The commentary is asinine. A person isn't "more likely to be hit by lightning" than to choose to commit a crime.

Dozens of billboards touting stiff potential jail sentences and fines recently appeared in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods

Reading comprehension fail.

More likely to be hit by lightning than commit voter fraud, not "a crime". And based off of the numbers I've found, that is an accurate statement.

Reading comprehension fail.

More likely to be hit by lightning than commit voter fraud, not "a crime". And based off of the numbers I've found, that is an accurate statement.

Dude why the snark? I try to have civil, even friendly discussions with you, but you have to repeatedly throw **** like that out. Knock it off.

Voter fraud is "a crime", there is no failure of reading comprehension on my end.
You don't randomly choose to commit a crime. Getting hit by lightning is a random occurrence.

Comparing choosing to commit a crime with getting hit by lightning is asinine.

So I read your statement as expanding the situation to any crime, not a specific crime thus changing the goal posts. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

That said, the comparison is completely valid. Certainly one doesn't randomly decide to commit voter fraud, although there is intentional and unintentional fraud. However, if you take a macro view of voter fraud, there is a certain rate at which is occurs. Lightning similarly isn't a random event. It's caused by very specific things that happen at a predictable rate, again when you back out to a broad enough perspective.

The fact of the matter is that lightning strikes people more often than people commit voter fraud. It's a completely valid comparison.

What's ironic to me is how many here get all up in arms at how advocating gun control laws are a waste of time/money to control a "non-issue" when voter fraud has even less of a rate of occurrence.

ran·dom/ˈrandəm/
Adjective:
Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: "a random sample of 100 households".
Governed by or involving equal chances for each item.

Your contributions are rapidly approaching the Monte condemnations about supposedly conspicuous blood soaked rifle avatars, less the pure comedic effect of Monte's pure absurdity factor but plus a great deal of douche quotient.

Was this really necessary?

What constitutes "necessary" ?

folks making the claim of how rare voter fraud is are conflating committing voter fraud with being caught for voter fraud. The statement reeks of disingenuousness.

Billboards are common in high density, high traffic areas. Minorities are common in high density, high traffic areas. Correlation != causation.

There's no evidence of fraud of any significance. Studies and investigations have been done and found virtually nothing. It would be wildly irrational for individual voters to try to influence the outcome of an election by casting a fraudulent vote. It would be impractical and risky to the point of stupidity for conspirators to try to commit fraud in modern elections by having large numbers of ineligible voters cast ballots instead of just rigging the count. So sure, we can't prove a negative and say with 100% certainty that no voter fraud is occurring, but seriously, there's just no reason to suspect it's a problem.


Come on, Vind. You're reaching here.

Maybe this is off the topic somewhat....but I think anyone caught of voter intimidation, or voter fraud, should face stiff penalties in the form of hard time behind bars, busting rocks with a small hammer.

This supposed impracticality of committing widespread voter fraud did not seem to stop wild accusations against Diebold in the last 2 elections.