Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

Rick wrote: Can you get health care under the ACA without a proper ID?

I don't know. I know you asked the question, so do you have an answer to that one?

What I do know is if you don't have health coverage under the ACA, there's a penalty, right? I think that's one of the parts of the ACA that needs to be addressed.

ZHawke wrote: On the voter fraud issue, I have yet to see demonstrable and/or valid proof it really is an issue. Can you provide some? I'd really like to see it.

It's not hard to find actual examples of voter fraud by just googling the words, but it's difficult to prove how big an issue it is. Here is an article about a study (not proof) which states it could be big enough an issue to have affected actual elections/votes...

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage...e-november-election/

Thanks, pininthegrass. I did Google the words "actual examples of voter fraud". The results were interesting in that the majority of the hits seemed inclined to state while there are actual cases/examples of voter fraud, their frequency is almost infinitesimal. As you stated, it is difficult to prove, and I believe that's one of the reasons why it may not, actually, be the issue some believe it to be. Almost the same thing could be said for urine testing of welfare recipients based on a belief there is rampant abuse by drug users of the welfare system. In those instances where testing has been done (Florida is a prime example), the results were pretty much that the testing cost the taxpayer far more money than was saved by the few cases of drug users receiving welfare who actually tested positive.

One assertion I've seen raised with regard to the non-citizen voting is that a non-citizen wouldn't be inclined to vote in the first place, especially if they are an "illegal" citizen. Again, and as you've stated, that's a hard thing to actually prove, but it makes a modicum of sense to me on the face of it.

ZHawke wrote: Thanks, pininthegrass. I did Google the words "actual examples of voter fraud". The results were interesting in that the majority of the hits seemed inclined to state while there are actual cases/examples of voter fraud, their frequency is almost infinitesimal. As you stated, it is difficult to prove, and I believe that's one of the reasons why it may not, actually, be the issue some believe it to be. Almost the same thing could be said for urine testing of welfare recipients based on a belief there is rampant abuse by drug users of the welfare system. In those instances where testing has been done (Florida is a prime example), the results were pretty much that the testing cost the taxpayer far more money than was saved by the few cases of drug users receiving welfare who actually tested positive.

One assertion I've seen raised with regard to the non-citizen voting is that a non-citizen wouldn't be inclined to vote in the first place, especially if they are an "illegal" citizen. Again, and as you've stated, that's a hard thing to actually prove, but it makes a modicum of sense to me on the face of it.

The link I gave you did address the non-citizen vote. Don't you find it disturbing that they found more than 14% of non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008 and 2010 (I think this is based on surveys where I would think the numbers could be even higher because many non-citizens won't admit it, but 14% is high enough on its own)? They did some extrapolation to "guess" that 6.4% and 2.2% actually voted in 2008 and 2010. And they gave examples were that could of actually swayed a vote or election.

pineinthegrass wrote: The link I gave you did address the non-citizen vote. Don't you find it disturbing that they found more than 14% of non-citizens were registered to vote in 2008 and 2010 (I think this is based on surveys where I would think the numbers could be even higher because many non-citizens won't admit it, but 14% is high enough on its own)? They did some extrapolation to "guess" that 6.4% and 2.2% actually voted in 2008 and 2010. And they gave examples were that could of actually swayed a vote or election.

I understand your concern, I think. I just don't believe non-citizens are that apt to vote in state and Federal elections and risk being deported if found out. As you said originally, the study in the article you provided is not actual proof of voter fraud. Also, when you come right down to it, an extrapolation is really just an educated guess.

ZHawke wrote: I understand your concern, I think. I just don't believe non-citizens are that apt to vote in state and Federal elections and risk being deported if found out. As you said originally, the study in the article you provided is not actual proof of voter fraud. Also, when you come right down to it, an extrapolation is really just an educated guess.

First of all, non-citizens to me means both legal and illegals. In either case if they voted, it would be voter fraud (and the study did verify that several actually voted which is fraud, but the numbers of the sample were small). I don't see why either group would admit in a survey that they are registered voters, but obviously they did (over 14%). And the legal non-citizens don't risk being deported, but they could be charged with voter fraud I suppose, not that it seems to be a very high priority with the current administration.

I thought you were asking if voter fraud was a real problem? I think we can now agree voter fraud actually happens, and that study found a few actual cases. My point was the study indicated voter fraud could sway an election which would be a huge problem, not that they proved it but they showed it could easily happen in a very close election. Again, I think there is plenty of proof of voter fraud happening though. But that's not what I thought your original question was about. I'm not too concerned about voter fraud if it doesn't affect an election (though I'd go after the frauds through the legal system). But if it does affect an election, can we agree that would be unacceptable? And don't you think the article makes a strong case it could?

Well, it took me about 20 seconds to find this on the tubes of the interwebs:



Then there's this:



Oh, and I happened upon this one too:



There's plenty more but I think I have made my point.

pineinthegrass wrote:

ZHawke wrote: I understand your concern, I think. I just don't believe non-citizens are that apt to vote in state and Federal elections and risk being deported if found out. As you said originally, the study in the article you provided is not actual proof of voter fraud. Also, when you come right down to it, an extrapolation is really just an educated guess.

First of all, non-citizens to me means both legal and illegals. In either case if they voted, it would be voter fraud (and the study did verify that several actually voted which is fraud, but the numbers of the sample were small). I don't see why either group would admit in a survey that they are registered voters, but obviously they did (over 14%). And the legal non-citizens don't risk being deported, but they could be charged with voter fraud I suppose, not that it seems to be a very high priority with the current administration.

I thought you were asking if voter fraud was a real problem? I think we can now agree voter fraud actually happens, and that study found a few actual cases. My point was the study indicated voter fraud could sway an election which would be a huge problem, not that they proved it but they showed it could easily happen in a very close election. Again, I think there is plenty of proof of voter fraud happening though. But that's not what I thought your original question was about. I'm not too concerned about voter fraud if it doesn't affect an election (though I'd go after the frauds through the legal system). But if it does affect an election, can we agree that would be unacceptable? And don't you think the article makes a strong case it could?

I apologize if I mislead you. The article is anecdotal. It may or may not have some validity. I believe that's something the individual must come up with on their own. Personally? I believe the issue of Gerrymandering is more of a problem currently than is voter fraud. I do agree voter fraud exists in answer to your question. I just don't believe it warrants the attention it's getting and it may, in fact, be an excuse to try to disenfranchise legitimate voters who are now being denied in some cases from voting, some of whom have been born in the U.S. and have been voting all their lives only to be denied now.

otisptoadwater wrote: There's plenty more but I think I have made my point.

Well, otisptoadwater, I must also point out your sources are suspect in the truest sense of the word.

Calibration errors? Really?