If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   New curbs on voter registration could hurt President Obama, make sense   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 359
    More: Spiffy, President Obama, Republican George W. Bush, voter registration, League of Women Voters, New York University School of Law, Brian Darling, Djokovic, Rock the Vote  
•       •       •

3085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 7:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 08:18:14 PM

SkinnyHead: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

What about that Ninth Circuit case (Gonzalez v. State of Arizona) that came out last week where the court held that an Arizona law requiring voters to show ID at the polls is not a poll tax and does not violate equal protection?


Fine. Then issue a free ID to everyone on their 18th birthday,
 
2012-04-21 08:20:15 PM

nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.


Since you're a true non-partisan, you can see how objectively there is no voter fraud problem in America sufficient to justify this kind of nationwide legislative drive to restrict voting. In that case, you should do what rational people do, and think "since there isn't really a problem here, those seeking to restrict voting must have some other motive for doing it." What could that motive be?
 
2012-04-21 08:21:19 PM

LordJiro: SkinnyHead: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

What about that Ninth Circuit case (Gonzalez v. State of Arizona) that came out last week where the court held that an Arizona law requiring voters to show ID at the polls is not a poll tax and does not violate equal protection?

Fine. Then issue a free ID to everyone on their 18th birthday,


Or just add a photo to the voter registration card. Tada.
 
2012-04-21 08:22:17 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is the equivalent of preventing 5 million people from going to the beach because there might be a shark attack.

We should make it as easy as possible to vote.


::begin unrelated::

I grew up loving Jaws (it never scared me just fascinated me), read everything by Benchley, tons of books about sharks, and I am just absolutely paranoid of shark attacks. I wish more people took proper precautions when they go to the beach. You wouldn't walk into a jungle wearing only sun screen, why do the same into the environment for an apex predator?

::end unrelated::

/even just a picture of a great white gives me shivers, I farking love sharks and the couple of marine biologists on fark that post awesome pictures from time to time
//I agree with your post
///have you visited the "tequila bar" that replaced gargoyles on the square?
 
2012-04-21 08:25:48 PM

namatad: Richard Saunders: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act.... As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection

Except not.

/state's rights

States do not have the right to disenfranchise voters, esp not in federal elections. Funny how there are still states controlled by the feds under the voting rights act. Would be funnier to watch addition states added to the list.

/why do tards continue to think that states' rights implies that states can break the US constitution?? LOL


Because they still think it's "These United States" and not "The United States" methinks. We had a little war that decided who trumped whom about 150 years ago. Tenthers lost.
 
2012-04-21 08:26:13 PM
My wife and I just got new voter registration cards today, thanks to the GOP gerrymandering our voting district. It's got our address, party affiliation, names and when we registered. When we go vote, we only have to speak our name and our address. When I asked the voting official why we didn't have to show ID, she said "you did when you registered, and as long as you're still at that same address then there's no need for a voter ID".

/makes sense to me
//GOP wants voter ID's to "stop voter fraud"
///but can't show there's ever been any
 
2012-04-21 08:27:59 PM
Oh Lordy them colored folks are votin' for that no good kenyan muslim just because he promises welfare handouts payed for by my hard earned tax dollars. I bet if we do some investigatin' we will find that most of them aren't even registered voters.
 
2012-04-21 08:30:17 PM

bugontherug: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

Since you're a true non-partisan, you can see how objectively there is no voter fraud problem in America sufficient to justify this kind of nationwide legislative drive to restrict voting. In that case, you should do what rational people do, and think "since there isn't really a problem here, those seeking to restrict voting must have some other motive for doing it." What could that motive be?


I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID? I understand your argument that the amount of fraud, if any, is so small as to not require such legislation. I tend to agree, BUT, I see the argument from the other side as being similarly weak. How many people really don't find voting to be important enough to figure out a way to get to a building on one afternoon to pick up a free piece of plastic?

tl;dr
Accepting the premise that voter fraud is almost non-existent, how pervasive is the inability to go pick up a free ID?
 
