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.

(CNN)   "If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov"   (cnn.com) divider line 117
    More: Interesting, Texas, id laws, editor-at-large, Hidalgo County, PJ Media, Texas Department of Public Safety, voter ID, University of Texas  
•       •       •

1934 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2013 at 6:45 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 04:42:30 AM
Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...
 
2013-11-13 06:46:34 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...


Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.
 
2013-11-13 06:49:14 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...


In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.
 
2013-11-13 06:53:33 AM
FTFA: Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media.
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-11-13 06:53:45 AM

whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.


"Every time Dave tries to clean the house, the dog knocks over the mop bucket, and then Dave has to re clean everything, and we're back where we started. God damn that dog, and Dave!"
 
2013-11-13 06:55:38 AM

whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.


They ARE about voter suppression, using the excuse of fraud.

But the removal of voting places in strategic areas, reduction in early voting times, eliminating voting on Sundays and other strategic voting restrictions are more problematic than the ID laws. Probably.
 
2013-11-13 06:57:27 AM

Eddie Barzoom: whistleridge: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression, and they aren't about fraud. They're just a stone to push back and forth and fight over, in lieu of actual governance.

"Every time Dave tries to clean the house, the dog knocks over the mop bucket, and then Dave has to re clean everything, and we're back where we started. God damn that dog, and Dave!"


In general, no. In this instance, yes.

Note: as I'm sure others in this thread will note, he rather suspiciously failed to cite voter demographics. Until and unless those bear up as well, not only did he not make his claim, he actually proved the argument for the other side.

/ still doesn't make this any less of a BS distraction for the lack of jobs bills, infrastructure repairs, etc that we actually need.
 
2013-11-13 06:58:57 AM
FTFA: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

Specifically, women and minority votes (especially elderly in those categories). Nobody said that the local Tea Parties wouldn't get all their constituents out to vote... and the increase in voter turnout is about the same as national average.

And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.

img.fark.net

Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.
 
2013-11-13 07:00:12 AM
There is no "if".  That is the purpose of the laws.

And TFA seems to think that because turnout was up, the law had no effect because such as for example potato.
 
2013-11-13 07:04:36 AM

clkeagle: FTFA: And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.

Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.


There are three voters in that photo.  Two are white men, one is a Hispanic woman.  If one of the white men was swapped out for a racial minority/woman, then the latter demographics would be overrepresented.

Generalizing about Texas based on a photo of three people is derp.
 
2013-11-13 07:06:02 AM

clkeagle: FTFA: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

Specifically, women and minority votes (especially elderly in those categories). Nobody said that the local Tea Parties wouldn't get all their constituents out to vote... and the increase in voter turnout is about the same as national average.

And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.

[img.fark.net image 640x360]

Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.


Im assuming thats because of the minority woman in the background voting.
 
2013-11-13 07:08:38 AM
word salad.
 
2013-11-13 07:09:26 AM
If only there were evidence of some Republican official in Pennsylvania claiming that the voter ID law was going to lock up the state for Romney.
 
2013-11-13 07:13:19 AM
Lowering taxes raises revenue
Starting wars promotes peace
Controlling lady parts guarantees religious freedom
Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege
Government "slimdown" is a good thing, closing war monuments an abomination by thugs
Obama caused the shutdown
Jimmy Carter caused the Great Recession
Voter ID prevents voter fraud
 
2013-11-13 07:14:56 AM

Captain Dan: There are three voters in that photo.  Two are white men, one is a Hispanic woman.  If one of the white men was swapped out for a racial minority/woman, then the latter demographics would be overrepresented.


Brophdog88: Im assuming thats because of the minority woman in the background voting.


Looks more blurry than Hispanic to me. How are you two making that determination?
 
2013-11-13 07:16:11 AM

UNC_Samurai: If only there were evidence of some Republican official in Pennsylvania claiming that the voter ID law was going to lock up the state for Romney.


No, you see that only applied to Romney. There was a specific VoterId-Romney correlation. Now that Romney isn't running that doesn't apply and VoterID laws certainly won't keep anyone away from the polls.
 
2013-11-13 07:18:15 AM

DarnoKonrad: word salad.


~~Darno, stop trying to make word salad happen! It's not going to happen!
 
2013-11-13 07:18:53 AM
I watched 30% of voters get suppressed while I was at the polling station.

Republicans love Anecdata so much, there's some.
 
2013-11-13 07:19:28 AM
 
2013-11-13 07:21:03 AM

Ed Grubermann: FTFA: Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


CNN just doesn't' have any credibility to lose now.
 
2013-11-13 07:21:12 AM

thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.


...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.
 
2013-11-13 07:21:45 AM
What a douche. He uses raw numbers to reach a statistical conclusion. That's so farking dumb it could've only come from Texas.
 
2013-11-13 07:22:17 AM

clkeagle: FTFA: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

Specifically, women and minority votes (especially elderly in those categories). Nobody said that the local Tea Parties wouldn't get all their constituents out to vote... and the increase in voter turnout is about the same as national average.

And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.

[img.fark.net image 640x360]

Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.


Is the election official staking her out to make sure she doesn't vote twice?
 
2013-11-13 07:23:01 AM

Millennium: because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught,


Or it would mean that there's very little voter impersonation fraud happening.

The total lack of evidence only proves how much is really happening? Okay.
 
2013-11-13 07:25:24 AM

whistleridge: In other news, both sides are full of shiat. The ID laws aren't about voter suppression


Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai  last year: "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done".

Liberals aren't the only people who think voter ID laws are intended to suppress votes.
 
2013-11-13 07:28:49 AM

Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.


No one who says that voter ID laws are bad is asking for "widespread" evidence of fraud preventable by these new laws.  We're asking for enough cases to come within at least a few orders of magnitude of the number of people affected by these new laws.
 
