Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Steve Scalise wants you to be OUTRAGED that people get to vote   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, shot  
•       •       •

3557 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2021 at 11:13 AM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



141 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-03-04 12:44:36 PM  

Original: Original Tweet:

SteveScalise: Every single American should be OUTRAGED by this: Democrats just voted to ban voter ID nationwide and force every state to permanently expand mail-in voting.


Steve,

Does it hurt to be that stupid?
 
2021-03-04 12:44:58 PM  
I'm all for voter ID.  And to make it uniform let's have a national ID card. I'm sure the Republicans will be all for that.
 
2021-03-04 12:46:08 PM  

Doem: austerity101: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: this will be found to be unconstitutional unfortunately

How so? None of it makes voting mandatory or denies access from any specific demographic from being able to vote.

because the courts have been allowing states a lot of leeway on how they manage their voting. We can see this even with this last election where trump had all his federal cases dismissed. So i think its going to be difficult for congress to enact these kind of voting laws if they run affowl to a states voting laws

The courts may allow the states a lot of leeway to manage their voting, however this doesn't really affect how the states run their voting it's just determining that there's guidelines on what they can't deny which is constitutional since the 14th amendment section 2 was implemented, and was the basis for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. It's just broadening what counts as denying a vote.

from what i read regarding things like automatic registration ect. i dont see that holding up. The trump admin. challenged how the states did some of these things (which they changed because of covid) and none of it made it through the courts. I cant really see the courts on the flipside siding with the feds when the states have established laws on these issues.

Most of those lawsuits were basically saying, "We know the state changed these laws well in advance of the election, but we didn't like that, so we decided they weren't allowed to do that because we invented a requirement that they be passed a specific way thatbthey didn't do. Because reasons." This isn't anything like that premise, because this isn't about saying "We don't like how that state passed its laws."

thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it. There wasnt any because the courts have been siding with the states on these issues for the last 10 years and everybody knows that. Justice Thomas felt there could be an opportunity to revisit but he was running up against too much precedent and the other justices probably didnt have the stomach for it in the context of this election.


LOL wow, okay my dude.
 
2021-03-04 12:46:13 PM  

another one of them: From the comments:

All of those mail in ballots are 100% fine. But they should be required to be notarized. Weather from an old persons home, a military base, or any other form of absentee ballot to provide proof. Not just paid workers filling out fake ballots and throwing them in a mailbox.

I'm sure they'll agree that following that logic, tax returns should also be notarized to prevent fake returns from being thrown in a mailbox.

Hell, campaign mailers should be notarized too.  Wouldn't want some grifter throwing fake promises into a mailbox.


I guess people should have to get a notary to get their social security checks as well.
 
2021-03-04 12:47:22 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.


The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"
 
2021-03-04 12:51:31 PM  

Doem: fark is funny. "i dont like what this person says so im going to check his profile and see how old his account is"


Rage harder.
 
2021-03-04 12:52:10 PM  

jake_lex: I'd be willing to accept voter ID laws if the ID's were made free and easy to obtain.  Or if they had an expanded definition of what ID is acceptable.

But, oddly enough, voter ID laws usually are coupled with efforts to close the government offices that issue ID's.  Or you end up with rules on what ID's are acceptable like, for example, student ID's are not acceptable, but a concealed carry permit is.


I'd be willing to accept voter ID laws if it could be shown:
1. There is rampant voter fraud (people voting in someone else's name or people not eligible to vote)
2. A voter ID law could prevent or minimize the above
3. Election officials had already taken measures to minimize the problem and could show the were not working
4. Voter ID was free upon request and issued immediately, valid forever.

However, none of that has happened, so I'm against any type of voter ID other than "what's your name and address?" and checking the voter rolls to see if you're on them and are not yet marked as having voted.

Let's face it: it has been shown over and over again, that voter fraud is an insignificant problem. It occurs, yes, but in numbers that do not matter.  And it's not a growing problem either.

What *iS* a problem, is parties (yes, the Dems have done it too) trying to tilt the playing field by gerrymandering, purging voter rolls, "misplacing" voter information or ballots, and moving, closing, or limiting polling places.

We need a new, tough and aggressive Voting Rights Act.
 
2021-03-04 12:52:46 PM  

Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"


part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.
 
