I can’t underscore enough that **Dan himself**, to his credit, does not believe there is, as Scott puts it, “material” voter fraud. He’s written this up, formally, not in mere tweets. Do how then can pretextual voter ID be justified? As SL writes, in theory, it’s not terrible,
So, you contend that every time a court has overturned an election - and this has happened several times - it was wrong? My contention is that there is no *large scale* voter fraud - ie, tens of thousands. Your contention is that fraud is AOK.
-
-
I believe it was Richard Posner in his 7th Circuit opinion on Wisconsin’s voter ID law who said in person fraud is less likely than getting struck by lightning.
-
Yes, of course.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Dan--you're sounding as desperate as the voter suppressors. It's idiotic and morally grotesque for you to contend that I or anybody here thinks that "fraud is AOK." I pointed out to people here that you opposed stopping "souls to the polls." And, well, this is how you argue.
-
And, in fact, as your article also pointed out, the courts are very good at remedying alleged voter fraud. It hardly ever happens, there's no public policy problem of any significance. You know this--you wrote this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.