“No. Who cares?”
“Happy”
No point in trying to get him to admit something he doesn’t even understand.
Mostly, you have avoided it, but every once in a while, you try to slip in that insinuation. Its utter rot, and you know it. You know who believes that the Democrats benefit from illegal voting as well as I do, and it ain’t them. So, let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.
Of course, they might change their minds if they had your experience with CASA volunteers…
Oh, you have these numbers? Numbers that clearly show how many people who would otherwise have voted did not do so? Really? Do bring them, won’t you? Or at the very least, don’t bluff.
Well, why shouldn’t we? If he is wrong, as you imply but will not state, bring the evidence. You got, you bring, that’s how to do it.
Where are yours that it wasn’t? You seriously want to offer the premise that such laws would have zero effect on voting? With a straight face?
I mean, according to you, even the slightest change in voting could have disastrous consequences, in a really close election, in an elephant stampede in a snowstorm on the 4th of July! But this potential consequence rates less than a shrug!
What is this, faith based statistical analysis?
And neither of those are classes that are entitled to higher scrutiny.
Then why bring up the subject of class?
I object to the voter ID laws on ideological grounds. That regardless of their effect, their intent is to disefranchise voters, voters that just happen to be disproportionately poor and minority.
But you have to squint pretty hard to find suspect classification.
Acctually, its at least “kinda like” the AWB. It’s blowback for an obviously bad law.
Hey, Its not my fault that the AWB is such a good analogy in so many different situations.
Sure its still attempted murder but in this case, the Republicans didn’t just miss, they shot themselves in the balls.
Thats a lot like what happened here. The Republicans tried to pull some bullshit and it didn’t turn out the way they hoped, they didn’t win the election and only managed to rile up the other side while disgusting some n their own side. Its kinda like the AWB.
I’m pretty sure the black community in America don’t really yearn for the 19th century. But poor people with access to mass transportation don’t have a lot of need for a driver’s license, so they don’t get one.
I think he might only be measuring one side of the ledger, he doesn’t seem to take into account that the targetted population that DO have IDs are turning out in higher numbers because they are so pissed off.
If it were me, I’d keep opposing them out of principle but the fact that this blatant attempt to suppress the vote is creating so much outrage would make me vocally oppose the voter ID laws even if I was an unprincipled Democratic leader.
So don’t you think all arguments should be subjected to this type of scrutiny? Don’t you think that the media should be reporting on all the facts here (perhaps without the pictures, they’re sorta prejudicial)?
Same with voter ID. Either abortion is open to the same arguments as voter ID laws or they are not. I mean they’re both popular, and constitutional. Why would you treat them differently?
And some people think abortion is murdering babies. I agree that voter ID laws are undemocratic and likely to dissuade more Democratic voters than Republican voters but I wonder if we would be as outraged if Democrats did something that tilted the palying field in their advantage (or if we would just think it was clever).
I’ve pondered that question too, but I really don’t think I would. I might not complain as vocally but it would still bother me. As an example of this I voted against the heavily gerrymandered redistricting on Maryland even though it was done by Democrats.
It’s certainly possible that they’re in error, although given that they are professional politicians who make their living doing this kind of stuff, their opinion and their forecasts are worth a heck of a lot more than any of ours. And given that you seem to agree that at least some Republicans are doing this nefariously, at least some Republicans’ forecasts seem to agree.
Do they believe that they benefit from illegal votes? There are a two main reasons I’m skeptical of that:
(1) No evidence of significant amounts of fraudulent voting has ever been brought forth
(2) In all the crazy shit that Fox News and the Republican right in general accuses the left of, I’ve never seen more than a hint of “the Democratic party deliberately makes policy to help people vote for them fraudulently”. In this era of cell phones and constant surveillance, it seems like it would be hard for Democratic leaders to get together and discuss how to keep getting as many fraudulent votes in the 17th precinct as possible without it leaking out in some fashion.
So it’s your belief that there is solid and fairly incontrovertible evidence that voter ID laws do NOT reduce minority turnout, that is, the issue is settled? I admit I’ve been mainly just discussing this issue on a theoretical level, so can you link to a summary of these findings? It does seem to me that this would be a hard thing to prove, given that all you can really do is compare one election to an election in the past and see if things change, whereas what you really need to do is compare this election to the same election in a bifurcated timeline where the laws were not passed, and our hyperverse communications aren’t really up to that yet. Which isn’t to say that it’s impossible to make a convincing argument with sufficient analysis comparing states with ID laws vs states without ID laws, and potentially some number of elections into the future, etc.