2012-04-21 08:31:00 PM

TsukasaK: cptjeff: That ID costs money,

No it doesn't. If you're getting an ID for the purposes of voting, it's free or else the requirement is unconstitutional as a poll tax.

/no issue with voter ID laws with the condition on the above line.


Most of these laws require a driver's license or similar, not the card you get by registering to vote. Those very much DO have a fee.

\You're not as informed on this as you think.
 
2012-04-21 08:31:31 PM
BRING BACK THE POLL TAX!!!
 
2012-04-21 08:33:28 PM

PonceAlyosha: LordJiro: SkinnyHead: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

What about that Ninth Circuit case (Gonzalez v. State of Arizona) that came out last week where the court held that an Arizona law requiring voters to show ID at the polls is not a poll tax and does not violate equal protection?

Fine. Then issue a free ID to everyone on their 18th birthday,

Or just add a photo to the voter registration card. Tada.


But that's not how these laws are structured. Why? Because they're not actually about fraud, they're about controlling who votes.

\This post exists because it's apparent that you really need to spell this out for some people...
 
2012-04-21 08:34:07 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: This is the equivalent of preventing 5 million people from going to the beach because there might be a shark attack.

We should make it as easy as possible to vote.


"I think that I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and BITES YOU ON THE ASS!"

/Seriously though, I agree with you.
 
2012-04-21 08:35:57 PM

FloydA:
The thing is, even if they did that, they wouldn't prevent any significant voter fraud, because falsely voting under someone else's name cannot be done in sufficient numbers to sway an election without getting caught. The only kind of voter fraud that can actually sway elections involves fraudulent vote counting, which voter IDs won't prevent.


In 2007, the Brennan Center released The Truth About Voter Fraud, the most extensive analysis of voter fraud claims to date. The report finds that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless-and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct, rather than fraud by individual voters.

It's 50 pages but well worth the read if you care about this issue.
 
2012-04-21 08:36:07 PM

birdboy2000: Diebold


Nothing to see here. Move along citizen.
 
2012-04-21 08:36:55 PM

cptjeff: TsukasaK: cptjeff: That ID costs money,

No it doesn't. If you're getting an ID for the purposes of voting, it's free or else the requirement is unconstitutional as a poll tax.

/no issue with voter ID laws with the condition on the above line.

Most of these laws require a driver's license or similar, not the card you get by registering to vote. Those very much DO have a fee.

\You're not as informed on this as you think.


The ones I have seen require a birth certificate (or similar) and something showing current address (water bill, for example). Both of which are free.
 
2012-04-21 08:37:02 PM

Silly Jesus: I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID?


I didn't just make up that 5 million number earlier.

Link, .pdf
 
2012-04-21 08:38:07 PM
Republicans must be really scared of an Obama victory to resort to shady tactics like this. What, he isn't a bad enough President to simply lose in a fair election?

Pussies.
 
2012-04-21 08:38:13 PM

fusillade762: BRING BACK THE POLL TAX!!!


This!!!
 
2012-04-21 08:39:20 PM

Silly Jesus: bugontherug: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

Since you're a true non-partisan, you can see how objectively there is no voter fraud problem in America sufficient to justify this kind of nationwide legislative drive to restrict voting. In that case, you should do what rational people do, and think "since there isn't really a problem here, those seeking to restrict voting must have some other motive for doing it." What could that motive be?

I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID? I understand your argument that the amount of fraud, if any, is so small as to not require such legislation. I tend to agree, BUT, I see the argument from the other side as being similarly weak. How many people really don't find voting to be important enough to figure out a way to get to a building on one afternoon to pick up a free piece of plastic?

tl;dr
Accepting the premise that voter fraud is almost non-existent, how pervasive is the inability to go pick up a free ID?


In Wisconsin, for example, governor Walker closed motor vehicle offices in areas used primarily by the very poor, almost immediately after imposing ID requirements. If you're very-say, disabled and living on $700/month plus food stamps-even a trip to get a "free" ID can be burdensome. Of course, with Republican plans to slash Social Security, food stamps, and other social services to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, disabled people living on $700/month and food stamps will be highly impacted by the coming election. Maybe that has something to do with GOP make voting more difficult.

