OK, sure, why not be generous? But it seems to me events have rendered this argument outdated. Cats out of the bag now, further developments from the Pubbies have shown their clear intention, which is to use whatever legal maneuver to reduce the number of Dem voters.
With voter ID they had some scant shadow of respectability, what with “voter confidence” and the barely possible threat of an election thrown off course by the merest handful of illegal voters. That ain’t much, but reducing early voting? Making voter registration drives difficult and legally suspect? Reducing the option for polling places to stay open to accommodate voters? What has any of this to do with voter fraud? Zip, zilch, zero, nada damn thing!
They’ve been on about voter fraud for years and years, even sent federal attorneys on a nation-wide snipe hunt, with predictable results. Now, that may have even been sincere, if misguided. They may truly believe that they are the majority of Americans, and this may be the only way the can rationalize the stubborn refusal of facts to align with their beliefs.
But they’ve thrown all that aside, the are blatant and obvious now. The clear purpose of these efforts as made so obvious in Texas and N. Carolina is to reduce the number of people who vote Dem. They’re not even pretending anymore. We got the power to do it, you can’t stop us, legal, Constitutional, neener neener and fuck you.
What an odd question Saint Cad. 1a is made irrelevent by the fact that most places don’t have requirements for ID and 1b is made irrelevent by the fact that most courts have thus far blocked those laws. And lest you think that means we cannot say it would hurt, it is absolutely irrefutable that putting any kind of restriction, whether its IDs or whatever, would reduce the voters by a certain amount. Given the amount of people we know who don’t have IDs, the restrictions on where and how much it takes to get one, we also know irrefutably that such restrictions would be primarily on the lower class. Compare that hypothetical amount to the less-than-a-handful of cases of voter fraud and you’ll see why its silly to focus on voter IDs as a basis for reducing voter fraud
Now that I’ve answered your question, why don’t you answer mine? If you want to reduce voter fraud, why don’t you focus on the much larger number of people disenfranchised by strict voter laws? Hell, people always accuse Democrats of ignoring voter fraud right? I have an idea to reduce it! Allow same-day voter registration (when you register to vote, you have to submit identification information), expand hours and days of early voting for all voters (the earlier they start collecting votes, the more time they have to check on fraud!), eliminate closed-box electronic voting systems (because we don’t know how the system works or when it gets hacked), institute proper paper trails even once electronic voting is certified (again, to reduce mistakes in voting), make voter ID free and sent out to people instead of having them come get it, and allow people to get ID at polling locations (to be verified later). I guarantee you that by doing that, you’ll reduce the chances of voter fraud. Isn’t that a great idea?
Its a worthy question, NeuroNibbler, but how? It would require a staff of experienced data geeks, asking a whole bunch of questions to just about every jurisdiction in the country, unless someone else had a reason to accumulate it. (And the money to pay the aforementioned staff of data geeks).
And keep in mind that the potential negative impact of such facts might well inspire some local officials to delay, obstruct, or fudge. And, if they don’t want to tell you, can you make them? And if they totally made up a bunch of shit, how would you know?
You go to the Republicans who engineered this craptasm and ask “In round numbers, how many American citizens did you fuck out of their rights? Broken down by race, ethnicity and age, if that’s not too much trouble…”
Where do you get the “huge numbers” argument when you don’t even know how many are actually disenfranchised by voter ID laws?
We get this every fucking thread. You Dems claim huge numbers of disenfrachisement and when forced to back up the “huge number” premise you are unable to come up with any sort of numbers to back that up. Why don’t answer my question. How many US citizen are unable to meet their state’s current or proposed voter ID laws?
GIVE ME A NUMBER!
How many people being unable to meet their state’s current or proposed voter ID laws would make you uncomfortable with said laws? I’ve never seen an answer to that question from a pro-VID person, that I can recall.
I know I should say one is enough but that doesn’t go both ways. When evidence is presented of people denied voting right because someone else voted under their name it is dismissed as a minor problem. So in retort, how many people denied their vote due to voter fraud preventable by voter ID is too much?