2021-03-04 12:52:55 PM  

Karma Chameleon: Mail in voting is awesome. You would think conservatives would applaud decreasing the costs associated with having physical polling places and paying poll workers to sit on their ass. But...assholes til the bitter end.


Are they supposed to be on a Peleton when they check your name against the voter roles?
 
2021-03-04 12:53:09 PM  
The big push for voter id is strange to me. For one, it seems like a non-issue due to the extremely low rate of voter fraud. But even as a voter suppression tactic it doesn't make sense.

Who the fark are these people anyway? The kind of person who can get along without a photo ID and can't be assed to go to a DoL with $30 once every 5 years, doesn't strike me a first in line of voting day.
 
2021-03-04 12:53:35 PM  

thehobbes: This is ripe for abuse.


And unfettered money-buys-votes / deliberate-misinformation propaganda / "corporations are people too, my friend" isn't?

knobmaker: There's no way that could turn out badly.


Unlike, oh, Prop 8.  And every farking time the [ rest of Bay Area ] told me how to vote on my hyper-local SF issue.  And that's just for starters:  I'm sure every metropolitan area has similar issues with suburbia / rural influence in their daily lives.  And I'm farking sick of CA being told what to do by out-of-state money and politicians -- especially when they so regularly then turn around with their hands out to make us pay for the consequences of their willful ignorance.

I'm not saying "ban speech" or "ban organizing."  I'm saying, "it must be locallly-grown.  And label it.  If _you_ can't vote on it, why am I hearing from you?"

I'd negotiate down to just geotagging all posts and propaganda campaigns and "news" "segments."

It would have saved us Trump, covidiocy, anti-vaxing, and more, at this point.  Hell, just on avoiding the foreign astroturfing around Trump, it would have saved 531,715 American lives SO FAR.
 
2021-03-04 12:56:01 PM  

Magnanimous_J: The big push for voter id is strange to me. For one, it seems like a non-issue due to the extremely low rate of voter fraud. But even as a voter suppression tactic it doesn't make sense.

Who the fark are these people anyway? The kind of person who can get along without a photo ID and can't be assed to go to a DoL with $30 once every 5 years, doesn't strike me a first in line of voting day.


You shouldn't have to pay to vote.

An ID doesn't cost $30 to make, and it doesn't need to expire either. The cost of providing free voter IDs to all comers should be seen as the cost of democracy.
 
2021-03-04 12:56:41 PM  

Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.


oh, so you're a Qanon-trumpist moron. got it
 
2021-03-04 12:58:06 PM  

Magnanimous_J: The big push for voter id is strange to me. For one, it seems like a non-issue due to the extremely low rate of voter fraud. But even as a voter suppression tactic it doesn't make sense.

Who the fark are these people anyway? The kind of person who can get along without a photo ID and can't be assed to go to a DoL with $30 once every 5 years, doesn't strike me a first in line of voting day.


A lot of the states that pushed Voter ID laws did it with the express purpose of voter suppression, and they closed DMV offices in poor and minority areas at the same time.  

It's hard for someone to make sure their ID is up to date when it's a 90 minute drive each way, 3-4 hour wait at the DMV, etc to update their ID. All on a work day. that they cannot afford to miss.
 
2021-03-04 1:02:19 PM  

Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.


Well, this is the first part of the passage of a law that you think will be struck down as unconstitutional.

But none of what you wrote is a constitutional reason for it to be stricken down.
 
2021-03-04 1:03:11 PM  

Flowery Twats: Magnanimous_J: The big push for voter id is strange to me. For one, it seems like a non-issue due to the extremely low rate of voter fraud. But even as a voter suppression tactic it doesn't make sense.

Who the fark are these people anyway? The kind of person who can get along without a photo ID and can't be assed to go to a DoL with $30 once every 5 years, doesn't strike me a first in line of voting day.

You shouldn't have to pay to vote.

An ID doesn't cost $30 to make, and it doesn't need to expire either. The cost of providing free voter IDs to all comers should be seen as the cost of democracy.


I'm so much less baffled by the voting aspect of it than just general life. How in the world does a person live in this country without a photo ID? You can't get a job, open a bank account, sign up for any kind of government benefits.... how many of these people could there possibly be?

Even the mythical welfare queens need a driver's license to sign up for benefits and buy that Escalade.
 
2021-03-04 1:05:55 PM  

Kazan: It's hard for someone to make sure their ID is up to date when it's a 90 minute drive each way, 3-4 hour wait at the DMV, etc to update their ID. All on a work day. that they cannot afford to miss.