(There’s also a possibility that a voter ID law is passed in 2002, then in 2004 it’s fresh on people’s minds and there’s a big get-people-IDs drive and lots of publicity and rage, and in fact it has no damping effect in 2004, but by 2016 a new generation of young voters has grown up, the excitement and outrage has worn off, and the effects start to show themselves then, and a related possibility that the main thing the law does is cause the Democratic party to spend a bunch of time and energy publicizing the issue and getting IDs to people and so forth… which is time and energy that they don’t have to do other election-related things.)
Is there a number where you would start to be alarmed?
Let me rephrase the hypothetical such that after the election you thought there was strong evidence that the voter ID laws HAD reduced democratic turnout by 1% or so and the Republicans won by a very narrow margin. How would you feel?
Huh, guess you disagree with Bricker then
Well, there is no “we”. The SDMB is not a hive mind. But, honestly, what do we gain from taking the discussion in that direction? It never settles anything and all it ever does is swamp the conversation into rancor and accusations of hypocrisy.
I admit, shamefaced, I have been unkind, ungenerous. Friend Bricker is laboring under a heavy load, burdened by facts he aches to shrug off. It isn’t fair, and I should have recognized that.
There he stands, having labored so long to establish the desperate importance of voter id and voter confidence, he is compelled to inflate. Well, illegal votes might prove to be of supreme importance in the perfect storm of circumstances. Where the election is so close, a butterfly’s fart might sway it one way or another, why, who knows but that a handful of illegal votes might torpedo the Republic!
And thus, by the same inflation that turns a Japanese condom into the Hindenburg, the dimensions of the prospective catastrophe are outlined. And a grim prospect it is, to be sure.
But what about voters who are hindered and discouraged from voting, what about that number of potential votes? Perhaps only a handful, to be sure, but a handful is a handful. There can be only one solution, one straw rushing by in the cataract to clutch for. That number must be zero, there can be no such number. The number of illegal votes is very close to zero, therefore the number of discouraged votes must be less!
Hence he is compelled to demand proof, show me the numbers of discouraged voters, show me the hard facts. And if no such facts can be ascertained, no such numbers verified to his satisfaction, he can then claim that it is reasonable and fair to assume that number is zero! Hence, no reason to worry that the Republic might be toppled by discouraged votes, as that number is zero, unlike the massive single digits of voter fraud.
All while keeping a straight face. It is a cruel burden, and I am not without sympathy. Not entirely, at any rate.
If I recall correctly and comprehended it correctly, generally, he was comparing the 2008 and 2012 elections and effects of the ID laws. Turnout was down 4% in ID states. Of that, on a state by state basis, the advantage to the GOP was .4% to 1.2%. He got that from the changed margins.
For one case it can be zero. If we assume that some people are just lazy and think getting an ID is too much hassle, can’t we also make the case that what stops them from getting an ID is the same reason they won’t vote? And if someone asks them why they don’t vote, most people will want to avoid taking blame for their own actions, or lack of them, and lay blame it on the increased requirements?
You do know who, if they actually believed that they gained some benefit by having illegals vote for them, would never admit to such a charge?
It’s been 73 pages. If you don’t get why this comparison is completely bullshit, then you’re a dishonest shitbag.
…Oh wait.
So you opposed the changes right before the elections in 2012?
…Oh wait. No you didn’t. You dishonest shitbag.
Okay, let’s make something clear here. The latter? Not actually a thing. Why the fuck would you care if they could prove it or not? Seriously. If they have the right, it doesn’t matter. But even more important than this, I can say without much doubt that the actual amount of in-person voter fraud (you know, the type that voter ID would stop) is not only essentially negligible, but completely nonexistent. Not only is the evidence that it’s present non-existent, despite extensive attempts to prove that it’s there, but it doesn’t even make sense to commit voter fraud that way, in a number of levels, and I will gladly go over this again.
…
…Okay I take it back. You want my explanation for why it’s completely fucking nonsensical to commit voter fraud in the one way that voter ID will stop? Search my fucking posts in this thread, because I’ve gone over it before and I’m done explaining it.
It’s been 73 pages. [del]If you don’t get why this comparison is completely bullshit, then[/del] You’re just a dishonest shitbag.
And I don’t agree that your mother isn’t a disgusting fat whore. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but hey - it’s my opinion. And opinions can’t be wrong. 
You’re a shitbag! Go die in a fire!
That you don’t have the faculties to understand why they are similar is your problem.
A hint: It is because you look at voting from the point of view as a right, I look at it as a responsibility, the same as paying taxes. You still aren’t capable of understanding, but hey, continue to call me a shitbag if it makes you feel better.
No, but I’ve clarified my position as well. Or did you miss the many places where I’ve argued that 2 or 4 years was more than enough to comply with an new minor requirement like a photo ID? Think I was saying that because I thought 3 months was more than sufficient time to comply with a new requirement? 6 months might be pushing it. A year is more than enough time. Or do you expect me to act like you and ignore reality just because I FEEL it is a bad thing?