One major issue left unaddressed is the question of whether people that cannot meet the strict ID laws cannot honestly get ID as opposed to those that just don’t have ID but could get it if they wanted. And I will point out that in a previous thread on this, it was ONLY Republicans who proposed the real problem is not the law per se but the fact that people can get proper ID. ONLY Republicans on the SD have said that we need to ensure everyone who wants an ID can get one free of charge (including getting necessary records). No Dem on the board has proposed that solution.
How about we get the numbers before you challenge our views. So what is the number?
I’ll try and answer your questions, but the way you phrase things doesn’t allow for explanation, as if you think the answers to your questions are facts, when in fact they are complex questions requiring complex answers. In fact, you seem to be trying to ask “loaded questions”, which makes any desire to engage you somewhat less palpable. But I’ll try anyway.
Any voter fraud should be unacceptable, but the prevention of voter fraud should not also prevent people from voting.
Actually, there have been proposals that include ways to prevent voter fraud that would require no hardship or expense on the part of the voter. I don’t know if they were proposed by a D or an R, but taking fingerprints, retina scans or other biometrics would ensure that no voter had to bring anything with them to prove their identity other than themselves. Why does it matter at all whether it was proposed by a D or an R? Are you keeping some sort of score?
I don’t know the number, which is a seemingly factual answer you are looking for. I’m sorry that I don’t know that nor can I find it easily by googling for it. Do you feel that my not knowing that number somehow means that any concerns I have or arguments I might make are invalid? Why?
OTOH, the question I asked you asks for your opinion, not a fact. Are you unable to locate your opinion, even by googling? :dubious:
What’s your larger argument here, St. C? The voter id hassles are now pretty small beer next to the full court press we are seeing wherever Pubbies hold the state lege. Are you saying you recognize that effort to protect political power by sordid means, but voter id isn’t part of it? Or do you deny there is any such effort at all?
Because if its “Yeah, they’re doing it but no, voter id isn’t part of it, so I win!”…Well really, what’s the point?
My point is that your side has no clue how many are affected except for some nebulous claim that it is a “huge number” - a claim your side refuses to back up with actual numbers.
I agree rationality is an objective concept. I am saying that a Voter ID requirement to combat voter fraud (where in person voting accounts for a small handful of voter fraud that occurs, absentee ballots being a far greater problem) is irrational, its like passing an AWB so that you can reduce gun violence.
I’m pretty sure he was attacking your argument not you.
Very small handful of in person voter ID fraud, millions of people who have to go through extra hoops to vote.
Lets say the only voter ID that was accepted was a foodstamp card OR a card you could get at select check cashing places?
We have ballpark numbers don’t we?
We are never going to know how many votes were suppressed with the new voter ID laws but the number of in person voter ID fraud versus eligible voters who don’t have ID is pretty lopsided.
I am opposed to forest fires. Am I obliged to tell you precisely how many trees will be burned before you will accept that forest fires are bad? Or should we simply accept your bland suggestion that such fires are an excellent means to prevent unicorn stampedes?
Nonetheless, we thank you for your forthright and direct evasion of the question. It tells us more about the integrity of your argument than you may realize.
First of all, how many Republicans have given us concrete numbers about how much voter fraud occurs? Given the fact that Voter ID Laws are a Republican thing, you’d think you guys could back it up with facts. Of the handful of actual voter fraud cases, at least a few of them were perpetuated by Republicans either testing out the system to try to prove a point and got caught or Republicans tossing out voter registration rolls or faking them, or simply registering only Republicans. So really, I don’t have to show you squat to prove the argument that Voter ID Laws would affect lots of people because putting any kind of restrictions on voting would affect turnout. Republicans haven’t given one fucking argument that proves voter fraud happens (except that Republicans are doing it) so the burden of proof is not on Democrats at all.
