Yes. I am also far from sanguine that this issue has been reported correctly. But if it has, and if that decision can be shown to be partisian (in fact, given the obvious inference, let me rephrase: if supporters can show it was NOT partisan) then I would strongly disapprove of such a move. A partisan motivation is fine if the end result is still justifiable as a neutral application of a valid idea. In the case of closing DMV centers to disadvantage political opponents, we don’t have that neutral application of a valid idea.
It’s too bad you’re not a reality based thinker but instead let yourself be guided by myths, prejudice, and ideology rather than facts.
Moreover, if you were more familiar with elections you’d know there were a number of instances in which exit polls have been wrong.
For example, in 2008 exit polls predicted California’s anti-gay marriage proposal would be defeated but it passed.
The Ohio exit polls you refered to were heavily flawed because they oversampled early voters and young people which caused them to inadvertently oversample Democratic voters.
That said, I notice you’ve decided to abandon your earlier claims that voter ID laws suppressed voter turnout since we’ve demonstrated that is false.
Well, of course you are! Have you any actual evidence of false reporting, or are you hoping that an innuendo will suffice?
Your source for this claim is a hyper-partisan blog not a reliable news source.
Furthermore the blog makes claims(that all ten DMV centers are in Democratic districts and that the DMVs that are having their hours extended are in Republican districts) that aren’t backed up by the article it links to.http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm
Longitudinal studies are the worst kind to try to associate variables.
But the argument remains: If this is just a move to reassure voters whose confidence has been undermined, instead of patching the system, address the core cause, i.e. concerted Republican attempts to establish fears of non-existent voter fraud.
You’re attacking the cites when this is the fundamental issue you keep ignoring.
Dully noted. However, my smattering of information on statistics is that the term “associated with” is a term of art for them. It does not mean that causality is not implied, it means that the statisticians regard causality as beyond their purview. It is possible, for instance, than an “association” of two measured phenomena are “caused” by a third phenomenon, underlying both. So, they adopt the neutral term to satisfy that.
That “associated with” is not semantically identical with “caused by” is certainly true, but it does nothing to undermine the evidence or its relevance.
Please note: if scolded and corrected by an authentic statistics geek, I will withdraw this comment. Seeing as how I’m not the kind of guy who is blinded by ideology and refuses to admit mistakes.
(emphasis added)
The appropriate solution is to put in place a reasonable system to verify voter identity. In this case, since the evidence is that this does not actually affect voter turnout, this is clearly appropriate.
Indeed? Then where’s your admission on the studies already presented that show no actual drop-off in voter turnout?
I cannot square the proposed voting reforms with the GOP’s avowed ambition to reduce unneeded government regulations, given that the proposed reforms are at best an attempt to make people feel better about voting and not to eliminate actual problems. I’m convinced that the actual number of fraudulent voters is very very small and that the proposed reforms are a solution in search of a problem.
For that matter, where’s yours that other legitimate studies do not jibe with your preferred outcome? Or does this only cut one way? Besides, you’ve already conceded the point that this was an effort at using the law to promote a partisan advantage. They were stupid and acted on bad information? Well, that’s a relief!
And where do you get off with this pious *ad hominem *about objectivity?
You are no less a slut than any of the rest of us girls on the street. Your spotless communion dress notwithstanding. Which you probably rented. Spare me the mealy-mouthed pieties, OK?
No. I don’t find any study that looks at an actual outcome of real voter data that does not jibe with my outcome. The study that disagrees with my results does some by analyzing CPS data, not actual voter numbers.
Yes, I have conceded that.
Because I concede points that are true, even though they cut against me.
Notably, this admonition does not come with any concessions, even though each point you raise I have rebutted with a cited study to actual data.
The bulk of claims in this statement have been addressed upthread. I write now only to point out that this is in some respects a strawman claim – the GOP typically inveighs against federal government regulations.
Really? So the answer from a conservative is to spend money to fix a problem conservatives create?
People have the impression that there is voter fraud at the polls because Republicans repeat it until it takes hold. And your answer is more bureaucracy to “fix” that problem?
Both from the perspective of fiscal conservativism and small government, that seems a very contradictory position to hold.
How do you see more bureaucracy here?
More people getting paperwork. More people to process the paperwork.
Your own cite points out that the DMV will be open tens of thousands of hours longer.
Fascinating.
If the DMV is not open longer, the charge is that the scheme disenfranchises the poor. If I show that the DMV is open longer, the charge becomes “more bureaucracy?”
OK. Yes. In order to serve the needs of the poor, more bureaucracy is added, and I’m fine with that.
So once it has been proven that photo ID has not reduced voter turnout, we’re down to it not being a very republican thing to do. That’s where we’re at now. It hasn’t been proven that getting an ID is an undue hardship. Thus far voters have not been disenfranchised. Even Wisconsin has been dragged kicking and screaming into following it’s own laws.
It’s not a small government solution. :smack: Who the fuck cares?
Not so. Not only is it not a strawman, GOP politicians weigh in against regulations at all levels of government as anyone’s who’s been paying attention can attest, one example of which is cited here:
In what way are they the “needs” of the poor? :rolleyes:
Tell us again, in your own words now, what is the real-world, proven-to-exist problem that you purport to be addressing with this extra intrusion of government?