Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hold up there, Slick. > > I never said that requiring ID caused voter turnout to increase. I > merely pointed out that it did not seem to 'disenfranchise' voters in > those states. >
But why take the risk, when IDs don't do a thing towards the end goal of decreasing inaccuracy? I'm assuming that's the problem you're trying to solve and, if so, then you should be worried about the actual process of turning in a vote, it's accurate attribution, and the accuracy in summation of all of the counties. It's THAT whole process that has relatively MASSIVE inaccuracies. Have you ever followed a recount and watched the fluctuation? Now compare that inaccuracy to what you're claiming is voter fraud. Guess what? I doubt you even know how much voter fraud there is. Do you know why? Because nobody is even QAing the votes! This focus on voter ID is CA-RAZY when have all the massive problems listed above. The only reason I'm still posting about this is because I cannot believe that seemingly smart people like you actually think this is something worth your time. It's jaw-dropping when you consider that we can't even calculate voter fraud because we can't accurately COUNT VOTES! How do you guys not see that you're worried about rearranging decks chairs on the Titanic here??? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339465 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