Its once every 5 years and you can renew online most of the time.
 
2021-03-04 1:10:57 PM  

Magnanimous_J: how many of these people could there possibly be?


Seems like something you could google yourself, but 3M+ per this nearly decade old article.

Why Millions of Americans Have No Government ID
 
2021-03-04 1:12:39 PM  

Magnanimous_J: Kazan: It's hard for someone to make sure their ID is up to date when it's a 90 minute drive each way, 3-4 hour wait at the DMV, etc to update their ID. All on a work day. that they cannot afford to miss.

Its once every 5 years and you can renew online most of the time.


Online isn't available in all states, and just because it is infrequent doesn't make it any less prohibitively expensive for many of them now.
 
2021-03-04 1:15:59 PM  

Great_Milenko: Anybody remember when people felt sympathy for Scalise because some gun nut almost mowed him down?

Me neither,


Frankly, it's why I don't own an SKS.
 
2021-03-04 1:18:15 PM  

Magnanimous_J: I'm so much less baffled by the voting aspect of it than just general life. How in the world does a person live in this country without a photo ID? You can't get a job, open a bank account, sign up for any kind of government benefits.... how many of these people could there possibly be?


You can get a job with two forms of ID, like your birth certificate and social security card. Neither are photo IDs. You can sign up for medical assistance without an ID card, at least in my state for sure. Banks will accept other forms of identification as well though it requires more steps if you don't have a state ID. SNAP benefits are tied to income.

But you're right, there are so few cases of people not having an ID already and there's been no proof of widespread voter fraud that would require a new form of ID to be implemented, so voter ID is a pointless thing.
 
2021-03-04 1:25:56 PM  
I do wonder who today's Jim Crow is. Like when I'm near death and people are discussing systematic issues in the voting system, they would go slavery->Jim Crow->Today's person->whatever is going on then. Would it be Roberts because of his court's decisions to butcher the Voting Rights Act? Or someone else who is more a known "I'm not a racist...but," politician.

Just wonder how the future will look upon the post-Citizen's United/post-VRA movements to limit access
 
2021-03-04 1:28:52 PM  

Yakk: *black people


Also:
*disabled people
*old people
 
2021-03-04 2:13:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [Fark user image 680x680]


Cool!
Source?
 
2021-03-04 2:25:15 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: another one of them: From the comments:

All of those mail in ballots are 100% fine. But they should be required to be notarized. Weather from an old persons home, a military base, or any other form of absentee ballot to provide proof. Not just paid workers filling out fake ballots and throwing them in a mailbox.

I'm sure they'll agree that following that logic, tax returns should also be notarized to prevent fake returns from being thrown in a mailbox.

Hell, campaign mailers should be notarized too.  Wouldn't want some grifter throwing fake promises into a mailbox.

I guess people should have to get a notary to get their social security checks as well.

Secret Troll Alt: [i.imgur.com lookedatcommentsray.jpg image 315×431]

EyeballKid: fsbilly: bthom37: Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?

Too bad the shooter wasn't in the Air Force.

Be careful. Ze Fuhrer's mods have vays of making your comments disappear.

GlamrLama: [Fark user dmnthatscold.jpg image 400×400]

QFarker: I am outraged it took this long.  Also outraged that Scalise leaned nothing from the bullet that nearly killed him.

From the comments. Seriously. Read that, and the replies.
 
2021-03-04 3:05:42 PM  

Nesher: Cool!
Source?


Click-thru.
 
2021-03-04 3:13:36 PM  

bthom37: Doesn't Steve have another baseball game to go to?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 3:17:39 PM  

Great_Milenko: Anybody remember when people felt sympathy for Scalise because some gun nut almost mowed him down?

Me neither,


But I do remember Fark Conservatives whining about how violence is wrong and gunfire should never be used as a way to resolve disputes, said by the same people who for years had said that we need guns to fight against tyranny.
 
2021-03-04 3:42:55 PM  

Latinwolf: Great_Milenko: Anybody remember when people felt sympathy for Scalise because some gun nut almost mowed him down?

Me neither,

But I do remember Fark Conservatives whining about how violence is wrong and gunfire should never be used as a way to resolve disputes, said by the same people who for years had said that we need guns to fight against tyranny.


So what's the right answer here?
 
