Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Zero Tolerance for Vote Fraud

There's a lot of "zero tolerance" yappaflappa, usually pushed by LeftOWonkies.

How about this: Zero Tolerance for Vote Fraud!!

That's all we want. No fraud.

And if the City of Milwaukee has to spend a few bucks, ......oh, well.

Zero Tolerance is GOOD, remember?

9 comments:

Amy said...

Zero Tolerance is GOOD, remember?

But only when we're expelling honor students who bring butter knives to school.

When we'd use it to punish Democrat voters attempting to steal elections, well, that's a violation of all sorts of decency!

P.S. - How'd you fare with the snow?

Anonymous said...

For the upcoming primary elections, I am voting as these people:

John Foust
Jeffrey Simpson
Zach Wisniewski
Chris Liebenthal
Steve Carlson
Scott Feldstein
Keith Schmitz

I have their home addresses, DOBs, SSNs, and everything I need to steal their votes.

John Foust said...

Do you honestly think vote fraud is a problem in Wisconsin?

I don't think you can find anyone who wouldn't desire zero fraud. As with any process, it would be great to have no errors and no sabotage. Given your decades of business experience, given the distributed nature of voting, please tell us how many mistakes you can imagine could happen in the process of a state-wide vote. How can you detect mistakes? How can you detect fraud?

What would you like? A receipt that could prove a voter's vote was counted? Would you want the source code to be visible inside a voting machine? Would you be uneasy if the voting machine was designed by a company known to deliver large contributions to Demoracts?

And Anonymous... whose cause are you hurting, and who are you helping?

Anonymous said...

John -- thanks for demonstrating how you're more retarded than Zach's waterhead kid.

Amy said...

I don't think you can find anyone who wouldn't desire zero fraud.

Um, every time a lefty derides even moderate attempts to hamper vote fraud (e.g. voter ID laws), it indicates to me they're not willing to even consider a reduction in fraud, let alone a zero-total of the same.

I still think we should take a cue from Iraq. Go vote? Stick your finger in a vat of ink that won't wash off until after the polls close. That way if you vote fraudulently, you only get to do it once.

John Foust said...

Amy, what do you think of the arguments that voter-ID requirements would affect voting rates beyond the reduction in fraud? How much suppression should be encouraged?

I'd be fine with the ink idea, but I bet I can find a solvent to get around it. For that matter, it doesn't eliminate absentee vote problems, does it? What would you think of eliminating absentee voting?

neomom said...

Why would showing the same ID required to buy Sudafed prevent anyone from voting?

I guess that's the crux of it. The arguments of voter "suppression" are crap.

John Foust said...

You think introducing one of the most restrictive voter-ID programs in the country will have no effect on voting propensity. Really? Wouldn't it remove all that massive fraud? You don't think voting tendencies will drop among the elderly, the youth in motion, the poor, those without vehicles?

neomom said...

No I don't believe voter ID will impact turnout at all. This isn't the 1920's. Photo IDs are required for a multitude of goods and government services. I believe the cry of voter suppression is a straw man.