves, with nothing at all to back it up. So they’re basically stirring up racial hatred based upon lies.
Reacting to that by saying “Hey, these guys are stirring up racial hatred based upon lies” is not the same thing as stirring up racial hatred based upon lies.
You repeat numbers from when nobody is actually looking for fraud and in many cases even threatening criminal jailing for those who look.
Do people jaywalk? Not by the number of tickets handed out.
You're not an intelligent person sarc.
Even given the thousands of admitted double voters or people voting in wrong districts you claim zero fraud.
Even given cases of found illegal voting when nobody is looking you claim no illegal votes.
You're a Democrat defending the system that empowers democrats.
You repeat numbers from when nobody is actually looking for fraud and in many cases even threatening criminal jailing for those who look.
Heritage Foundation, dude. I thought they were an unimpeachable source of conservative gospel.
Do people jaywalk? Not by the number of tickets handed out.
Which has nothing to do with anything at all.
You’re not an intelligent person sarc.
Intelligent people talk about subjects, not the person they’re talking to. That doesn’t make me the unintelligent one.
Even given the thousands of admitted double voters or people voting in wrong districts you claim zero fraud.
No I didn’t. I said that there’s no proof of rampant illegal voting. Never said no fraud at all. Just that, based upon what is currently known, it’s statistically insignificant. Provide actual proof and I’ll change my tune.
Even given cases of found illegal voting when nobody is looking you claim no illegal votes.
Now you’re just making stuff up to argue against.
You’re a Democrat defending the system that empowers democrats.
I’m someone who judges based upon facts, not feelings. You want me to change my mind? Instead of calling me names like a child, show some actual proof that there’s enough voter fraud to change the results of an election.
You’re someone who judges based on facts and not feelings? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Get the fuck out. You’re a drunken, raving rageaholic.
You’re a democrat shill obsessed with hating Trump. You have zero credibility and your life has no value.
"Heritage Foundation, dude. I thought they were an unimpeachable source of conservative gospel."
In many states (such as California), it's actually illegal for election workers to ask to see a person's ID, and the law resolves the possibility of duplicate mail-in/in person voting by nullifying the mail-in ballot for anyone who's recorded as voting in person. Combine that with the new system where anyone can vote at any "voting site" within the same county where they're registered (L.A. County is roughly 100 miles across from north to south and with traffic can take 3-4 hours to traverse on the freeways), and if you happen to know a person's name, home address, and that they voted by mail you've got 3-4 weeks to go to any one of thousands of locations, give their name/address, and cast a ballot which will supersede their mailed-in vote without them ever being notified that it happened (30-50 mile commutes aren't rare in the area, so giving an address in Glendale while voting in Long Beach wouldn't be seen as suspicious) and absolutely no trail back to who the actual person that cast the in-person vote might have been.
The only way to draw any notice in CA would be if you're the second person to show up and vote in person under a particular name, and if that were to happen, only the second person to show up would draw any scrutiny so if they're the actual person and can prove it, there's absolutely no way to find or charge whoever the other person was (or to prove that there wasn't just somehow a clerical error or mis-entry of data at some point in the process. The point being that no matter who's looking for data about potential fraud in states with similar laws, the systems are constructed to make the collection/detection of such data nearly impossible under almost any circumstances; doesn't matter if it's Heritage Foundation, World Socialist Website, or some collective of hackers being overseen by Putin, Zalensky, or Kim Jong-Un trying to gather data that can't be developed, nobody is going to be able to find what couldn't be recorded.
One interesting side note, the CA State-run website providing information about how to vote in person in 2024 still shows every "person" in their banner/background graphic wearing a mask
Republican politicians and talking heads act first by claiming (non-white) illegals are illegally voting in droves
You just can't help yourself. Can you make an argument against the actions of the right or against Republicans without resorting to calling the other side racist?
Please cite a Republican politician claiming it's about NON-WHITE illegals voting.
When someone says “illegal alien” what comes to mind, a white guy with a eurotrash haircut or a brown guy named José?
You're telling on yourself here.
When I hear "illegal alien" I think that person broke US law to enter and stay in the country. I also worry about what other laws the illegal may commit after breaking into the country.
You apparently see almost everything through a prism of race. I used "almost" there, as on other occasions you see things through the prism of sexual orientation or gender identity.
When I hear “illegal alien” I think that person broke US law to enter and stay in the country.
Sure you do.
I also worry about what other laws the illegal may commit after breaking into the country.
Like the article said, the vast majority of people in the country illegally do not want to draw attention to themselves. Going around breaking laws is a great way to draw attention to themselves. Claiming that they’re inherently criminal by nature of them committing a victimless crime is the same logic used by drug warriors to lock up potheads because they believe they’re potential murderers.
You apparently see almost everything through a prism of race.
I’m being honest here. Who do Republicans attack when they attack illegal immigrants? Serbs? Nope. Russians? Not even. Mexicans? Yup. Haitians? Bingo! Then you accuse those who point it out of racism. Sure buddy.
Like the article said, the vast majority of people in the country illegally do not want to draw attention to themselves.
That may have been true 20-30+ years ago. But since the era of sanctuary cities transitioned to that of a sanctuary nation (as long as you say the magic word, "asylum"), they aren't as worried about deportation. Instead you have some brazenly flaunting US immigration law to stay in the country openly as well as receive all kinds of benefits that are specifically earmarked for illegals.
You never cited the Republican politician claiming it's about NON-WHITE illegals voting. When challenged, you fall back on claiming it's inherent in the label "illegal." I tell you I think of the illegal status when you mention "illegal alien," just to have you basically call me a liar ("Sure you do.") and project your own apparent racism onto me. It's clear it's mostly about race to you, as you can't help but bring it up, as well as project onto your political opponents racist motivations that are at the forefront of your mind. To you, it seems you can't conceive of someone being against the illegal part of illegal immigration, regardless of race, as race is so intrinsic to your philosophy it affects everything.
Instead you have some brazenly flaunting US immigration law to stay in the country openly as well as receive all kinds of benefits that are specifically earmarked for illegals.
Ok... In a few blue cities they do stupid shit. Doesn't mean illegals everywhere else have an interest in keeping their heads down.
You never cited the Republican politician claiming it’s about NON-WHITE illegals voting. When challenged, you fall back on claiming it’s inherent in the label “illegal.”
Because, like it or not, that's how most people think.
To you, it seems you can’t conceive of someone being against the illegal part of illegal immigration, regardless of race, as race is so intrinsic to your philosophy it affects everything.
Bull. I'm just being honest here. Ask people about the racial makeup of illegals, migrants and asylum seekers, and you're going to find very few people who say "white." So stirring up hatred and animosity against those people is indeed stirring up racial hatred. That's just the way it is. You can claim that it's unintentional. That's fine. I don't think it is. No, that doesn't make me a Democrat. Just makes me someone willing to say the truth.
Sarcles is playing his democrat ‘racist’ card. This means he has signaled his surrender.
What actual investigations have they done? Why are you against even the most nominal of checks on verification if it if it isn't a problem.
Just like you were against any and all investigations into fraud.
Your entire defense sums up to "it isn't happening and you better not look." Quite the dumb assertion. Again. The jaywalking fallacy.
How are you not a Democrat again?
To me as an independent, I find it interesting that Democrats have claimed stolen elections for multiple decades, but Republicans claim it once and it’s the end of democracy. There clearly is a double standard.
The difference is that Democrats let it go, while Republicans require someone to profess their faith in The Steal or be ex-communicated.
Let it go like impeachment, special prosecutors, disbarrment, arrests.
You're a fucking idiot sarc.
Hillary and other dems still claim 2000, 2004, and 2016 are fraudulent. But you have to defend your team.
Hillary said 2016 was stolen as recently as last year.
Democrats didn’t claim fraud. They got pissy about the Electoral College. And they don’t require someone to answer faith-based questions as a condition of joining the fold.
Russia sent the electoral college?
Poor sarc. So stupid.
Yes, pour Sarc.
Theft, Fraud, YMMV
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
They have claimed fraud dozens of times. They were claiming potential for fraud in 2016 and 2020 (yes they were attacking voting machines). Hillary and democrats continue to say Russia stole 2016, including claims of hacking by Russians. Again, you’re a fucking idiot.
You love Google. Google democrats fraud Ohio.
Dumbass.
Hillary said 2016 was stolen as recently as last month.
Were Democratic politicians required to go along with her or risk losing their seats?
Not were. Are.
Lol. Which law/regulation are you pretending here?
How many democrats vote for politicians solely on their going after Trump retard?
Sen Sheehy literally said last night if Trump wins she will vote to impeach day one.
How are you and sarc so fucking dumb?
I keep wondering what the last straw will be that catalyzes the forthcoming war between Americans and the democrat party.
Can you name one Congressional Democrats that broke with the party and opposed the Mueller investigation? Or were Democrats 100% in lockstep concerning the Mueller investigation?
Was she lying about fraud like Trump, or complaining about how the Electoral College gives states with small populations (that are not full of progressive city dwellers) a say in choosing the president?
Wasn’t there something about a country that starts with an “r”? This is your second comment omitting that… Did it go down the memory hole?
Are you this retarded? A quick Google search can tell you.
“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as [former FBI director Robert] Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016,” said Mrs. Clinton in the Monday interview.
That’s last month.
When she stated she wanted to lock people up over speech around elections.
Now to prove you didn't make shit up to defend democrats claims, show her electoral college comments she keeps referring to.
So she is lying like Trump. My bad.
That’s a start. Now admit you’re wrong about everything else., beg our forgiveness, and go away forever. We will also accept your suicide as an act of contrition.
Oh, look. It's a "why does mandatory gun registration bother you" type question...
"Are noncitizens voting in U.S. elections? A Heritage Foundation database cites just 70 cases over more than 20 years."
So the answer is yes?
Full disclosure; I only read the headline and sub-head of Fiona articles, so maybe she accidently makes sense in the article.
That’s never happened before, why would it start now?
A number so small it may safely be ignored.
Except in tight elections.
While I agree with you here, the question is what defines a tight election. States typically set thresholds for recounts on tight elections and that should be starting point and that seems to be being met.
Voter citizenship confirmation doesn't occur during recounts dumbass.
What is the point of recounting illegal votes, you dullard?
Because that way leftist buffoons and complicit legacy media can crow about how there is no fraud, as they recount the fraudulent ballots with the legitimate ballots.
"Except in tight elections."
No election has ever been that tight. Ever.
Literally putting the decades-long total into Florida for Gore would still have him losing to Bush and that was the closest margin ever.