2021-03-04 4:14:41 PM  
2/3rd of the Population/Voters/States are needed for any meaningful change, and half the population/votes/states are just fine the way things are and are afraid of any meaningful change

ain't nothing gonna happen
 
2021-03-04 4:18:58 PM  
Yes, I am outraged by your idiotic, anti-American tweet, Steve.
 
2021-03-04 4:42:59 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [Fark user image 680x680]


Funny, I don't see anything about voter ID on that list.

Could that mean that -- say it ain't so -- Steve Scalise is lying?
 
2021-03-04 5:11:20 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-03-04 5:20:40 PM  
The Heritage Foundation website hosts a Voter Fraud Database that they keep reasonably up-to-date. It claims to have 1,311 "proven instances of voter fraud," but that's a bit of an overstatement. When you use their searchable form, you can categorize it by four provided categories, one of which is Type of Fraud (unfortunately, Which Party the fraud was on behalf of isn't included for some strange reason). The categories they provide are:

Types of Voter Fraud

Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter's signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.

Ineligible Voting
Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.

Impersonation Fraud At The Polls
Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.


Buying Votes
Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.

Ballot Petition Fraud

Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot


Duplicate Voting
Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

False Registrations
Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Altering The Vote Count
Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

Illegal "Assistance" At The Polls
Forcing or intimidating voters―particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language―to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with "assistance."


Miscellaneous
Of those, as you can see, the only one that Voter ID could reasonably be expected to thwart is "Impersonation Fraud at the Polls" Fraud Type could be thwarted with Voter ID. So, how many of those are there? Filtering by just that results in an, er, shorter list. How much shorter? Scroll down and look at the paginator to see how many pages (of no more than fifteen each) there are. Hey, wait, there is no paginator! The entire list fits on one page, and turns out that that isn't even full! Count them: thirteen! And if you view the details of each, you'll see that all of them are one improperly cast vote each!

So, thirteen votes have been cast that the Heritage Foundation, strongly motivated to find as many as they could find, have been cast that Voter ID could even hypothetically have thwarted. In almost four decades. I know that there've been about a billion votes cast in all elections nationwide from 2000−2012, so, what, at least three billion covering all those years from 1982 through now (they have some 2021 entries in the database already [though that's Case Disposition year, not the year of the election in which the fraud occurred])?

I'd like to show you just how small that is on a chart, but unfortunately, there is no display device with enough resolution to display just how small a dot that'd be if the entire screen is used for the chart and the pixels on it represent total votes cast. You'd have to chop a single pixel up into subpixels and color just one subpixel even on an 8k display!

Let's assume that there were roughly three billion total votes cast from 1982−2020, the range covered by their database so far. Given that there were roughly one billion from 2000−2012 and we're talking about over thrice as many years, that'd be about right, not taking into account increased voter registration and turnout (the correct number is probably closer to four billion).

A full HD monitor has 1,920 pixels across × 1,080 pixels down for a total of 2,457,600 pixels. 3,000,000,000 ÷ 2,457,700 = just under 1,220¾ votes per pixel. Since there were only 13 impersonation at the polls fraud votes cast, a single pixel is 1,220.7 ÷ 13 = ~93.9× too big!

Going up to 4k UHD we double both horizontal and vertical resolution and quadruple the number of pixels, so the number of votes per pixel is cut to ¼ of what it was, so about 305 votes per pixel, or over 23⅗× too big.

Going up to 8k hyper-UHD we double 4k UHD's horizontal and vertical and quadruple the area number of pixels and again cut in ¼ the number of votes per pixel from 305 to about 76¼, and that ÷ almost 5⅞ too big, so to get close we'd have to chop even an 8k pixel into six subpixels, and change the color of just that one subpixel to get it to close to the proper displayed ratio.

Ostensibly to prevent that (remember, this is according to the Heritage Foundation's very own website's "Voter" Fraud Database numbers!), the GOP wants to disenfranchise a number of voters that'd be a quite sizable multi-pixel dot (probably at least a dozen or so pixels) even on an old VGA or even CGA display.

In closing, you may notice that I color-coded several of their Fraud Types in teal / medium cyan. Those aren't even voter fraud! They're election fraud! Voter fraud is committed by voters in the act of voting! Take out the election fraud and leave in all the voter fraud types and it drops way down. So their claim of 1,311 "proven instances of voter fraud" isn't true even with the caveat I gave them above.
 