I don’t care if you think it is a ‘thing’. This particular type of right doesn’t exist for you until you can prove that you are actually eligible to exercise that right. And the requirements for that proof have changed in a very minor way that would affect people negatively in only a very few cases. Do you have a brain tumor or something that makes you fail to understand this?
Is this “fewer” total greater than, less than or about equal to the number of illegally cast votes?
I choose ‘D’, as in I don’t care.
If you have managed to make the effort to waddle on down to the polling station without bringing your wallet with your ID in it, it is minimal effort on the part of the polling worker to tell you to go and get it and thus doesn’t affect my ability to vote. That you then rant to the press about how the ‘man’ has prevented you from voting because you can’t get the appropriate ID is of little concern to me.
I’ve already said that people should be given enough time to comply, that they should have clear instructions on how to apply. But I believe people must prove who they are before they can vote as they must to do for any number of other activities they wish to participate in.
Hrmm. You got a cite. Not that I don’t believe you but I’ve been operating under the assumption that there wasn’t a negative effect in 2012. If I’m wrong then I’d like to know.
As far as I can tell, voter ID laws were enacted in 2012 in 5 states
Kansas 2008: 1,235,872 2012: 1,159,971
South Carolina: 2008: 1,920,969 2012: 1,964,118
Texas: 2008: 8,077,795 2012: 7,993,851
Tennessee: 2008: 2,599,749 2012: 2,458,777
NONE of the above states were competitive.
Wisconsin: 2008: 2,983,417 2012: 3,068,434
AFAICT, none of the other states actually were able to enforce voter ID laws in the 2012 election.
But thats just from wikipedia.
Thats not to say they weren’t born of evil intent but I don’t know if they achieved the evil results.
Yet.
Yeah, look at this slacker - he’s probably never participated in the political process in his life: Former Speaker Jim Wright Denied Texas Vote ID
And if it weren’t for Wendy Davis’ amendment,both she AND her Republican opponent could have been barred from voting.
As well as this judge and a lot of other women.
Lazy, lazy people. But hey - think of the CONFIDENCE people now have in the Texas voting system!
Excellent examples of people denied the vote because of new ID requirements.
Jim Wright couldn’t even get an ID, and the others had ID but it was not acceptable. So the assertion that getting ID suitable for voting is easy if you’re not fat and lazy and that the new laws won’t affect the ability to vote for people with ID does not appear to hold true for Texas; in fact, it’s only because there’s a workaround with the affadavit that the system is working at all for many.
Then you’re a damn fool.
It’s been said upthread, but apparently bears repeating. People are already required to prove who they are before they can vote. We call it “voter registration”. In order to vote, one must provide sufficient identification to establish one’s existence, one’s citizenship, and (usually) one’s place of residence. The forms of identification required in order to register vary by jurisdiction and may include but are often not limited to picture ID. The review process can be lengthy, allowing for authority to question and citizen to provide additional documentation. Once the relevant authority is satisfied that a person meets these criteria, one is placed on a list (the “voter roll”) and in most jurisdictions issued a credential (a “voter registration card”).
At the polling place, a voter presents him/herself and a poll worker determines whether or not that person appears on the voter roll. This was in most jurisdictions accomplished by the presentation of various forms of ID, comparison of signature to one on the roll, and possibly visual recognition by the local poll worker and/or other identified voters. The totality of this system resulted in limiting in-person voter fraud to the infinitesimal numbers cited repeatedly upthread. The system wasn’t broken.
The “picture ID laws” were imposed over and above the existing system. They do effectively nothing to further reduce in-person voter fraud. They do though impose a burden on some voters, especially voters who skew Democratic. This arguably reduces the overall vote, and possibly reduces Democratic votes slightly more than Republican votes. That at least is the intention voiced by some number of the people who were the most vigorous proponents of these laws before the last national election. (“…carry the state for Romney!” et cetera)
Note further that proponents can say with a straight face exactly what your quote above states. Pretty much everybody will agree with that statement, on its face at least. But you and other proponents ignore the reality that your statement, while true, has already been dealt with by other means. It’s not as if random people just walk into a polling place, declare themselves to be citizens, and poll workers obsequiously allow them to vote.
It is clear from the history that these laws are totally unnecessary, and were driven by partisan intent from the right. Note I say “driven”, not “passed”, knowing full well that people from both ends of the political spectrum eventually supported them. But that too was due to a partisan campaign to confuse the issue, in exactly the manner your quote confuses it, presenting these new laws as if they were the only thing standing between the great unwashed non-citizen hordes and the sovereign franchise. Good marketing! Shitty law.