Is the number caught the totality of the number of criminals, yes or no shrike.
Insurrection has occurred once in the history of this country (Civil War). I do not see you calling for the ending of anti-insurrection laws.
So the attack on the White House onay 29, 2020 was not insurrection?
He certainly does not think so. And I will differentiate between political violence and a goal of taking over the government.
The clowns in that mob cannot manage a bowel movement.
Many of those cases involved lawful permanent residents who were "encouraged by a government official to vote or falsely told that they were eligible," wrote American Immigration Council Senior Fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
Wait, you are telling me the government is going around telling noncitizens they can vote, but only 70 over the last 20 years. I know .gov employees are lazy, but that takes the cake.
Seems to me that if anyone actually cared they would find an organized method of electoral fraud.
Now you're telling me MAGAs "don't care" about voter fraud?
At least, not enough to bother finding any of it!
Of course, you guys did put somewhat more effort into finding Haitian pet-eaters...
This year VA removed over 6000 noncitizens from the voter roles, Alabama over 2000. You are telling me none of them voted. Futhermore, you are telling me when they were all mailed a ballot in 2020, none of them returned it and none of them where harvested and filled in by a third party?
How Did Immigration Politics Get So Toxic? How Fiona?
and I believe Arizona recently removed 100,000. wtf.
None of them voted however.
Up to 200k. They weren't removed. Democrats sued to make sure they could still vote in state elections. 30k voters use federal only ballots because verification is a check box.
A little over a month ago Oregon found 300 voters on the rolls whose citizenship had not been verified. Simply by taking a quick look at the voter rolls that number has now climbed to over 1600. I wonder how many more that might be found if they take a serious look?
“You are telling me none of them voted”
No. That’s your strawman.
No one has said that literally none of them voted. In the article I believe she referenced a 2/3 of a percent point rate of illegally registered noncitizens voting.
No, you're telling me none of them voted.
You're doing this by utterly failing to provide any evidence in support of your claim that any of them voted.
It's almost as if you really don't give a shit about this--apart from the political points you can score with it!
We literally don’t check if they’re eligible to vote in many places and only are able to remove them from the rolls after the fact (and to much bellyaching by people like you and Fiona). How the fuck is someone supposed to show you evidence we literally don’t even try to collect?
Oh, and the idea that the number caught is so low when we’re talking about 10’s to 100’s of thousands of non-citizens being removed from the rolls is, quite frankly, unbelievable.
Just like murder or robbery stats, they only get counted if they get reported. If you were an election official who was cooking the books, would you report it?
I came to say the same, there is noting to report if you aren't looking and thee is no crime when you don't report crime there was no voter fraud ion 2020 if the courts refuse to accept proof or even standing
So your counter to facts is unsupported accusations of criminality on the part of briad swaths of election officials?
There's a secret conspiracy, eh?
A perfectly secret conspiracy. None of them have ever talked...
Child and spousal abuse used to be considered nonexistent or infinitesimal because the crime was willfully ignored and unreported. Similarly voter fraud is touted to be insignificant.
If it really doesn’t happen, then there is no harm in making the punishment extraordinary harsh - fraudulent voting by an illegal would be punishable by immediate deportation, a lifetime ban on reentry, a forfeiture of all property.
And and equally harsh sentence should be levied against a citizen that fraudulently votes or allows another to fraudulently vote - a lifetime voting disenfranchisement, a lifetime loss of any and all government aid (including student grants, food stamps, welfare of any kind), a lifetime ban on holding any government job including as a private contractor.
If illegal voting is not a real problem, then Democrats should be willing to enforce draconian punishment for this nonexistent crime.
its like the gangs taking over the apartments in Aurora Colorado it only a handful so its not a problem.
1 its not happening you racist
2 ok its happening but its not a big deal so you are a racist
3 it will continue and fester and you better shut up about it racist
The left uses this logic when it favors their supporters or constituencies. Cracking down on voter/election fraud could cause legitimate voters to worry about them getting accused of wrongdoing, so we shouldn't crack down on it at all. Or maybe it could make it more inconvenient to vote if you have to prove your citizenship status, so there should be no requirements to safeguard voting. Who cares if fraudulent votes (can/will) cancel out legitimate votes, as long as voting is as convenient as possible.
Some (perhaps a lot of) women will falsely accuse a man of rape or sexual assault. This can ruin many innocent men's lives, but if we prosecute the false allegations, real victims of rape might be reticent to report, so we shouldn't penalize those who do falsely accuse. You see women are the core constituency of the left, not men, so who cares if some men fall victim to false accusations. Believe ALL women, right? Unless the accused is a Dem politician, that is, then you destroy the accuser in the court of public opinion, if you even discuss the accusation at all.
Guns are scary and loud, to the left. Who cares if the CDC showed defensive uses of guns total at least 250k per year (to a maximum of over a million per year). The relatively few cases of legally obtained firearms being used for violent crimes by legal gun wielders should mean no one gets to have a gun for protection. Gun owners aren't a core constituency of the left, but panicking wine moms are, and their irrational fears trump everything.
I could keep going, but you get the point. For the left everything gets filtered through a prism of what will get them more power. Everything is put in a hierarchy to help them achieve this goal.
Yes, the right often sucks too, but it's not even close now to the level the left has taken things.
Yeah, it's dishonest, hypocritical pettifogging.