2021-03-04 6:27:58 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.

Well, this is the first part of the passage of a law that you think will be struck down as unconstitutional.

But none of what you wrote is a constitutional reason for it to be stricken down.


That's because you're thinking rationally. You're not thinking like Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito.
 
2021-03-04 6:48:29 PM  

COMALite J: The Heritage Foundation website hosts a Voter Fraud Database that they keep reasonably up-to-date. It claims to have 1,311 "proven instances of voter fraud," but that's a bit of an overstatement. When you use their searchable form, you can categorize it by four provided categories, one of which is Type of Fraud (unfortunately, Which Party the fraud was on behalf of isn't included for some strange reason). The categories they provide are:
Types of Voter Fraud

Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter's signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.

Ineligible Voting
Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.

Impersonation Fraud At The Polls
Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.

Buying Votes
Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.

Ballot Petition Fraud
Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot

Duplicate Voting
Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.

False Registrations
Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.

Altering The Vote Count
Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.

Illegal "Assistance" At The Polls
Forcing or intimidating voters―particularly the elderly, dis ...


It's worse than that. The first two cases are the same case. And the third and fourth couldn't have been stopped by voter ID. The sixth was a guy who wanted to prove fraud by committing fraud. The seventh was caught for precisely the reason this kind of fraud is idiotic: when the voter shows up, they figure it out and hunt you down. The 9th was prevented without voter ID. The 12th was prevented, again, for why this kind of fraud is idiotic: the poll worker recognized her as having voted earlier in the day. And the 13th again was like the seventh. The voter came later and tried to vote, tipping off officials. 

So of the 13, 6 don't count because they were not affected by voter ID (and two of those 6 were the same case), and 3 were caught and prosecuted without the need for voter ID. 

Leaving FOUR. And that includes the dude who did it on purpose and "turned himself in".
 
2021-03-04 7:11:31 PM  

vygramul: It's worse than that. The first two cases are the same case. And the third and fourth couldn't have been stopped by voter ID. The sixth was a guy who wanted to prove fraud by committing fraud. The seventh was caught for precisely the reason this kind of fraud is idiotic: when the voter shows up, they figure it out and hunt you down. The 9th was prevented without voter ID. The 12th was prevented, again, for why this kind of fraud is idiotic: the poll worker recognized her as having voted earlier in the day. And the 13th again was like the seventh. The voter came later and tried to vote, tipping off officials.

So of the 13, 6 don't count because they were not affected by voter ID (and two of those 6 were the same case), and 3 were caught and prosecuted without the need for voter ID.

Leaving FOUR. And that includes the dude who did it on purpose and "turned himself in".

I'd noticed some of that in skimming the details to make sure that none of the cases were multiple occurrences. I'm trying to be as generous to their case as possible.

But yeah, four instead of thirteen means we need to chop that 8k pixel into eighteen subpixels.instead of six to approximate it. If we ignore the guy who turned himself in, then 24 subpixels.
 
2021-03-04 7:16:56 PM  

COMALite J: vygramul: It's worse than that. The first two cases are the same case. And the third and fourth couldn't have been stopped by voter ID. The sixth was a guy who wanted to prove fraud by committing fraud. The seventh was caught for precisely the reason this kind of fraud is idiotic: when the voter shows up, they figure it out and hunt you down. The 9th was prevented without voter ID. The 12th was prevented, again, for why this kind of fraud is idiotic: the poll worker recognized her as having voted earlier in the day. And the 13th again was like the seventh. The voter came later and tried to vote, tipping off officials.

So of the 13, 6 don't count because they were not affected by voter ID (and two of those 6 were the same case), and 3 were caught and prosecuted without the need for voter ID.

Leaving FOUR. And that includes the dude who did it on purpose and "turned himself in".
I'd noticed some of that in skimming the details to make sure that none of the cases were multiple occurrences. I'm trying to be as generous to their case as possible.

But yeah, four instead of thirteen means we need to chop that 8k pixel into eighteen subpixels.instead of six to approximate it. If we ignore the guy who turned himself in, then 24 subpixels.

To put it another way, going by your analysis of the details and only counting the three (not the prankster), to be able to show it with a single pixel, we'd need a video wall of 6×4 (or maybe 12×2 if we wanted a really long wall) of 8k UHD monitors to display the chart, and it'd take up all of them, with only one pixel of one of them being the "Voter ID could've stopped this fraud" vote count. Over nearly four decades of time.
 