Many no doubt will manage the burden, and do what is required to vote. But some won't, and in a 50/50 nation, where elections are decided by a handful of votes in key states, a few thousand votes here and there can make all the difference

tl;dr:

Yes. There are millions of Americans so poor even going to the registration office to get a picture taken can be burdensome. .
 
2012-04-21 08:39:56 PM
This is a very good policy paper on the issue too Link
 
2012-04-21 08:40:39 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID?

I didn't just make up that 5 million number earlier.

Link, .pdf


Ah someone already posted it. Well still it's a good read.
 
2012-04-21 08:41:03 PM

GAT_00: Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.


So someone showing how they were literally stealing Eric Holder's ballot and voting in his stead didn't happen?

It's like having a bank that doesn't record any financial transactions or doesn't require an ID to make a withdrawal telling you that they have had zero incidents of theft.

You have an insane level of faith that a system with no verification is incapable of being messed with.
 
2012-04-21 08:45:03 PM

Mrbogey: So someone showing how they were literally stealing Eric Holder's ballot and voting in his stead didn't happen?


Not a single one of his videos have been truthful. So, no, I don't think it did happen.
 
2012-04-21 08:46:33 PM

Mrbogey: You have an insane level of faith


Says the guy taking James O'Keefe's videos as gospel
 
2012-04-21 08:50:06 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID?

I didn't just make up that 5 million number earlier.

Link, .pdf


Thank you. I skimmed it to start with, it's 64 pages.

This was right at the beginning in the summary section (emphasis mine)... "These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to
cast ballots in 2012."

It also noted that they are taking into consideration not only voter ID requirements but changes in early voting and changes in restrictions from voting for criminals. So the theoretical 5 million number is actually composed of at least three different things. I haven't yet found how it's weighted. It could be that 4.95 million of it is due to the changes in voting for criminals, for example. I'm not saying that this weighting is realistic, but just pointing out that not knowing that fact could make this already theoretical paper completely meaningless as far as voter ID's are concerned.
 
2012-04-21 08:52:54 PM

Silly Jesus: This was right at the beginning in the summary section (emphasis mine)... "These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to
cast ballots in 2012."

It also noted that they are taking into consideration not only voter ID requirements but changes in early voting and changes in restrictions from voting for criminals. So the theoretical 5 million number is actually composed of at least three different things. I haven't yet found how it's weighted. It could be that 4.95 million of it is due to the changes in voting for criminals, for example. I'm not saying that this weighting is realistic, but just pointing out that not knowing that fact could make this already theoretical paper completely meaningless as far as voter ID's are concerned.



I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you are skeptical of the results.
 
2012-04-21 08:54:09 PM

bugontherug: Silly Jesus: bugontherug: nvmac: As a true non-partisan, I don't see the giant conspiracy from either side. Having said this, voting and never being asked to show your identification has always seemed odd to me. In my county, you have to sign a book, but my signature from the last election is in the book right next to where I'm supposed to sign, so that would be easy to mimic on the spot.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone else to corrupt my fence-sitting, middle-of-the-road, FARK Independent™ non-committal votes.

Since you're a true non-partisan, you can see how objectively there is no voter fraud problem in America sufficient to justify this kind of nationwide legislative drive to restrict voting. In that case, you should do what rational people do, and think "since there isn't really a problem here, those seeking to restrict voting must have some other motive for doing it." What could that motive be?

I'm not saying that such a study does not exist, but can you point me to one that shows that there is a significant impact on voter turnout if someone is asked to make the time during the course of the year to go pick up a free ID? I understand your argument that the amount of fraud, if any, is so small as to not require such legislation. I tend to agree, BUT, I see the argument from the other side as being similarly weak. How many people really don't find voting to be important enough to figure out a way to get to a building on one afternoon to pick up a free piece of plastic?

tl;dr
Accepting the premise that voter fraud is almost non-existent, how pervasive is the inability to go pick up a free ID?

