Rob Gleason may brag, but Pennsylvania’s voter-ID law was not even enforced in 2012.
Well, it’s no news that confusion is the GOP’s best friend . . .
But voter-ID laws were enforced in some states. What effect did they have? Who, eligible to vote or ineligible, was turned away from the polls? Who got a provisional ballot, and which provisional ballots were discounted and which were discarded? Who was too discouraged even to show up at the polls? Have there been any studies?
Midway down this page is a map showing which states had “restrictive voting legislation” in place for the 2012 election, and what kind.
It probably helped to get a lot of minorities motivated to go stand in those disgusting 8 hour lines to vote. Some conservative jackholes mentioned, in their self-serving way, after the election that they lost because of unusually strong Democratic turnout. Part of which, I want to believe, was due to these voter ID laws.
Fuck with the right to vote and the voters will fuck you.
Yeah, a lot of minorities historically have had low turnouts because they believed that their votes didn’t matter. But when the other party puts that much effort into disenfranchising you, it must be for a reason, right? They wouldn’t bother if your votes didn’t matter. So the effort is proof that their votes do matter, and so it’s worth voting.
No, only that the Pubs think so. But, they ought to know.
So maybe voter suppression si good for democracy. The last time we had this sort of voter turnout, the white people were using fire hoses on black people.
Ironic, dontcha think?
So all the claims that insisting on voter ID would decrease minority turnout are…? What?
I don’t care one way or the other. For me, the issue was about confidence in the result. If minority turnout increases, as long they’re valid voters, that’s fine. That’s what representative democracy is all about.
Does it matter to you whether that increased confidence is justified by the facts? IOW, if putting up “Ghost scarers” made people more confident in election results (since no ghosts could manipulate the voting machines), would you advocate on behalf of installing ghost scarers? What if doing so led to longer election lines, or fewer people voting, or increased costs?
It seems to me that a far superior means of increasing confidence in election results is widely disseminating information that voter fraud is vanishingly rare and not something to worry about–exactly the opposite of what the GOP PR machine has been doing for years. The drive for voter-ID laws seems to me to have artificially decreased confidence in elections, in the same way that I can make you feel less safe about swimming in a lake by telling you that I’ve installed giant nets to catch any alligators that might approach.
Fine, but that’s not the thread topic.
Some guy named Nate Silver, or something…
Duh.
It might be worthwhile to look at an actual state voter ID bill under debate now. This one currently under discussion in the North Carolina Senate is titled the “Voter Information Verification Act”, and it has caught the attention of Think Progress:
[quote]
Among the dozens of changes, these are the most onerous for North Carolina voters:
[ul]
[li]Implementing a strict voter ID requirement that bars citizens who don’t have a proper photo ID from casting a ballot.[/li][li]Eliminating same-day voter registration, which allowed residents to register at the polls.[/li][li]Cutting early voting by a full week.[/li][li]Increasing the influence of money in elections by raising the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 and increasing the limit every two years.[/li][li]Making it easier for voter suppression groups like True The Vote to challenge any voter who they think may be ineligible by requiring that challengers simply be registered in the same county, rather than precinct, of those they challenge.[/li][li]Vastly increasing the number of “poll observers” and increasing what they’re permitted to do. In 2012, ThinkProgress caught the Romney campaign training such poll observers using highly misleading information.[/li][li]Only permitting citizens to vote in their specific precinct, rather than casting a ballot in any nearby ward or election district. This can lead to widespread confusion, particularly in urban areas where many precincts can often be housed in the same building.[/li][li]Barring young adults from pre-registering as 16- and 17-year-olds, which is permitted by current law, and repealing a state directive that high schools conduct voter registration drives in order to boost turnout among young voters.[/li][li]Prohibiting some types of paid voter registration drives, which tend to register poor and minority citizens.[/li][li]Dismantling three state public financing programs, including the landmark program that funded judicial elections.[/li][li]Weakening disclosure requirements for outside spending groups.[/li][li]Preventing counties from extending polling hours in the event of long lines or other extraordinary circumstances and making it more difficult for them to accommodate elderly or disabled voters with satellite polling sites at nursing homes, for instance.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I’m not sure what raising the limit on campaign contributions or weakening disclosure requirements has to do with voter ID, but there it is.
Voter confidence. Limiting the contributions of wealthier citizens reduces their confidence.
How do you feel about diebold machines or other methods of electronic voting with no verifiable audit trail? Surely if you are so concerned with voter ID, you are concerned with this also, right?
Look, just because you are all butthurt that they have more free speech than you, doesn’t mean you need to hijack this thread!
Hey, its ok if we pass a law saying conservatives have to show 3 forms of ID to vote, as long as it motivates them to vote more, the end result is all that matters right? Who cares that it would be a totally illegal law
Yes. I generally oppose the use of any system that does not produce an audit trail. Unfortunately, a true audit trail is inconsistent with the idea of a secret ballot. So I recognize that some compromises must be made. However, the current state of affairs, with hackable code, proprietary systems rather than open systems, etc, is very poor.
I care. That’s why I favor Voter ID. As the Supreme Court ruled in Crawford v. Marion County, that a very legal law.
Well, yes. If you have a secret ballot, you cannot ask any voter to look at her ballot the next day and verify that is how she cast it. But there is an inexpensive technology which will print out the ballot from the touchscreen, move it under a pane of glass where the voter can see it and verify it, and then scan it, and deposit it in a sealed box. If there’s any dispute about the vote-count on that machine, the election officials can open that box and do a hand-count. That defeats any attempt to rig the count by hacking or viruses or hidden programming or whatever. The only way to beat this system would be old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, by hand; which, as always, can only happen if the election officials are in on it, and there are ways to watchdog them.
I disagree. The spectre of voter fraud is, in fact, extremely rare, but the chances of it affecting a race are not uniformly rare.
Where the problems arise is a very close race – Florida in the presidential election of 2000, or Washington State’s governor’s race in 2006. Both of those races were decided by less than 1,000 votes.
So at the precise time when confidence is needed most – a razor-thin victory – is also the precise time that voter fraud has the most chance of changing a result.
There’s nothing artificial about that concern.