Reading mode: Light Dark

New IRS laws (US) can affect those selling gear...

Go to last post
I know that. I live in one of those states. In fact, I knew this would happen from the moment the first two states (MA and VA, I think) did this. I just did not expect it would come on federal level, and from the people who whine about rich not paying taxes while trying to cut them for their rich donors.

Here's the funny part. When I started reporting this income I instantly realized that I don't pay more, I pay less as my deductions far exceed $20k.
 
Suave said:
I know that. I live in one of those states. In fact, I knew this would happen from the moment the first two states (MA and VA, I think) did this. I just did not expect it would come on federal level, and from the people who whine about rich not paying taxes while trying to cut them for their rich donors.

Here's the funny part. When I started reporting this income I instantly realized that I don't pay more, I pay less as my deductions far exceed $20k.
Click to expand...
While loss from a business may be deductible, loss from a hobby is generally not deductible.

If you are just getting rid of old personal belongings on eBay, you are likely doing it at a loss (you are selling it for less than what you paid for it). If this isn't a business, then the loss generally cannot be used to offset gains in other categories.

If your "business" is consistently losing money year after year, then it may be a "hobby" and not a business.

If you are selling property that belonged to your business, it may be at a profit, even though you are getting less than what you originally paid. Generally, a photography business would depreciate or take a Section 179 expense for camera gear. This reduces your "basis" in the item. You make a profit on the sale when you receive more than what the item cost you.

Suppose you bought a camera for $1,000 and turn around and sell it for $1,000. You have no profit, as you have the $1,000 in income, and can deduct the $1,000 you spent on the camera.

However, suppose you intend to use the camera. You may have deducted the $1,000 cost as a business expense. This makes your "basis" in the camera zero. When you eventually sell the camera, you are not allowed to deduct that $1,000 expense again, thus if you get $800 for selling the camera, it's likely all profit, as you have previously deducted the purchase cost.

That seems fair. Suppose you earn $1,000 in January and buy a $1,000 camera. For tax purposes, you deduct the full $1,000 cost. This makes your basis in the camera zero. In December, you sell the now used camera for $800. You started the year with zero, and ended the year with $800. It seems fair that your profit for tax purposes is $800.
 
BGD300V1 said:
Michael Fryd said:
BGD300V1 said:
WarrenPeas said:
You live in the US, you know complaining about the law to your local congressman, about an issue like this will likely go nowhere.
Click to expand...
Somewhere around 1927 Congress decided that they were big enough. At the time the US Population was about 106 Million people. In 1910 it was about 92 million.

It is presently about 350 million. Each member of the house therefore "represents" about 800,000 people. That's simply not possible. Most of them spend more time in DC than their districts.

They represent their political party, not the people who elect them.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that government is complicated. it just isn't possible for all of us to understand all of the issues. This is why we delegate to our representatives. it's their full time job to try to understand the issues and make well thought out decisions.

Unfortunately, government has gotten too complicated for someone to understand all the issues, even if it's their full time job. Therefore, our representatives have to delegate as well. They delegate to the party.

Our representatives should spend most of their time and effort focused on the most important issues facing their constitutes. They don't have the time to be fully informed on all the other issues. Therefore they rely on guidance from their party.

If you think government is simple, or you think that issues are generally independent and not interrelated, then you are not taking into account the big picture.
Click to expand...
The "big picture" is always a good way to obfuscate and assist those who demand the status quo.

As an example, less than a million people live in Alaska but Schedule 1 includes a line for a benefit only paid to Alaskans.
Click to expand...
The tax code also has lines that only apply to farmers, only apply to landlords, and only apply to those you play the stock market.

Taxes are complicated. Should we exclude the questions that only apply to farmers as they comprise less than 1% of the population?
BGD300V1 said:
Laws and issues become complex when every insignificant difference must be codified and examined.

In another post you mention "legitimate voters"; why do you not wish to validate that legitimacy by asking for ID?
Click to expand...
But that's not the actual question. The problem is that many people see the question as "Why do not want to verify voters with a process that makes voting more of a pain for those we wish to disenfranchise, but is only a minor burden for those we like?"

