Already thoroughly debunked. Please read the thread.
You mean people who have to work two or three minimum-wage jobs just to pay for food and rent, and have no spare time to go get an ID? They’re “lazy and stupid”? I’d rather be ruled by them than by supercilious cake-eating asswipes.
These are all very interesting issues. They have no bearing on the issues at hand, here, but they are very interesting. Perhaps you could open a thread to discuss them?
Seeing as how they’ve created the problem to begin with, I don’t see that as too unreasonable.
Another fascinating subject! Really, you are very helpful in finding new and different things to discuss.
Huh?
So, they made it all up? Or is this your imagination taking wing, yet again.
Sure they do. I do too. Not the point. One more time? Not about voter id, about using it as an excuse. Pretty sure I mentioned this, and then you firmly rebutted it by extolling the virtues of voter ID.
So the number of people to be fucked over isn’t all that big? Swell!
Personally, I’m more okay with what Uzi calls* lazy people* voting than with someone as staggeringly stupid and unable to learn as Uzi himself voting.
gamerunknown:
Epicurus himself was certainly known for his moderation in personal habits, but his school of thought was based on materialism and of bodily pleasure being the highest calling. Primarily, the philosophical distinction between the Saducces and the Pharisees was whether or not there is a non-material afterlife, and the Saduccees, whose position on this was very much Epicurean (i.e., there is none), mocked the dact that the Pharisees abstained from certain material pleasures specifically for the sake of the soul and its eternal fate. Even those Epicureans who practiced moderation in their personal habits (like Epicurus himself) did so because the higher calling was the well-being of their body and their living state of mind, and felt that the Pharisees’ motivation made their abstentions a subject for mockery.
Had to be a pretty important point of contention, seeing as how Jews hate to argue.
Huh. That’s… interesting. I, however, never brought up 11% as “the people fucked over by voter ID laws”. It was simply the figure of people who lacked photo ID. (The disparity between that 3% and this 10-11% almost certainly comes from states that, well, don’t have voter ID laws, thus making the lack of ID not really an issue.) Lemme remind you what my math was.
Approximately 10% of the voting populace has no ID.
Voter fraud happens at a rate of about 0.0004% – that is, ever 25,000th (2,500? I’m lazy at math right now) or so vote is liable to be fraudulent.
Assumption: at least 1% of them have no ID because procuring ID would be an extreme hassle for them.
Result: 0.1% of the populace would be left unable to vote due to voter ID laws. This far trumps the approximately 0.0004% of the populace whose votes would be made invalid by voter fraud.
Here’s your math:
Approximately 38.4% of the populace did not vote.
Of those, about 10% cited lack of ID as a problem.
Result: 4% of the populace would be left disenfranchised due to voter ID laws. This far trumps the approximately 0.1% my conservative estimate offered, to say nothing of the 0.0004% rate of fraudulent voting. Hell, leave just 1/10th of those as “actually unable to get ID”, and it STILL trumps my 0.1%.
Huh. Well, that’s pretty damning, isn’t it?
For the record, Uzi, what percentage of those without ID do you think lack it because it is incredibly problematic for them to acquire it?
And suddenly, on election day, those with two or three jobs, find both the time and the money to go vote? How can they not find the time and money to go get an ID in an entire four-year period, when they can do so on election day?
Also, instead of statistics, do you guys have any specific example of an interview with an actual person who says “I, John Doe, don’t have time or money to get an ID and will not be able to vote if voter ID laws are enacted” ? Instead of postulating that such people must exist, can you provide a specific example of at least one?
2, Vivette Applewhite
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-784402
You know, the “They’re just making shit up!” approach usually fails, but you can always check before you try it.
As much as anything, it looks to me that the ‘Voter Fraud’ issue has been thrown up as a “Shiny Object Over Here” by the Conservatives to take focus away from the real problem of ‘Election Fraud’.
Which just happens to be something they seem to be really practiced at. They don’t care that much about who votes - just what Diebold Machine counts 'em.
I specifically asked
"do you guys have any specific example of an interview with an actual person who says “I, John Doe, don’t have time or money to get an ID and will not be able to vote if voter ID laws are enacted” ?
Your example above is not an example of someone who doesn’t have time or money to get an ID. Again, I was looking for an example of the mythical three-job minimum-wage poor schlub who can’t find any time in a four year period to go get an ID.