In Wisconsin, for example, governor Walker closed motor vehicle offices in areas used primarily by the very poor, almost immediately after imposing ID requirements. If you're very-say, disabled and living on $700/month plus food stamps-even a trip to get a "free" ID can be burdensome. Of course, with Republican plans to slash Social Security, food stamps, and oth ...


Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.
 
2012-04-21 08:56:31 PM
It doesn't really matter. We keep voting in the same dumbshiats every election anyways.
 
2012-04-21 08:57:08 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: This was right at the beginning in the summary section (emphasis mine)... "These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to
cast ballots in 2012."

It also noted that they are taking into consideration not only voter ID requirements but changes in early voting and changes in restrictions from voting for criminals. So the theoretical 5 million number is actually composed of at least three different things. I haven't yet found how it's weighted. It could be that 4.95 million of it is due to the changes in voting for criminals, for example. I'm not saying that this weighting is realistic, but just pointing out that not knowing that fact could make this already theoretical paper completely meaningless as far as voter ID's are concerned.


I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you are skeptical of the results.


Wouldn't you be skeptical if I said that, IN THEORY, 5 million fraudulent votes will be cast? And on top of that threw two other data sets into that theoretical number?
 
2012-04-21 08:57:40 PM
If the voting ID side cared at all about this issue, they would post voting ID issuing kiosks at every voting site.

I'm reminded of the early south which used to have voting tests. You had to pass the test to be able to vote. White man walks in, and he just votes. Black man walks in, and he's faced with absolute nonsense words; can't make sense of words which never made sense to anyone, so he can't vote.

Voting ID is an attempt to make zero sense.
 
2012-04-21 09:00:16 PM

Silly Jesus: Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.


I'd like to see a study showing just how rampant voter fraud is in America.
 
2012-04-21 09:01:13 PM
Since we devolved into a democracy (see The Declaration of Independence; see also The Constitution), maybe the pendulum is swinging and we're evolving back to a republic.

I think making voters prove that they are somebody is a step in the right direction.
 
2012-04-21 09:02:26 PM

PonceAlyosha: LordJiro: SkinnyHead: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act.

Fine. Then issue a free ID to everyone on their 18th birthday,

Or just add a photo to the voter registration card. Tada.


Or if you really think it is an issue, get bottles of purple ink for each polling place, the solution we imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan
 
2012-04-21 09:03:23 PM

Tanishh: SpikeStrip: thought voter id's were free. and don't they allow for all sorts of proof of id?

No. I live in PA. We have a new photo ID law coming into play for the general election. As a student going to school in PA who is nonmilitary, the following IDs may be used: PA driver's license, passport, school ID with photo/name/expiration date, or a free PennDOT ID*.

I'm from NJ (~20 min from my school) so first option is out. Fortunately I have a passport, though I didn't until last November for a reason totally unrelated to voting. I go to one of the largest private schools in the nation and our IDs have no expiration date on them at all, so they are currently not valid. And the kicker is that the "free PennDOT photo ID" they offer is only given if you get rid of your out of state driver's license. Yeah, fark no.


I think I see your problem. You're going to school in Pennsylvania but you're holding onto your driver's license from New Jersey. That indicates that you're intending to return to New Jersey after your studies and are not a bona fide resident of Pennsylvania. If you truly wanted to demonstrate that you are a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, you'd turn in your DL from New Jersey and get a Pennsylvania license.

You're on thin ice when you claim to be a Pennsylvania resident for voting purposes, but a New Jersey resident for driving purposes. It generally doesn't work that way.
 
2012-04-21 09:05:29 PM
Republicans deliberately passing voter registration/ID requirements are obvious attempts to to disenfranchise more of the traditional Democratic base in order to rig the elections more in the GOPs favor.

Yet whenever I encounter the charge on American media there seems to be a false equivalency narrative where both sides, both reality and the "we're deeply concerned about voter fraud" side, are treated as equally viable.