And that's the crux of the problem. Different sides view the issue very differently. Each side considers only the aspects they see as important to them, and ignores that which they don't care about.

It's obviously a good idea to minimize fraudulent voting. Many people think it's a good idea to make it as easy as possible for legitimate votes to cast their ballots.

The question for each policy is whether it is doing more good than harm.

Here's an extreme example to illustrate the concept. Suppose my neighbor played loud obnoxious noises on outdoor speakers all night long. When I complained, he explained that those noises have been proven to keep away coyotes.

While it's reasonable for him to want to keep his home safe, I live in a city where we don't have coyotes. While his policy might be reasonable if there was an actual problem to solve, in reality it is doing more harm than good. Perhaps his real goal is to get his neighbors to move away?

There's a lot of data that indicates that fraudulent voting just isn't a problem in America. if that's correct, it's like someone trying to keep away the coyotes in a place where they don't exist. A cynical person might suspect the real goal is not to address the non-existent problem, but to address some other goal (like making it more difficult for some people to vote, by increasing the lines in their polling places).
 
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?

1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.

2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)

3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.

4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.

5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.

6. Hello I would like to buy a house.

7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..

I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
 
Gotamal said:
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?

1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.

2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)

3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.

4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.

5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.

6. Hello I would like to buy a house.

7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..

I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
Click to expand...
What is the problem that stricter voter ID laws are intended to solve?

Yes, most legitimate voters have an ID, as do many non-citizens, and felons who may not be allowed to vote. Possession of an ID is not the same as being a legitimate voter.

Furthermore, there are some legitimate voters who don't have an ID.

The key question, is whether the policy is more likely to discourage legitimate voters from casting their ballot, or to prevent an illegitimate voter from voting?

As the evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is virtually no voter fraud that this would stop, the biggest effect is likely to be discouraging legitimate voters.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose that there is one person fraudulently voting in a county, and the policy would discourage ten legitimate voters from casting their ballot. Does the good of stopping that one vote outweigh the bad of disenfranchising ten voters?

What if there is no one fraudulently trying to vote, and it would only disenfranchise one person?

Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
 
Michael Fryd said:
Gotamal said:
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?
  1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.
  2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)
  3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.
  4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.
  5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.
  6. Hello I would like to buy a house.
  7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..
I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
Click to expand...
What is the problem that stricter voter ID laws are intended to solve?

Yes, most legitimate voters have an ID, as do many non-citizens, and felons who may not be allowed to vote. Possession of an ID is not the same as being a legitimate voter.

Furthermore, there are some legitimate voters who don't have an ID.

The key question, is whether the policy is more likely to discourage legitimate voters from casting their ballot, or to prevent an illegitimate voter from voting?

As the evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is virtually no voter fraud that this would stop, the biggest effect is likely to be discouraging legitimate voters.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose that there is one person fraudulently voting in a county, and the policy would discourage ten legitimate voters from casting their ballot. Does the good of stopping that one vote outweigh the bad of disenfranchising ten voters?

What if there is no one fraudulently trying to vote, and it would only disenfranchise one person?

Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
So, a guy from South Beach Miami is worried soooo much about "disenfranchised voters".
Move from your nice safe little neighborhood where the Cops are allowed to actually protect the citizens and try out the fruits of your ideologies (especially including Crime, because it's obvious what your ideas are) here .
 
Michael Fryd said:
Gotamal said:
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?

1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.

2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)

3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.

4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.

5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.

6. Hello I would like to buy a house.

7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..

I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
Click to expand...
What is the problem that stricter voter ID laws are intended to solve?

Yes, most legitimate voters have an ID, as do many non-citizens, and felons who may not be allowed to vote. Possession of an ID is not the same as being a legitimate voter.

Furthermore, there are some legitimate voters who don't have an ID.

The key question, is whether the policy is more likely to discourage legitimate voters from casting their ballot, or to prevent an illegitimate voter from voting?