(In the particular example you cited, she wants to get an ID, and seems to have the time and money to do so, but can’t due to birth certificate issues. Outside of the issue of voting, if someone wants to get an ID for whatever reason, but is in the situation she is in, what are her options?)
Your cite says “some states”. What about all the other states that don’t have such protections for workers? How do they magically find time on that one day (as well as finding the money for the bus ride or gas for their car) when they can’t find any time or money during the four years before the election to go get an ID?
You have a lot of trouble imagining complex scenarios, don’t you?
I guess you don’t believe in incentives. The point is to make it harder to vote. If you do that, some people will not vote. Just like if I put your refrigerator in your attic, you’d eat less.
If only there was some way that those who can’t easily get to their polling place could still cast a ballot . . . maybe someday. 
:rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
The solution to this is left as an exercise to the reader.
Sure, as many as you can provide of people who have been caught voting who were not eligible to do so, but would have been prevented by implementing the ID law you support.
And, since *you *want to make the change, you know who gets to go first? 
As a followup…
There are essentially three things that matter here.
The first is the percentage of people lacking ID who lack ID because it is unreasonably problematic for them to get it. This could mean that they’d need to take time they can’t really afford to take, or need to spend money that they can’t afford, or simply cannot get to the DMV for whatever reason. Let’s call this “X”.
The second is the margin of error on the investigations present in the field of voter fraud. Maybe some cases were missed, maybe certain districts weren’t combed well enough, and maybe there are issues. Let’s call this “Y”.
The third is how much more important it is to you that fraudulent voters are stopped than legitimate voters are ensured to be able to vote. Let’s call this “Z”.
Then you plug those numbers into this formula:
X * 0.1 * A – 0.000004 * Y * A * Z ≥ 0
A is the population of the USA. So basically what we have here is the percentage of people who simply cannot get voter ID (X * 0.1; 0.1 is the ratio of people who don’t have photo ID) times the total population, minus the rate of voter fraud times the total population times the margin for error, times the degree of importance of voter fraud compared to voter disenfranchisement.
If this equation is not true, then voter ID laws hurt the integrity of elections, rather than helping them.
Let’s make something clear right off the bat. If Z is anything other than “1”, then you are wrong, and you have the missed the point of voter fraud legislation completely. If X or Y are extremely small or large coefficients, then you’re going to need to explain why, preferably with real evidence.
Actually, you can kinda simplify this:
X * 0.1 * A = 0.000004 * Y * A * 1
X = 0.00004 * Y * 1
X / Y = 0.00004
So basically, given the knowledge that we have, in order for voter ID laws to make sense, the rate of people who simply cannot get photo ID for whatever reason, divided by the rate of error of the current investigations must be 0.00004. I’d be willing to take people’s word for it that X is something like 1%, but not that it’s something like 0.001% unless someone could actually provide evidence. Similarly, I’d believe that voter fraud detection is off by a factor of maybe 5 or 10, but not a thousand. Not without very good evidence.
I do not care if the general public is in favor of voter ID laws – if they make elections less representative, they are wrong and must be stopped at any cost, the public opinion be damned. We don’t let people vote on voting rights.
So, class, any questions?
In a way, yes, we do, and yes, we did. We decided that they have them.
Apparently I am, all those other countries who have voter ID laws, and about 75% of your own population are against democracy. That is the will of the people. Nor is it an unreasonable request. It is not saying that you must be white to vote, or that you must hold land to vote, it is saying that you have simple proof of who you are when you attempt to vote.
You have amazing rose colored glasses there. When you prove that people can’t find the time or the money to get an ID in a 4 year period, then you might have a point let alone a valid one.
Yes. How did you get to be the teacher here? You are the same person who says the only criteria for voting should be a citizen of the country they are voting in and then says that having them prove that citizenship is too onerous or complex a task for people to accomplish.
When 75% of the people think voter ID laws are reasonable, then it should be your problem, too. So, rather than railing against them, and alienating a whole bunch of actual voters, it would make a whole lot of sense to be part of the solution.
Um, dude, the solution to the promulgation of ignorance is to *fight *that ignorance, not surrender to it.
Now do read the thread. It *might *help you grasp the topic. At this point I’d bet against it, though.