2021-03-05 9:52:35 AM  

vygramul: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.

Well, this is the first part of the passage of a law that you think will be struck down as unconstitutional.

But none of what you wrote is a constitutional reason for it to be stricken down.

That's because you're thinking rationally. You're not thinking like Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito.


It still needs a constitutional issue to even be raised to that level. I'm not seeing it
 
2021-03-05 1:27:12 PM  

COMALite J: COMALite J: vygramul: It's worse than that. The first two cases are the same case. And the third and fourth couldn't have been stopped by voter ID. The sixth was a guy who wanted to prove fraud by committing fraud. The seventh was caught for precisely the reason this kind of fraud is idiotic: when the voter shows up, they figure it out and hunt you down. The 9th was prevented without voter ID. The 12th was prevented, again, for why this kind of fraud is idiotic: the poll worker recognized her as having voted earlier in the day. And the 13th again was like the seventh. The voter came later and tried to vote, tipping off officials.

So of the 13, 6 don't count because they were not affected by voter ID (and two of those 6 were the same case), and 3 were caught and prosecuted without the need for voter ID.

Leaving FOUR. And that includes the dude who did it on purpose and "turned himself in".
I'd noticed some of that in skimming the details to make sure that none of the cases were multiple occurrences. I'm trying to be as generous to their case as possible.

But yeah, four instead of thirteen means we need to chop that 8k pixel into eighteen subpixels.instead of six to approximate it. If we ignore the guy who turned himself in, then 24 subpixels.
To put it another way, going by your analysis of the details and only counting the three (not the prankster), to be able to show it with a single pixel, we'd need a video wall of 6×4 (or maybe 12×2 if we wanted a really long wall) of 8k UHD monitors to display the chart, and it'd take up all of them, with only one pixel of one of them being the "Voter ID could've stopped this fraud" vote count. Over nearly four decades of time.

I did some of the math wrong ― namely, the pixel count of a Full HD display. It's 2,073,600, not 2,457,600, pixels. So, the display ratio is even worse for their case, especially when I combine the duplicate cases and keep the rest to make twelve total instead of thirteen:

A full HD monitor has 1,920 pixels across × 1,080 pixels down for a total of 2,073,600 pixels. 3,000,000,000 ÷ 2,063,600 = just over 1,446¾ votes per pixel. Since there were only 12 impersonation at the polls fraud votes cast, a single pixel is ~1,446.76 ÷ 12 = ~120½× too big!

Going up to 4k UHD we double both horizontal and vertical resolution and quadruple the number of pixels, so the number of votes per pixel is cut to ¼ of what it was, so about 361.69 votes per pixel, or over 30.14× too big.

Going up to 8k hyper-UHD we double 4k UHD's horizontal and vertical and quadruple the area number of pixels and again cut in ¼ the number of votes per pixel from 305 to about 90.42, and that ÷ 12 = almost 7½× too big, so to get close we'd have to chop even an 8k pixel into eight subpixels, and change the color of just one subpixel to get it to close to the proper displayed ratio.

Another way to look at it: to display a whole chart such that a single pixel would be approximately the correct size relative to the whole chart, you'd need a video wall of eight 8k UHD displays (say, in a 4×2 arrangement). Or 30 4k UHD monitors (say, 6×5). Or 120 Full HD displays (12×10 matrix).
 
2021-03-05 7:19:10 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: vygramul: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: Kazan: Lumbar Puncture: Doem: thats the narrative but if their really was a serious constitutional issue there the courts would have heard it.

Well again, what's the serious constitutional issue?

State courts making a determination in completely unrelated cases isn't one.

The Constitutional Issue is that he doesn't understand the constitution and how passing a law like this well ahead of an election is different from challenging the constitutionality of a law like this and getting told "no"

part of the challenges were not based on passage of any law but that the states proceeded with voting rules contrary to state law. Sometimes through judiciary and sometimes through admin.

Well, this is the first part of the passage of a law that you think will be struck down as unconstitutional.

But none of what you wrote is a constitutional reason for it to be stricken down.

That's because you're thinking rationally. You're not thinking like Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito.

It still needs a constitutional issue to even be raised to that level. I'm not seeing it


It's a constitutional issue so long as Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and KAvanaugh SAY it is.
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.