As the evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is virtually no voter fraud that this would stop, the biggest effect is likely to be discouraging legitimate voters.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose that there is one person fraudulently voting in a county, and the policy would discourage ten legitimate voters from casting their ballot. Does the good of stopping that one vote outweigh the bad of disenfranchising ten voters?

What if there is no one fraudulently trying to vote, and it would only disenfranchise one person?

Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.

You need an I.D. Period.

I do not get your point. The fight for “No I.D” is ludicrous.

There are so many things you need an I.D. For is compelling. No one is trying to take away anyones rights… but just ensuring there is no fraud.

Why do you think it is ok for someone to vote in Broward County and cast their ballot, and then drive to Miami Dade.. and do the same…..and then drive up to Palm Beach and do the same? Explain to us that you support that you do not need an I.D.
 
Gotamal said:
Michael Fryd said:
Gotamal said:
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?

1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.

2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)

3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.

4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.

5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.

6. Hello I would like to buy a house.

7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..

I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
Click to expand...
What is the problem that stricter voter ID laws are intended to solve?

Yes, most legitimate voters have an ID, as do many non-citizens, and felons who may not be allowed to vote. Possession of an ID is not the same as being a legitimate voter.

Furthermore, there are some legitimate voters who don't have an ID.

The key question, is whether the policy is more likely to discourage legitimate voters from casting their ballot, or to prevent an illegitimate voter from voting?

As the evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is virtually no voter fraud that this would stop, the biggest effect is likely to be discouraging legitimate voters.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose that there is one person fraudulently voting in a county, and the policy would discourage ten legitimate voters from casting their ballot. Does the good of stopping that one vote outweigh the bad of disenfranchising ten voters?

What if there is no one fraudulently trying to vote, and it would only disenfranchise one person?

Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.

You need an I.D. Period.

I do not get your point. The fight for “No I.D” is ludicrous.

There are so many things you need an I.D. For is compelling. No one is trying to take away anyones rights… but just ensuring there is no fraud.

Why do you think it is ok for someone to vote in Broward County and cast their ballot, and then drive to Miami Dade.. and do the same…..and then drive up to Palm Beach and do the same? Explain to us that you support that you do not need an I.D.
Click to expand...
That problem is dealt with when people register to vote.

If you register in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach county, then voter ID laws won’t stop you from voting in all three.
 
I'll not quote the long response.

Our tax collection process is overspecific because the government seems to demand control of every financial transaction.

To return to the original point, every ebay transaction indicates whether the goods sold were new or used. I have 1099-Rs which indicate what portion of the payment is taxable and what is return of capital. There is no reason that the 1099 on a private sale could not indicate that the goods sold were used and not taxable. It would be pretty pointless to undertake the record keeping and reporting in that case but overbearing bureacracies don't mind how much work they force people to do.

As to your coyote analogy, there are coyotes in every one of the 48 contiguous states and southeast Alaska.

Even in Miami

Loading…

www.local10.com

It is rather difficult to determine if a voter is not who they say they are without using some form of ID. Virtually every other non-cash transaction requires some form of validation. It is the most rudimentary form of protection from fraud and arguments against it's use are grounds for reasonable suspicion which merits investigation.

Your argument can be paraphrased as 'There is no voter fraud. You can't ask me to prove a negative so what I say must be true'.
 
Michael Fryd said:
Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
How is that voter fraud? Nobody is voting fraudulently. Apparently the voters are not expected to know who they are voting for. That is one reason that I believe that party affiliation should not appear on the ballot.

You might want to look at the words of George Washington in regard to political factions from his farewell address.
Michael Fryd said:
Michael Fryd said:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Michael Fryd said:
Gotamal said:
Michael Fryd said:
Gotamal said:
Why is requiring an I.D. To vote is such an issue?

1. Hello I would like to buy this 6-Pack of beer.

2. Hello I would like to board this plane. (Unless you have a bench warrant)

3. Hello I would like to visit my family in the hospital.

4. Hello I would like to Buy a pack of cigarettes.

5. Hello I would like to come in to your school to talk to my child.

6. Hello I would like to buy a house.

7. Hello I would like to take out a loan for a new car…..

I think … I have made my point.

Why would anyone think that a “Vote” has no value and not needed for a valid I.D. ?

Blows my mind!
Click to expand...
What is the problem that stricter voter ID laws are intended to solve?

Yes, most legitimate voters have an ID, as do many non-citizens, and felons who may not be allowed to vote. Possession of an ID is not the same as being a legitimate voter.

Furthermore, there are some legitimate voters who don't have an ID.

The key question, is whether the policy is more likely to discourage legitimate voters from casting their ballot, or to prevent an illegitimate voter from voting?

As the evidence seems to be overwhelming that there is virtually no voter fraud that this would stop, the biggest effect is likely to be discouraging legitimate voters.

But let's look at it this way. Suppose that there is one person fraudulently voting in a county, and the policy would discourage ten legitimate voters from casting their ballot. Does the good of stopping that one vote outweigh the bad of disenfranchising ten voters?

What if there is no one fraudulently trying to vote, and it would only disenfranchise one person?

Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
You missed the point.

You need an I.D. Period.

I do not get your point. The fight for “No I.D” is ludicrous.

There are so many things you need an I.D. For is compelling. No one is trying to take away anyones rights… but just ensuring there is no fraud.

Why do you think it is ok for someone to vote in Broward County and cast their ballot, and then drive to Miami Dade.. and do the same…..and then drive up to Palm Beach and do the same? Explain to us that you support that you do not need an I.D.
Click to expand...
That problem is dealt with when people register to vote.

If you register in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach county, then voter ID laws won’t stop you from voting in all three.
Click to expand...
That seems an admission that voter fraud is possible. When you register, how do you establish residence in all three counties with a different SSN for each?

The requirements to register are

You should know: you need a Florida driver's license or identification card issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and a Social Security number to use Florida's online voter registration system. The name and address on the ID must match your voter registration exactly, so you should plan to have your ID on hand. If you don't have a Florida-issued ID, or don’t have your Florida-issued ID on hand, you can still register by mail to vote.
 
Venmo also now onboard. (source is ABC News)

"Venmo, for instance, has an updated FAQ that notes "customers may receive an in-app notification or email ... asking to confirm the information they use when filing their taxes. ... By providing this information, customers will be able to continue using their Venmo account to seamlessly accept payments for goods and services without any issue in 2022 and beyond."
 
BGD300V1 said:
I'll not quote the long response.

Our tax collection process is overspecific because the government seems to demand control of every financial transaction.

To return to the original point, every ebay transaction indicates whether the goods sold were new or used. I have 1099-Rs which indicate what portion of the payment is taxable and what is return of capital. There is no reason that the 1099 on a private sale could not indicate that the goods sold were used and not taxable. It would be pretty pointless to undertake the record keeping and reporting in that case but overbearing bureacracies don't mind how much work they force people to do.

As to your coyote analogy, there are coyotes in every one of the 48 contiguous states and southeast Alaska.
Click to expand...
BGD300V1 said:
Even in Miami
Click to expand...
But not Miami Beach.

But the issue is not coyotes. The issue is that many policies have both good and bad effects. The goal is to have policies where the good effects outweigh the bad effects.

If the "good" of a policy is to reduce a problem that is already insignificant, then it doesn't take much "bad" to outweigh that good.

Which brings us back to the the question "Why do so many people think it is important to inconvenience poor voters to solve a problem that they are worried about, but doesn't actually exist in practice?"

BGD300V1 said:
https://www.local10.com/news/local/...d-predator-in-miami-dades-richmond-west-area/

It is rather difficult to determine if a voter is not who they say they are without using some form of ID. Virtually every other non-cash transaction requires some form of validation. It is the most rudimentary form of protection from fraud and arguments against it's use are grounds for reasonable suspicion which merits investigation.
Click to expand...
Why not let them use the voter's registration card they got in the mail after they registered to vote? Or why not let them verify with their signature?

Verification ahead of time allows them to prove eligibility to vote and identity well in advance. If there are any issues, they can be resolved long before election day. If verification takes time, they are not holding up a line of voters waiting to cast their ballots?