However, I’m a masochist, and so I will provide you some numbers. Yet they come with a caveat. Respond or not, I don’t care, but if you do reply to this post, know that I will simply ignore your response unless it includes a sufficient reply to the above paragraph. It would be laughable that you expect me to continue on this debate of non-existent Democratic voter fraud when Republicans are the ones doing it, so either you address it first from your side or ignore it completely.
Anyways, given that so many voter ID laws were blocked or happening only in Red States, with Pennsylvania the only real swing state that its been really implemented (before a court blocked it), its pretty clear that it is a Republican lead effort to try to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Put any kind of restrictions in front of voting and it will reduce the turnout, that’s just fact. And given that paucity of real voter fraud cases (except when it comes from Republicans), we see that voter ID laws are really not necessary. When it is implemented, with photo ID’s that many of the poor and racial minorities don’t have, it will disenfranchise untold millions of people. That IDs are disproportionately non-existent in those two groups of people, and that those two groups disproportionately vote Democratic is fact irrefutable.
Of course, the great Nate Silver is a little more generous, but even still, in his July 2012 column, he addresses the issue:
2 percent. Or, if implemented in all states in 2012, amounts to 2 percent of 129,069,194 people, or 2,581,383. Can you find me a tenth of voter fraud cases that would be worth it to have voter ID laws disenfranchise this amount of people? How about 1/20th, or 1/100th? And even if you don’t believe me, believe it when Nate sums up the issue thus:
Where is the justification to disenfranchise even half of those 2.5 million people? Do you really think of 2.5 million people were prevented from voting when legally allowed to, that its just water under the bridge, or it’ll balance things out in the end? Considering Democrats have won the last 5 out of 6 popular votes, its no question these laws target Democrats. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.
But fine, if you don’t trust my numbers, trust Nate’s. Here’s his analysis of Pennsylvania (remember this was done in July 2012 and ultimately, the law was blocked so this analysis didn’t come into affect):
So 2 or 3 percent out of the approximately 8.3 million voters in that state amounts to 166000 to 249000 voters. That’s how many JUST IN PENNSYLVANIA your laws would affect. You want to know number? Those are your numbers. That’s why voter ID laws are stupid, should be illegal, disenfranchise voters, disproportionately affect Democrats, and is completely and utterly unnecessary. Unless you’re a Republican operative who has no morals (redundant) and would do anything to win.
Next time you come back, bring pie, and bring a reason why 2 percent of voters need to be disenfranchised to achieve your dream of voter ID laws in every state that hurts a lot more people than it “protects”. Cue me laughing if any of your response is something to the effect of “Nate Silver (who got 50/50 right in his projections, and was the most accurate pollster out there since he started doing this) is wrong”
By the way, I will accept an answer of “I don’t care, I just want Republicans to win at any cost”. Short, honest, and inarguable
"do not have ID’ does not equal “cannot get ID”. We expect people to get ID to do a whole host of things, and have zero sympathy for them when they try to do those things without having ID. The only reason for voting to be an exception is if you are motivated by partisan considerations.
Courts have consistently upheld voter ID laws when they do not constitute a poll tax by requiring voters to purchase an ID. States can either give non-DL ID to citizens for free, or they can take alternative forms of identification, like a utility bill. Next you’re going to complain that these laws disenfranchise people without electricity.
We are fortunate, indeed, that the Republicans are so pure of heart that such sordid motivations are beneath them. Not only are they willing to protect us from voter fraud, they are quick to protect us from the horrors of early voting, and the potential disaster of League of Women Voters registration drives. God alone knows what those Trotskyist harpies are up to!
Unless you’re planning on giving me numbers, then I will continue to assert that millions more people who would be affected by this will continue to be affected by it, disenfranchising them through no fault of their own, creating barriers to legal voting that shouldn’t be there, all because of a handful of voter fraud cases mostly perpetuated by Republicans. Or you can just say you don’t mind Democratic voters being disproportionately affected, which is what has already been stated by those Republicans in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