I understand why the corporate MSM does this but why the Dems don't generate more legitimate outrage over this stuff continues to puzzle me.
 
2012-04-21 09:07:54 PM

Silly Jesus: Wouldn't you be skeptical if I said that, IN THEORY, 5 million fraudulent votes will be cast? And on top of that threw two other data sets into that theoretical number?


Maybe you can provide me with a study that I can skim and dismiss entirely, call theoretical and then ask for another study to verify the theoretical study I skimmed and dismissed.
 
2012-04-21 09:08:50 PM

bulldg4life: Silly Jesus: Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.

I'd like to see a study showing just how rampant voter fraud is in America.


Any study about fraud or disenfranchisement is going to be highly suspect, since the parties have sh*tloads at stake on the results, and wouldn't think twice about doing whatever they could to influence the research.

Why the hell don't we just use purple dye?
 
2012-04-21 09:12:03 PM

Spad31: GAT_00: Spad31: You're hedging your bet on non-ID having voters? You'd actually accept and encourage it if you believed the votes would go the other way? Horseshiat. Oh, and "Democratic" isn't the word you're looking for. If it's a non-issue, why the fark are you so riled by it?

And here's a guy who's just concern trolling and doesn't give a fark about the actual issues.

Really? Concern troll? Your best? You flatter yourself. Answer the questions, you complete farktard.


Wait a second...

You're not just trolling? You really do want to make it harder for Americans to vote?

Dude, that's f**ked up. Seriously. You should sue your elementary school civics teachers for malpractice.
 
2012-04-21 09:12:08 PM

SkinnyHead: GAT_00: One: voter IDs are illegal in 12 states by the Voting Rights Act. They were used then and they are being used now to restrict people they did not want voting. Then it was simply blacks. Today it is blacks, Latinos and college students, since all of those groups vote Democratic. As it is illegal in those states, it should be illegal nationwide by equal protection. It is also a poll tax, something else illegal.
Two: voter fraud is a gigantic made up boogeyman. It simply doesn't exist, no matter how much Republicans keep telling you otherwise.

What about that Ninth Circuit case (Gonzalez v. State of Arizona) that came out last week where the court held that an Arizona law requiring voters to show ID at the polls is not a poll tax and does not violate equal protection?


Elchip is at it again. It is time to hang up the spurs and let skinnyhead pass on to whatever afterlife awaits troll alts.
 
2012-04-21 09:12:56 PM

bulldg4life: Silly Jesus: Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.

I'd like to see a study showing just how rampant voter fraud is in America.


I'm accepting that premise that it isn't widespread or rampant, but, I'm not, without any evidence, accepting the premise that disenfranchisement IS widespread or rampant.

If neither one is in reality a big deal then the arguments for both sides of the issue are b.s.
 
2012-04-21 09:15:19 PM

Silly Jesus: If neither one is in reality a big deal then the arguments for both sides of the issue are b.s.


So, if that is the case, we should just go ahead and spend the millions of dollars, possibly disenfranchising millions, to possibly solve a probably non-existent problem?

Sounds brilliant.
 
2012-04-21 09:15:24 PM

QU!RK1019: Why the hell don't we just use purple dye?


Because actual cases of that type of voter fraud in the past couple decades can be counted on one hand.
 
2012-04-21 09:16:00 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: Wouldn't you be skeptical if I said that, IN THEORY, 5 million fraudulent votes will be cast? And on top of that threw two other data sets into that theoretical number?

Maybe you can provide me with a study that I can skim and dismiss entirely, call theoretical and then ask for another study to verify the theoretical study I skimmed and dismissed.


They stated that it was theoretical on the first page of the study summary. They did a study that concluded that a certain set of laws MAY disenfranchise a certain amount of people. You think that I should accept that as evidence that 5 million people WILL be disenfranchised?
 
2012-04-21 09:16:39 PM

bulldg4life: Silly Jesus: Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.

I'd like to see a study showing just how rampant voter fraud is in America.


Aren't you fortunate that Gwendolyn: posted exactly what you requested, just up thread? Here it is again, in case you missed it.