When it's your cause, any concern that just coincidentally doesn't have more than 70 cases in the past 20 years is invalid even if the cases are perfectly factual. Even if there are decades-long open examples of abuses of causes as vital to personal and national interest, they're irrelevant because those causes are not *this* cause. If it's anyone else's cause, the vague "risking of targeting" for even trivial intervention is beyond sufficient to dismiss prima facie.
It's insane egotism/narcissism that makes Trump seem considerate and even-handed.
It's an interesting rule you're suggesting: severity of punishment shouldn't depend on the severity of the criminal harm, but on the rarity of the criminal harm.
Have you thought this through?
It's been illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections for a century. But beyond that, there's little evidence to suggest that many noncitizens are voting in federal elections, let alone in large enough numbers to sway those races.
The jaywalking myth. Look at the number of citations. It never happens.
As long as nobody ever investigates, it never occurs.
Precisely. There's little evidence it happens, and you're not allowed to do anything that might uncover more evidence.
Though talking about actual voting misses the real problem, which is that non-citizens are counted for apportionment, so that even if not one of them votes, SOMEBODY gets to vote in their place. There are enough of them no that they're wildly distorting Congressional apportionment, even beyond what the Census can accomplish just by doing a remarkably bad job.
If Democrats manage to control Congress this year, or even narrowly win the EC, the combination of counting illegals for apportionment, and the Census' unprecedented errors this time around will probably be why.
Who, exactly, is stopping you from uncovering evidence of this crime? Don't Republicans control quite a few state legislatures? Why haven't even they bothered to uncover all this evidence you're so sure exists?
Articles like this are akin to telling devout Christians that the resurrection never happened. It's an article of faith for them, and so no evidence is actually needed.
She provided evidence that it happens.
And no evidence that it has ever made a difference.
No widespread difference.
Did you post child porn on the original SRG account shrike?
Did you click on it?
They feel it's true, so facts don't matter.
The facts are they have been caught illegally voting. The feel is your apparent assertion they caught every illegal voter.
You're a fucking idiot sarc.
The facts are they have been caught illegally voting.
Yup. A whole 70 of them over 20 years.
The feel is your apparent assertion they caught every illegal voter.
Now you're making stuff up to argue against. Must be a day that ends in 'y'.
You’re a fucking idiot sarc.
Says the guy who disregards facts he doesn't like and argues against stuff he makes up.
A 70 without lookong and dimwit like you attacking anyone who wishes to look with Democrats literally suing to stop states from looking.
Do people jaywalk, yes or no? Since there are so few citations for jaywalking, it must never happen.
You’re a fucking idiot sarc.
Again the one fact is it happens. You admit this. Then you state it rarely happens, which is not a fact and you are against any state that tries to verify it.
I remember taking a sociology course in college (part of the core requirements). The professor, who was a raging leftist, but didn't try to quash dissent in the classroom, to her credit, went on and on one day about how voter/election fraud just isn't happening and is just a racist dog-whistle attempting to disenfranchise blacks to require ID to vote. I asked how she can make the claim that it's not happening if we refuse to investigate it. She didn't have a great answer, but retreated to saying it's just not happening. This was in Virginia. That very night a news story broke about Rep. Moran (D) and his son caught on video instructing someone to register in his district to vote for him by faking a utility bill. The timing was so perfect. It didn't change the professor's opinion that it's not happening though, surprise, surprise.
Did anyone teach you about who bears the burden of proof while you were in college?
You and others democrats want to make it illegal, yes criminal threats, to have someone find the burden of proof you demand.
See your support of all the investigations of electors cases or any 2020 issues being criminalized.
You are the one claiming it isn't an issue, without proof. Those who disagree want to seek the proof, but you don't want them to be able to. Democrats literally go to courts to stop investigations and you choose to use that as proof of cleanest elections ever.
You're a fucking idiot Democrat sarc.
Claiming there isn't election fraud is making a claim that bears a burden of proof. A burden of proof she didn't come close to meeting, same as you.
Claiming the attempts to institute voter ID laws are only being done for racist reasons to disenfranchise non-white Americans is ANOTHER claim that she made--AND YOU KEEP MAKING--without providing evidence backing it up--other than your feels.
If you read my comment, you would have seen I did provide proof that election fraud is happening, as that very night the hidden video leaked of Rep. Moran instructing a non-resident of his district how to fake a utility bill to register in his district fraudulently. But for my classroom discussion with the professor, I never even claimed that it was happening. I only challenged her declaration that it was not happening, especially when she--AND YOU--use circular reasoning to oppose any efforts to secure elections and investigate if fraud is occurring. "We don't have any evidence of election fraud. We also aren't going to investigate if it's happening. Therefore it's not happening. Case closed."
Nobody said there’s no fraud.
Let me repeat that. Nobody said there’s no fraud.
I’ll say it one more time so it might sink in. Nobody said there’s no fraud.
Why do you guys repeat that strawman ad nauseum?
The claim is that the people claiming fraud have not provided evidence that there’s enough fraud to change the outcome of an election. Know why people make that claim? Because no one has found evidence of enough fraud to effect the outcome of an election. They feel that there is. They feel it really hard. But they can't prove it.
The burden of proof is on those claiming that there’s enough fraud to effect the outcome of an election.
Want to change minds? Find proof of enough fraud to effect the outcome of an election.
Did anyone teach you about who bears the burden of proof while you were in college?
