This is like the other side saying, "the only reason that they want voter ID laws is because they want poor people to not be able to vote!" If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the argument of the other side, that is your choice. But instead of making up the argument for them, you would be better served demonstrating why their argument is actually wrong.
If we don't have evidence, that means there is no evidence. Assuming something is happening and then claiming that there would be evidence if we could find it is not the same thing as actually having evidence.
Untrue. There are ways to statistically analyze voting and reasonably conclude that there was something fishy going on. Not only that, but we have multiple of different research papers trying to find evidence of fraud, which turned up nothing. This is why the courts, after reviewing the evidence, have repeatedly struck down these laws as "unreasonable." They are trying to solve a problem that appears barely exists by putting undue burden on numerous people who have committed no crime. Originally Posted by eatfibo
How do you explain the 104% voter turnout in Broward County, FL. Or the 111% voter turnout in some precincts in Philadelphia, PA. More people voted than were registered. Then when you see that, who do you arrest?
