Monday, January 16, 2012

Votor Fraud and Naked Emperors

Ernest Hemingway's statement that good writing requires the writer to have a 'built-in automatic crap detector', is a fundamental principle which can be applied with equal accuracy to any action or endeavor, especially political discourse.  While there have been any number of things from varying factions on the Left which didn't pass my smell test, my attention today is on broad based, party platform ideas, behind which an entire Party, either Party, unites.  The Republican Party will almost always get the heat from this because we all know that the Democrat Party won't unite behind a good idea, much less an idea which has no basis in reality.  Voter I.D. legislation that is so championed by the Republican party is a perfect example.  This is part of their platform.  Republicans at the State and Federal level are actively pushing for, or have succeeded in passing, legislation requiring Voter I.D's.

There is only one problem.  There is no problem.  There are no statistically significant examples of voter fraud to be found that would have been PREVENTED by the requirement of a photo I.D.  None.  Zero.  Here is a column by Michele Malkin where she slams the Left for silence on the subject of voter fraud.  She cites a number of alarming statistics to support her call to arms over voter fraud.  Here is an article which lists a number of other claims of voter fraud by the Right.  But when the statistics and legal records are examined, when one looks at the issue, seeking actual, statistically significant evidence of ANY voter fraud that would have been prevented by the requirement of a photo I.D., one simply finds nothing.  Here are links one, and two, for examples of the kind of research upon which the results of my smell test were/are based.

The emperor has no clothes, folks.  There has been no voter fraud which would have been prevented by a requirement for photo I.D's.  With no fraud to prevent, is there any reason to legislate a voter I.D. requirement other than to keep those least likely to have a photo I.D., i.e. Democrats, from voting? 

With NO FRAUD TO PREVENT, I can not discern any other reason.

Christopher Dinnes
USNS Pililaau, T-AKR 304
Newport News, VA


  1. As you are probably aware, statistics can be made to show anything the statistician wants to show. As a result, statistics aren't really that meaningful as a sole source of information.

    If ID isn't required to vote, an activity that is very important to this country, then why require ID for anything?

    Driving a car, purchasing many items (cars, firearms, etc), banking, are among the many activities that require ID. Let's just remove that requirement since there's probably some statistic that shows ID won't prevent these items from being used for some nefarious purpose.

    This could be extended ad-nauseum.

    The existence of fraud in these activities, statistically significant or not, shows that ID is really needed.

    As far as the loony left or loony right, the extremes will always be there. In general, ID is necessary for an orderly society.

    A great example of ID necessity is your career choice. Should just anyone be allowed to board your ships?

    Sorry, but ID is a necessary evil in light of today's world society. As far as how far ID needs to be extended would be a lengthy debate we should get into over a pint in person.

  2. Thanks Mark. That was my point, statistics can be made to show anything the statistician wants to show. That's why the methodology used to demonstrate voter fraud was so flawed. When the rolls of those who voted were examined (in the report I used to base my smell test) the amount of voter fraud discovered was found to be statistically insignificant. But more importantly to the point I am trying make, a photo I.D. requirement would not have prevented that fraud which was discovered.

    With all the problems facing our nation, the concerted push to solve a problem that doesn't exist, I find at best puzzling. But when we consider that while not solving a problem, we do end up disenfranchising a block of voters unlikely to vote in the same manner as those pushing "to solve the problem", THAT doesn't pass my smell test.

    Add that concurrently with pushing for a voter I.D. requirement, there is a push to reduce early voting, restrict absentee voting, forbid same-day registration, which are all very helpful to those in our society who are the least likely to have other options to get to the polls (i.e. usually Democrat voters), and it really smells.

    Don't get me wrong. I have real concerns about the integrity of our voting process, which I would love to discuss over a pint. After all, it's been what?, 35 years? Ai Mark, tell me that's not a scary thought...