Nobody said there’s no fraud.
My professor did claim no fraud. You then say I don't understand the burden of proof, so I go out of my way to simplify it for you. You then come back with distortions of what I wrote. My professor claimed "no fraud," only to have an example fall in my lap that night of fraud taking place.
Want to change minds? Find proof of enough fraud to effect the outcome of an election.
But do so without being able to investigate purported fraud. That's a great way to say, find it but without investigating it.
For one thing, I don't know if there is enough "widespread" fraud" to "change the election." I suspect there is, or at least that there was in 2020, but I can't say for sure. What gets in the way is the Dem machine fighting EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to investigate it and to proactively make it much harder to attempt election fraud.
When the answer is, we don't have enough evidence to support a claim, the next step isn't to stop anyone from investigating to find evidence. No the next step is to investigate further.
Your professor sounds like a nitwit. I suppose I should have said no reasonable people claim there is no fraud at all. Congrats on finding an example of one person being instructed on how to vote illegally. One person is not a trend. But by all means go find more.
Despite Jesse’s constant lies, I have no issue with investigating fraud.
Either way, the burden of proof is on those who claim elections are illegitimate due to fraud. Not those who ask for proof.
“Your professor sounds like a nitwit.”
I mean, he did say she was a hardcore leftist Sociology professor…
utterly delusional
The Fear that millions of newly arrived illegal immigrants are swaying federal elections by voting unlawfully...
The "Fear" is fraudulent elections and the will of the electorate being ignored. By enabling this pitiful attempt at misdirection by the left, Harrigan is just another useful idiot.
"A million people were caught speeding last year. Therefore, only a million people sped last year."
Every single no-Id required state allows one to register to vote using only a copy of your utility bill.
in other news the chocolate ration has been increased from 20 grams to 15 grams.
There is not one 'worried about the election integrity' commenter here who is trustworthy enough to even be a poll watcher.
Cite?
You probably think everyone who wants verified electors is Jewish so hate them all.
Why are all the leftist posters here also anti-semitic fucks? Guys, look to Bill Maher, he is a leftist, and yet not an anti-semite.
The Noncitizen Voting Myth
The Journalist Shooting Myth
There haven't really been many shootings of journalists in the past 20 yrs. Sure there are examples of Charlie Hebdo, Alison Parker and Adam Ward, and Jamal Khashoggi but the idea of systemic oppression and executions of journalists is just a myth. If, tomorrow, 1% or 5% or even 10% of journalists were killed in mass shootings, as long as it wasn't enough to significantly reduce the total volume of news produced, there'd be no reason for anyone to pay any exceptional attention to any of it.
How about the cops killing an unarmed black man myth?
Seems like we upended society over that one
States that aim to rid their voter rolls of noncitizens risk targeting people who are eligible to vote, including naturalized citizens. Florida and Texas both dropped expansive voter citizenship audits for that reason. Florida and Texas both dropped expansive voter citizenship audits for that reason.
Dishonest, old-school, brain-off hypocritical, FUD.
Where was your zero-facts-cited counterargument when states whimsically started expanding and changing voting processes with absolutely zero regard for who they were or weren't "risking targeting" in 2020-2022?
You don't give a shit about immigration or voting. You're here to blow the propaganda trumpet for your employers and everybody knows it.
solid close.
> A Heritage Foundation database cites just 70 cases over more than 20 years.
DON'T LET FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF THE LIE!
I have friends in California, CALIFORNIA, who claim that without all the illegals voting in the state that California would have gone to Trump in 2020. This is such a ridiculous proposition that I must exercise enormous self control to stop from laughing in their faces.
Step one for Republican Californians: Get more Republicans elected to the Assembly and take away the Democrat supermajority. It's hard, but you can start by stopping the constant attacks on racial and ethnic minorities. Constantly retreating into xenophobia and conspiracy theories isn't winning you converts.
What cpnstant attacks on racial and ethnic minorities?
"...Constantly retreating into xenophobia and conspiracy theories isn’t winning you converts."
Constantly retreating into total and complete bullshit isn't winning you approval here, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
Based on the number of convictions for shop lifting that never occurs either.
How about all the swing states where you democrats committed widespread election fraud?
There's this thing called 'the sniff test'; you use it to see if that stuff in the fridge is still edible and you use it when handed some claims.
We have millions of illegals in the US and this pile of shit expects me to believe we have had exactly 70 cases of those millions voting over the last 20 years?!
Fiona, FOAD. Your numbers smell worse than last week's fish.
Well shit Sevo, if The Heritage Foundation says it’s 70 it must be true! They’re obviously the undisputed arbiter of all US election fraud investigation.
Nothing else to see here!
the 20 year factor should stink this up too.
The border crossing rates are way the fuck up and you have politicians, parties, and state and local laws quietly removing the barriers to illegal voting as of the last year or so. In other words, there’s a plan.
You would think that someone who was a gung-ho proponent of immigration would want to do all she could to persuade and assuage those who might be inclined to join her point of view by agreeing that the opportunity for migrant gross abuses of the system be minimized. But, incredibly, No….
^^
if its so rare why are they trying to make it illegal to confirm a persons citizen ship status.
So as to keep the number of KNOWN cases at 70, duh.
> ... there's little evidence to suggest that many noncitizens are voting in federal elections...
Sloppy, sloppy, lazy logic.
