Furthermore, the areas where vote fraud is most likely to occur are also those where it is least likely to end in prosecution. Vote fraud is most prevalent in big cities with large populations — which are almost uniformly represented by Democratic district attorneys. There likely aren’t a lot of Democratic DA’s who wake up every morning and say, “Gee, I wonder if I can demonstrate to the public that my party is engaging in vote fraud, and in the process, cost myself votes.”If vote fraud is most prevalent in big cities[1], and these are "almost uniformly represented by Democratic district attorneys," and--following the entirely un-grounded assumption of Schneider's-- it is only or very disproportionately Democrats who engage in vote fraud, then what's the practical problem? Democrats win the city by 75% versus 74%?
Again, when voter fraud does take place, this is wrong. But supporting measures that practically disfranchise a sizeable (approximately 10%) portion of the population presumably should require some justification based upon considerations of harm and consequence. We could disfranchise 100% of the population and totally wipe out voter fraud, but this would be excessive.
[1] The whole point of Schneider's post is that "There may be very little vote fraud; there may be a great deal. In the absence of a photo-ID requirement, we just didn’t know." If we don't know, how the hell is he so certain that (1) it happens disproportionately in big cities, and (2) it is done disproportionately by Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment