On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 19:45:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 18:50:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:06:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:


If you sample 1,000 voters who are registered in two or more states
(they're easy to find; there are an estimated 7,000,000 of them), and
then check to see how many voted in multiple states (also easy; check
the voter records in each state for which those multiple-state
registrants are registered), you'll be able to measure the size of the
problem -- if any.

Then you'll know whether it's worth requiring states to notify voting
authorities in the (previous) states to which those voters are
registered.

Based on the research that's been done over the past few decades, the
likely answer is that it isn't worth the trouble, because the
multiple-state voters appear to be a small fraction of one percent of
all voters.

--
Ed Huntress

So do you lock your house up when you go somewhere? From your answer on purging the voter rolls, your answer ought to be that there is little theft in your area and it is not worth the effort because only a small fraction of the local residents are thief's.

Dan

A very bad analogy, Dan. One burglar can make a mess of my life. A
thousand illegal voters makes no measurable difference to yours.

--
Ed Huntress

I disagree, Many elections occur with less than a thousand vote majority.

I'm talking about nationwide. You couldn't even measure the effect.

Allowing illegal votes erodes our belief in our system of government.


Only for people who can't do the arithmetic. And I'm not saying it
should be "allowed."

You seem to be saying that a little crime is okay.

No. What I would say, if I were asked, is that suppressing a million
votes via unprecedented restrictions in order to catch a few thousand
fraudulent votes spread around.does a hell of a lot more damage to
"belief in our system of government."

--
Ed Huntress