Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PM_ME_MURPHY_HATE t1_is21orm wrote

Reply to comment by rivershimmer in The Philadelphia Inquirer: The Supreme Court just undid a key ruling for counting undated Pennsylvania mail ballots by oldschoolskater

> I'm asking you what numbers you'd find acceptable. And yeah, considering the low rate of fraudulent votes, 1,000 rightful votes prevented vs 1 fraudulent vote prevented really doesn't seem out there.

Again, if people truly want to vote then they will arrange their affairs to do so. If they can't then tough beans. It's never going to be exactly the same level of convenience for everybody anyway. The only way to make it truly uniform is to have a single defined process involving showing up at the polls and presenting your ID.

The only acceptable amount of fraud is zero. You seem to think that there's some acceptable level of fraud in order to expand the convenience to some subset of the population. I disagree.

Have a nice day sir.

1

rivershimmer t1_is22tty wrote

> The only acceptable amount of fraud is zero. You seem to think that there's some acceptable level of fraud in order to expand the convenience to some subset of the population. I disagree.

Of course fraud isn't acceptable. But like all crime, it's inevitable. It only rises to a problem when it's statistically significant. And it's not.

Disenfranchising large amounts of people to prevent tiny amounts of frauds is a classic case of ignoring the forest for the trees. That amount of fraud is too small to have any effect on elections. Mass disentrancement does.

>Have a nice day sir.

And you too, maam.

1

HairyHouse2 t1_is2y0xz wrote

This dude definitely thinks Trump actually won don't even bother 😂

2

rivershimmer t1_is32py3 wrote

Eh, I enjoy this sort of thing, for rea.

"Election fraud" has become a euphemism. No one concerned about election fraud is seriously concerned about election fraud. They are using it as a socially-acceptable cover for what they are really trying to do.

1