Black Swan theory. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. In other words, it does not follow that a lack of (discovered) evidence of non-citizen voting is evidence that non-citizens do not vote.
You agree that there's a lack of evidence?
A lack of evidence just means there's insufficient evidence (at the moment) to justify taking draconian measures.
Why don't you investigate? Are you afraid that if you investigate, you won't find the evidence you deserve to find?
Well, spammy, when idiots like you throw around words like “draconian” at something like voter ID, (which should be completely non controversial) it sets off peoples bullshit detectors.
“Hurr durr, we don’t support voter fraud, we just support making fraud easier. No one will actually do it, though, trust us.”
Idiot.
I suspect that the actual casus belli here is that they secretly want to discourage 'marginalized' people from voting and that the slightest difficulty, in the form of requiring identification or proof of citizenship for example, discourages those lazy or terrified people from registering or showing up at the polls. The libruls buy into this by "get out the vote" efforts such as door-to-door registration drives and shuttling their key demographics to the polls on election day. Demagogues of all sorts control the debate and the media play it up for media share. And yet Americ still survives, although the government is nearing bankruptcy (or would be if not for the power to print money, at least until the crisis suddenly arises, surprising nobody.)
Or, and hear me out on this wild theory, the proponents of these election security measures want to have secure elections.
What is it with all of you liberaltarians or outright leftists always resorting to emotional arguments about how the right wants only to disenfranchise legitimate voters? With you guys it always seems to fall back on racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic motives for your political opponents.
Sarcasm doesn't always come through on a forum like this, but are you denying that some people who claim that there's widespread election fraud secretly want to make it more difficult for their opponent's supporters to vote? Are you also denying that the Democrats try to offset the reluctance of their supporters to go to the polls to vote by dragging them there?
Lol. Yeah, presenting ID is really fucking difficult.
Should people who won’t make the minimal effort required for a bank account, flying, or getting a drink really be voting?
Just because you say that normal, everyday expectations for life in the modern world are “making things difficult” don’t make such nonsense true.
As we know from 2020, the best evidence the last election was "rigged" was that Trump lost it.
Not even close.
terrible take on reality. try again.
It is obvious that as you make fraud more difficult, you also make it more likely that some eligible voters will be prevented from voting. There is a clear question of balance here – and this is essentially a neutral political position.
In RealWorld(tm), you would look at the frequency of fraudulent voting, try to estimate the number of eligible voters who would be affected by the steps taken to prevent it, and decide whether it’s worth it. For example, if you estimate that for every fraudulent vote stopped, you disenfranchise say 10 people, you might conclude that the rights of those 10 outweigh the harm to the People of that 1 fraudulent vote.
The GOP are utterly uninterested in such calculations. First, voter fraud is vanishingly small. The Kobach committee, despite being highly motivated to find evidence of widespread fraud, couldn’t do so. Second, what they find to be an acceptable ratio of fraudulent voters stopped to eligible voters stopped seems to be at least 1:1,000 and maybe more – that is, to stop 1 fraudulent vote, at least 1,000 eligible citizens will be unable to vote. This ratio is unconscionable.
FWIW no supporter of current GOP voting policies has ever responded to my question, “what is an acceptable ratio?” and IMO it is very hard to defend on principled grounds a ratio in excess of 1:1.
However, there is no way that we will be able to persuade staunch GOP supporters about the facts of voter fraud. Consequently we have to accept that the GOP will predicate electoral policy on the assumption that fraud is a genuine and serious problem. The real reason that the GOP – not its gullible supporters – promote the fraud idea is as a scaremongering excuse to suppress the vote, but it seems that we have to pretend that this isn’t true and that they’re all sincere.
Trump's Voter Fraud commission didn't finish the job. They disbanded it because so many states sued to prevent having to share their voter data. Without that data, they couldn't investigate.
Including GOP states, who would be highly motivated to conceal their data only if the data showed little to no evidence of fraud.
Even in GOP dominated states, election administrators tend to be members of the election administration fraternity, and want no meddling in what they regard as their sole province.
This. See Maricopa in Arizona. Hobbs was SoS and didn't want anyone looking.
Right, because as we know none of them have ever gone along with what Trump has asked for. Sheesh...
It is obvious that as you make fraud more difficult, you also make it more likely that some eligible voters will be prevented from voting.
Huh?
How is it obvious shrike? What's the difficulty in proving citizenship? My guess is you buy into the standard liberal minorities are too dumb trope.
“It is obvious that as you make fraud more difficult, you also make it more likely that some eligible voters will be prevented from voting”
How?
"you also make it more likely that some eligible voters will be prevented from voting"
This is a false statement. No eligible voter would be prevented from voting by taking measures to prevent voter fraud. You might make it more difficult for them to register and thus discourage the lazier voters or those who don't really care that much about voting from doing so, but that does not constitute prevention in that context. Try again with a little less spin.
Which is a reflection of how often it's investigated, not now often it occurs. Why not link to an actual study - like this one?
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217289972.pdf
And here's an article about non-citizens who successfully voted, didn't even know it was illegal, and were only caught because they accidentally admitted it. And there were no consequences for doing so. So that shatters pretty much every point in this article.
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/illegal-voting-case-puts-familys-future-in-limbo/
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/
(You probably won't want to read that.)