(I don't actually expect that you'll read it this time either, but I am eternally an optimist.)
 
2012-04-21 09:18:32 PM

FloydA: (I don't actually expect that you'll read it this time either, but I am eternally an optimist.)


I'm not arguing that it is an issue...I was making a comment to mirror Jesus's comment.
 
2012-04-21 09:19:23 PM

QU!RK1019: bulldg4life: Silly Jesus: Again, not saying that this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a study that shows just how many people are unable to vote due to these restrictions. A theoretical one was posted upthread, but I would be curious to see some citation verifying that as many people are being disenfranchised as is being claimed.

I'd like to see a study showing just how rampant voter fraud is in America.

Any study about fraud or disenfranchisement is going to be highly suspect, since the parties have sh*tloads at stake on the results, and wouldn't think twice about doing whatever they could to influence the research.

Why the hell don't we just use purple dye?


The biggest reason is that one party has a vested interest in keeping a lot of people from voting for a certain party. The Republican party knows damn well that people that think in the batshiat way that the present form of the party does is a rapidly shrinking number, and they will do anything they can to tip the scales in their favor. Changing voter laws and requiring ID that was never needed before is the best way of disenfranchising a large number of people (mostly the poor, disabled and elderly...as well as many 1st time youth voters). The dye on the finger will keep 1 vote to 1 person, but the present day Republicans really don't want it that way. They only want a certain segment of the population to have the right to vote.

I'm not going to say that the Dems haven't pulled their share of shady shiat in the past, but there has been nothing on this level of voter disenfranchisement done by the Democratic party as long as I've been following politics (and that's near to 30 years now).
 
2012-04-21 09:19:41 PM

bulldg4life: Silly Jesus: If neither one is in reality a big deal then the arguments for both sides of the issue are b.s.

So, if that is the case, we should just go ahead and spend the millions of dollars, possibly disenfranchising millions, to possibly solve a probably non-existent problem?

Sounds brilliant.


I think that if it can be shown that there are very few fraudulent votes and very few people disenfranchised by trying to prevent those few fraudulent votes then it's a bit of a stalemate. I still find it a bit absurd though that it takes more ID to rent a movie at Blockbuster than it does to vote for the president, so I might err on the side of the voter ID out of principle.
 
2012-04-21 09:20:31 PM

bulldg4life:

I'm not arguing that it is an issue...I was making a comment to mirror Jesus's comment.


My apologies; apparently I misinterpreted the intent of your post.
 
2012-04-21 09:21:38 PM

Silly Jesus: Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: Wouldn't you be skeptical if I said that, IN THEORY, 5 million fraudulent votes will be cast? And on top of that threw two other data sets into that theoretical number?

Maybe you can provide me with a study that I can skim and dismiss entirely, call theoretical and then ask for another study to verify the theoretical study I skimmed and dismissed.

They stated that it was theoretical on the first page of the study summary. They did a study that concluded that a certain set of laws MAY disenfranchise a certain amount of people. You think that I should accept that as evidence that 5 million people WILL be disenfranchised?


Well, considering the only way to do anything other than a theoretical study is to hold an election where the results actually affect people's lives, yeah, you should.

Theoretical does not mean it's guesswork. They take actual data, like driver's license ownership rates in specific demographics, and then the use some more data, like voter turnout data, to estimate how much of that population these rules will affect. Believe it or not, we do have means to extrapolate related data to future events.
 
2012-04-21 09:21:45 PM

Silly Jesus: I think that if it can be shown that there are very few fraudulent votes and very few people disenfranchised by trying to prevent those few fraudulent votes then it's a bit of a stalemate.


So, if it is a stalemate, then legislation like this is a pointless waste of money with an alternate objective.

Silly Jesus: I still find it a bit absurd though that it takes more ID to rent a movie at Blockbuster than it does to vote for the president, so I might err on the side of the voter ID out of principle.


Well, if it were a felony to falsely rent a blockbuster movie, I'd agree with you.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report