Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (33878)	3/10/2009 11:41:35 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

This is a great day in the fight against voter fraud, except for one small detail; no one so far has been able to point out a single case of voter fraud involving someone impersonating another voter in the history of South Carolina. 1 - That isn't the only type of voter fraud. 2 - South Carolina isn't the only state in the country. 3 - The fact that no one has caught anyone violating the law doesn't mean they haven't done so. 4 - Why should proving a specific type of fraud has occurred be a requirement in order to take measured and reasonable steps to prevent fraud? you are statistically more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than you are to be convicted of voter fraud Your also statistically more likely to be killed by lightning than to win a very large lottery jackpot, and to be hit by lighting than to win any lottery jackpot. And there are plenty of lottery winners out there. Your statistically more likely to be killed by lighting than to commit mass murder. Does that mean we should ignore the crime of mass murder? How unlikely any specific person is to be convicted of voter fraud is double irrelevant. 1 - The proper standard is commission of fraud not conviction, and 2 - If many millions don't commit fraud, that doesn't make the fraud that does occur any less important.