Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2012 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 11/6/2012 6:12:00 PM (view original):So, for example, if a procedure costs $100 million dollars per ballot but can guarantee that there won't be 1 fraudulent ballot, you'd say we should do it?
Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2012 6:08:00 PM (view original):Yes, you should spare no expense to guarantee as little voter fraud as possible, bad_putin.
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2012 6:03:00 PM (view original):As much as it takes? So we should spare no expense to guarantee there is no voter fraud?
Posted by bad_luck on 11/6/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):As much as it takes. Do you understand what people have sacrficed in the past, currently sacrifice and will sacrifice in the future just so people like you can vote?
Posted by deathinahole on 11/6/2012 5:10:00 PM (view original):So how much time and effort is appropriate to attempt to stop one case of voter fraud?
The answer, of course, is 1.
Except with vote by mail, it's the unconfirmed fraudulent votes that are the problem. "This one doesn't smell like Fred. Throw it out!"
Or, on the other hand, we could just take a few small steps to prevent it from happening at all.
I have no problem with making sure dead people aren't voting, people aren't registered twice, etc. ID is a little more complicated because not everyone has one.
But absentee ballot fraud doesn't seem to be a problem. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.
I think someone was beaten pretty hard with the dumb stick.
I can draw up equally dumbass scenarios for mail in ballots, but you are talking about the difference in cost between in person voter ballots, where people are checking IDs, and people are getting their little slip to mark the X there, and the cost to have people mail in their ballot, and detecting voter fraud by smelling the ballot to see if it smells like Joe Smith.
Feel free to believe in your way, bad_Zimbabwe, but democracy costs a little more.