And congratulations, you've found two of the 70, or perhaps there are now 72? In any case, these two devious miscreants have been caught (which doesn't really help prove the claim that there are millions of "undetected" illegal voters).
So rare, this heinous crime justifies capital punishment!
1. It’s not happening and you’re a racist.
2. Ok it’s happening, but it’s not that much and you’re a racist <— you are here
3. Ok it’s happening a lot, but this is old news and you’re a racist (I’m sure the millisecond that non-citizens start voting for Republicans over Democrats, the first part of this one will magically be known as gospel truth).
Some argue that an immigrant who breaks the law by illegally crossing the border wouldn't shy away from breaking the law by voting as a noncitizen, but that's counterintuitive. Someone trying to live in the country covertly most likely wouldn't want the unwanted scrutiny and prosecution that voting illegally could bring—the tradeoff simply isn't worth it.
Covertly? COVERTLY? What in the Sam-hell are you talking about?
does she even know?
One would think someone trying to live in the country covertly would avoid killing migratory fowl in a public park, threatening the landlords and tenants of multiple housing complexes, and raping and impregnating their girlfriend’s 10 yr. old daughter and yet…
for covertly's sake don't eat the dogs or eat the cats!
Allegations of voter fraud are not just face-value accusations. They're just as much an indirect indictment of unacceptably poor election controls.
If officials must retreat behind the tissue of "we left no evidence", then they've already failed at their jobs. Elections should be "beyond reproach", solid enough that even the losers accept the results. That means that "presumption of innocence" just isn't good enough --Burden of proof must be on officials to show that all rules were followed and all votes / tabulation were honest.
They can't. Worse, some states (like Michigan) have gone out of their way to open up gaping holes through which you could drive a truckload of mail-in ballots, so they deserve every specious accusation we can fabricate until the day they can obey the law and close the holes in their process.
That means that “presumption of innocence” just isn’t good enough –Burden of proof must be on officials to show that all rules were followed and all votes / tabulation were honest.
"Can I see the results?"
"We recounted, they're solid"
"A recount isn't an audit... I'd like to do an aud...."
"Shut up, racist"
And the idea otherwise, from libertarians, is astounding. Democracy is still largely mob rules but it can at least derive legitimacy from “We’re 51% of the people.” or “We’re 51% of the voting electorate.”
Without that, it’s just a mob with zero claim to any legitimacy, moral, popular, or other, that wants to hurt people, disrupt shit, and tear things down.
And the idea otherwise, from libertarians, is astounding. Democracy is still largely mob rules but it can at least derive legitimacy from “We’re 51% of the people.” or “We’re 51% of the voting electorate.”
Or "We are a majority of the 17.5 percent during the 3rd recount that put three choices on our Alt Country/Rock, Top Three, Third-past-the-post-with-the highest-margin-of-voters that bothered to choose three system"
If your standard is that "even the losers accept the results" you're simply allowing the losers to determine your standards.
That is certainly one way of setting standards, but probably not one you would choose in any other facet of life.
And people still don’t notice the gaping coincidence of the virulent opposition to Voter ID at the exact same time we no longer have a border.
“I think there might be a lot of voter fraud here with illegal immigrants, or even temporary asylum seekers who aren’t eligible to vote”
“Prove it”
“Ok, I’d like to start doing some stuff to close up the problems in our election system, like let’s ask for ID when voting”
“No, over my progressive, rainbow-clad dead body”
And even this is keeping it pretty civil. Avoiding the people on both sides of the border openly advocating La Reconquista and Great Replacement.
This is a pretty dumb take, of course. They know it, and we know it, it's all just part of what we expect them to say.
Tens of thousands of noncitizens on the voter rolls of the handful of states who have EVEN BOTHERED TO CHECK? Nothing to see here, these aren't the noncitizen voters you're looking for.
It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, but there are no enforcement mechanisms on the books, such as a requirement to check documentation. That is the hole that needs to be plugged.
Of course non citizens aren’t voting because their ballots are harvested by the Democrats who vote for them then count the illegal ballots. What's that saying about the person who counts the ballots decides who wins?
Ah, so you don't think voter ID laws would make any difference, because the fraud happens elsewhere anyway?
And yet Virginia is removing 1000s of non-citizens enrolled as voters of its books and the Biden-Harris DOJ is suing to stop it.
So if they don't vote, why are there 1000s of them registered? And why are Democrats so desperate to keep them registered?
You see, those 1000s of them might have accidentally checked the "non-citizen" box by mistake and actually be citizens. So to prevent the miniscule number of idiots who checked the non-citizen box when they are, in fact, citizens, we need to allow everyone who registered while checking the box making them ineligible to vote eligible to vote.
It's this kind of insane logic that is needed to justify the Harris-Biden admin suing VA to keep the self-reported non-citizens on the voter roles.
I suspect the real reason purging non-citizens from the voter roles is being opposed by Harris-Biden is that they suspect there are enough illegals on the voter roles to perhaps swing the election to her. But I guess I'm just a racist, per sarc.
What if they are citizens but identify as migrants? That seems less weird than kids identifying as dogs and cats.
BTW, I wonder if that fad has diminished with the latest Haitian threat.
You see, those 1000s of them might have accidentally checked the “non-citizen” box by mistake and actually be citizens.
Right so to be safe, let's just leave them on there and move on to another more important topic: Agreeing to disagree on what a woman is.