More often than not, I don't need any ID for non cash transactions. I present my credit card and that's good enough. The credit card does not have my photo on it. However, the credit card company verified my identity to their satisfaction before issuing me the card.

BGD300V1 said:
Your argument can be paraphrased as 'There is no voter fraud. You can't ask me to prove a negative so what I say must be true'.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking you to prove anything. However, there have been many studies, investigations, etc., into voter fraud, and none of these have found any evidence that voter fraud is a problem.

Think of it this way. If there was rampant voter fraud, at least one organization would have found a number of people who would testify that they didn't vote, yet the voting records indicated that they did cast a ballot.

You would think that if voter fraud was happening there would be evidence.
 
BGD300V1 said:
Michael Fryd said:
Keep in mind that here is Florida, the type of fraud we have would not be stopped by this. In the 2020 election, a Republican operative recruited people with names similar to the Democratic candidates. He paid them to let him put them on the ballot. Many people thought they were voting for the Democratic candidate, and inadvertently voted for the shills. This caused the Republican candidate to win by a narrow margin. The Republicans involved seem to have violated a number of election laws and have been charged with a number of crimes. Any fraud stopped by a voter ID law would be insignificant compared to the sort of election fraud that happens in the real world.
Click to expand...
How is that voter fraud? Nobody is voting fraudulently. Apparently the voters are not expected to know who they are voting for. That is one reason that I believe that party affiliation should not appear on the ballot.

You might want to look at the words of George Washington in regard to political factions from his farewell address.
Click to expand...
From a moral perspective it is "fraud" as it was intentionally deceptive. The goal was specifically to trick voters into casting their official ballot in a way that did not reflect their intentions.

From a legal perspective it broke a number of laws, including false filing of where the funding was coming from,
 
Last edited:
Michael Fryd said:
I'm not asking you to prove anything. However, there have been many studies, investigations, etc., into voter fraud, and none of these have found any evidence that voter fraud is a problem.

Think of it this way. If there was rampant voter fraud, at least one organization would have found a number of people who would testify that they didn't vote, yet the voting records indicated that they did cast a ballot.

You would think that if voter fraud was happening there would be evidence.
Click to expand...
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

Loading…

www.heritage.org

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/state_election_board_refers_voter_fraud_cases_for_prosecution
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BGD300V1 said:
Michael Fryd said:
I'm not asking you to prove anything. However, there have been many studies, investigations, etc., into voter fraud, and none of these have found any evidence that voter fraud is a problem.

Think of it this way. If there was rampant voter fraud, at least one organization would have found a number of people who would testify that they didn't vote, yet the voting records indicated that they did cast a ballot.

You would think that if voter fraud was happening there would be evidence.
Click to expand...
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=FL

https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/state_election_board_refers_voter_fraud_cases_for_prosecution
Click to expand...
Good point. According to https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/, since 1979 there have been 1,340 proven instances of voter fraud in the USA. That's about 27 voter fraud instances per year, in the entire USA.

But that's not the full story. If you look at the data, they are counting all sorts of fraud. Many of which would not be stopped by a voter ID law. For instance someone who does not have the right to vote, but has registered. Voter ID laws don't stop that sort of fraud.

What Voter ID laws are supposed to do stop is someone showing up to vote, and claiming to be someone else. If you look at the data, they claim that this has happened 16 times on the last 40 years! That's about one fraudulent vote in the entire USA, every other year. Not what I would call a problem.

But let's assume that they are missing the problem. Let's suppose that only 1 in a thousand imposters get caught. That would mean we have about 500 imposter votes in the USA each year. That's about 10 imposter votes in each state, each year.

I would say that ten bad votes per state per year is not what I would call a problem.

To put this in perspective, in the 2020 election 159,633,396 people cast their ballots. 500 imposter votes are not enough to make a difference. (500 votes out of 159,633,396 is 1 bad vote for every 319,266 valid votes).

Thanks for providing data that confirms that the stated reason for voter ID laws doesn't really exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top