"The National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, prohibits states from removing voters from registration lists within 90 days of a federal election. Election experts say the 90-day quiet period prevents voters from being disenfranchised by giving them a chance to get back on the registration lists if they were removed in error.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, signed an executive order that led Virginia to violate the quiet period by doing list maintenance "as recently as late September," the Justice Department alleged. The department has also sued Alabama for violating the NVRA in recent weeks."
Holy smokes. This thread is stuck in Jeff mode.
It’s painfully obvious that Marxist collaborators like the leftists here need to be pruned.
OK, let's posit that instances of illegal immigrant voting are few, and therefore not worth official oversight and prevention.
1. How about instances of legal citizens denied voting because they lack ID? Is that number big enough to justify such legal attention?
2. Our collective faith in democracy depends on perception of voting as secure. Which perception do you want to promote?
Last year my State only prosecuted 10 littering cases.
Oh; I guess nobody ever liters enough to worry about it. /s
The crying Indian (correction: Italian American) was very persuasive in the 1970s.
OK, so this is a Fiona article. Let's play "Find the Regurgitated Democrat Narrative".
Found it!
let alone in large enough numbers to sway those races.
This is always their go-to line with election fraud. And do you ever notice that they go out of their way to break it up? Well, the non-citizens voting aren't enough. Neither are the duplicate voters. Nor are the people voting on behalf of people for whom they have no right. And so on and so on.
They never want to look at election shenanigans as a whole, because if they limit it to the parts - like Fiona just did - then maybe people won't look at the sum of them.
Also: let alone in large enough numbers to sway those races.
Gosh your honor, why are we getting so upset? The non-citizen only raped her once.
I agree that you were raped
Do you care and wish to see those responsible held accountable for it, or do you think I deserved it and that it's a small price to pay for a better tomorrow (that involves raping people)?
Are you a Democrat?
No.
I'm not buying this argument for a minute. All I need to show in my state in order to vote is a drivers licence, They are giving them away on Cracker Jacks boxes,
"More than 20 years" conveniently leaves out the 1996 loss of Congressman "B-1 Bob" Dornan to Loretta Sanchez by less than 1000 votes. 748 were confirmed aliens ineligible to vote and a House committee and the INS found almost 5000 registrations in the district believed to be non-citizens. I'm sure Fiona is aware of this and chose not to include it.
The study cites 20 PROVEN cases. The number not caught is likely higher. The number should be ZERO. Complaining about efforts to ensure non-citizens don't get on the rolls, or are removed when found, can be nothing other than an effort to allow them to vote.
"The National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, prohibits states from removing voters from registration lists within 90 days of a federal election. Election experts say the 90-day quiet period prevents voters from being disenfranchised by giving them a chance to get back on the registration lists if they were removed in error."
Not exactly a good faith argument. There are minor concerns, but non-eligible voters casting ballots isn't the problem. The problem is that in most jurisdictions, you can request a mail-in ballot with nothing more than a name, address and drivers' license. That's a legitimate ballot going out with a legitimate return envelope as well. Zero chain of custody. Very easy to ballot harvest, cast on behalf of a dead voter or a lapsed registration that isn't being monitored, etc. Never mind the intersection with states giving illegal immigrants DLs and Motor Voter...
I'm all for voting being simple in the areas that don't matter, but security requirements shouldn't be easy to clear.
FYI, political operatives in campaigns have easy access to voter records. They know who they can prey upon.
Aside from non-citizen voters there's a lawsuit trying to stop Michigan and North Carolina from registering deployed military, ex-pats and foreign born dual/multi national US citizens who never legally resided in either state, or in the latter case, may never have set foot in the US in their lives.
Adultery is a felony in the State of Michigan.
A check of records shows there have been zero convictions for adultery in Michigan in the last century.
Therefore, we know no adultery has been committed in the State of Michigan in the last century.
Interesting
Sound reasoning.
And since we know nothing is there, there is no reason to go looking for it, or to create a system that would detect it.
We know it is a law which is not important enough for the state to enforce.
Does that also explain why there have been so few election fraud cases prosecuted? State officials (even in Republican states) consider voter fraud unimportant, and simply don't bother to investigate? I suppose it is a plausible theory. After all, no one was very bothered about it until Trump lost in 2020.
Shorter Fiona: "Look, immigrant gangs are only taking over a handful of apartment complexes."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/10/15/exclusive-watch-arizone-voters-registered-residence-abortion-clinic-strip-club-high-school-cardinals-training-center/
Nothing to see here.
They live there. In the back room.
Hundreds?! Jesus the sky is falling. How many of them voted?
Hey, I broke one law by coming here but I promise not to break another.
Illegal immigrants can do no wrong in Reason's eyes. They don't vote right? Why did CA need to pass a law that IDs are banned?
Let's see
Driving - ID
Buying a car - ID
Credit - ID
House - ID
Flying - ID
Buying booze - ID
Voting - nah we're good. Oh, we only want Dems to be poll watchers.
You want to proven it's a myth. Pass a nation wide ID law since nothing will change right?
Fiona is such a hack.
The PIT count is a useless database to make any conclusions about the homeless population. The methodology is fatally flawed. The data is useless. The problem is not that there is too little "shelter". Millions of dollars are spent providing it. The problem is that the shelters are owned and managed by grifters in the homeless industry and they have no incentive to fix anything. Indeed, their incentives are to do just the opposite.