2013-11-13 07:31:20 AM

thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.


Well voter-id is required all over the civilized world, like democratic poster boy, Sweden :)  This argument is always good when used against Republicans (see guns, health care etc.)
 
2013-11-13 07:31:46 AM

Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.


translation: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE HERPA DERPA DOOO
 
2013-11-13 07:32:34 AM

Karac: We're asking for enough cases to come within at least a few orders of magnitude of the number of people affected by these new laws.


This is important. There is some amount of voter impersonation fraud, but it is so low that there could be one hundred times as much and it still would not affect the outcome of elections. Right now, it is in the statistical noise. Voter ID laws are like shutting down half the radio stations in America because there is occasionally static when you listen. They are asinine, unless of course shutting down those stations is your goal. Which, as has been noted, some in power on the right have openly and publicly admitted.
 
2013-11-13 07:33:30 AM

Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.


There's an estimate of voter fraud being put at .001% while the number of registered voters without IDs is in the 10-12% range.
 
2013-11-13 07:35:07 AM

UNC_Samurai: If only there were evidence of some Republican official in Pennsylvania claiming that the voter ID law was going to lock up the state for Romney.


And the racist guy interviewed on TDS saying it was to prevent Democrats from voting. Specifically lazy minorities and college students.
 
2013-11-13 07:36:56 AM

thatboyoverthere: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.


Wrong thread?

The topic here was whether or not the voter ID law suppressed voter turn out.  Although conservatively biased, the author seemed to be doing a good job pointing out that the numbers of voters actually went up after the law was enacted.  The protocol this early in the argument would be to produce a body of citations showing evidence to the contrary rather than to rely on the distraction of whether voter fraud exists.

Unless of course, evidence to the contrary is in short supply.

Actually, any sort of factual refutation (in terms of voter number data rather than a debate about the existence of in person fraud) ) would probably knock this article on its ass as there weren't exactly too many cited facts and sources contained within the article anyhow.
 
2013-11-13 07:37:49 AM

poorcku: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

Well voter-id is required all over the civilized world, like democratic poster boy, Sweden :)  This argument is always good when used against Republicans (see guns, health care etc.)


Oh, well, you win! I'll give you your voter ID laws, if I get all the cool single payer health care/ decent education / high standard of living / fewer people in jail / lower crime rate / women who look like Swedish women instead of the People of WalMart / etc stuff.

Deal?
 
2013-11-13 07:38:13 AM

Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.


Indeed, there can potentially be an infinity percent rate of fraud, for all we know.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.

It's a solution looking for a problem.

Honest republicans with no filter have already told us why they push these laws.
 
2013-11-13 07:38:54 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Looks more blurry than Hispanic to me. How are you two making that determination?


Just a guess.  If I were betting, I'd be 70-75% confident that she's Hispanic, based on her hair, profile, and geographic location.
 
2013-11-13 07:39:07 AM
Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Yea, real 'interesting', subby.
 
2013-11-13 07:40:03 AM

thatboyoverthere: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.


The distinct lack of evidence is all the proof you need of how rampant it is.
 
2013-11-13 07:40:16 AM

TheBigJerk: I watched 30% of voters get suppressed while I was at the polling station.

Republicans love Anecdata so much, there's some.


It's human nature to be more open to "informational sources" that agree with their views rather than opposing them- regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.
 
2013-11-13 07:46:18 AM

Captain Dan: clkeagle: FTFA: And as helpful proof that their voter ID laws didn't suppress any votes, the blog included a helpful pic of what this year's Texas voting demographic looked like.

Yep, my fears about alienating women and minority voters are certainly alleviated.

There are three voters in that photo.  Two are white men, one is a Hispanic woman.  If one of the white men was swapped out for a racial minority/woman, then the latter demographics would be overrepresented.

Generalizing about Texas based on a photo of three people is derp.


What is derp is declaring a blurred photo of a woman with black hair 'Hispanic'.

/also derp is not recognizing the sarcastic use of the 'what <something> might look like' meme.
 
2013-11-13 07:50:28 AM
North Carolina: In 2012, out of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots. In 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast.

Illinois: Over the past 12 yerars, 23 voter fraud cases logged, none has been related to someone impersonating someone else at the polls. 0 percent.

Minnesota: Since 2000 there have been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation reported since 2000. 0 percent.

Ohio: A 2005 statewide study in Ohio found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9 million votes cast. 0.0000004 percent.

Wisconsin: An investigation of fraud allegations in Wisconsin in 2004 led to the prosecution of 0.0007 percent of voters.

Nationwide: Between 2002 and 2005, out of the 197 million votes there were 26 cases of voter fraud, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

This is your evidence of voter impersonation fraud. If you think the above justifies making the voting process more difficult, there is no logical explanation other than that being your actual goal.
 
2013-11-13 07:52:59 AM

winterbraid: Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.

translation: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE HERPA DERPA DOOO


Do you have any evidence that I'm NOT banging a supermodel on a pile of bacon right now? I didn't think so.
 
2013-11-13 07:56:37 AM
Did someone say election fraud?
site.www.umb.edu
www.occupy.com
i190.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-13 08:00:32 AM
~~~~"If voter ID was intended to suppress votes in person voter fraud, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov"


Dusk-You-n-Me: North Carolina: In 2012, out of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots. In 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast.

Illinois: Over the past 12 yerars, 23 voter fraud cases logged, none has been related to someone impersonating someone else at the polls. 0 percent.

Minnesota: Since 2000 there have been 10 total cases of reported fraud and no cases of voter impersonation reported since 2000. 0 percent.

Ohio: A 2005 statewide study in Ohio found four instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9 million votes cast. 0.0000004 percent.

Wisconsin: An investigation of fraud allegations in Wisconsin in 2004 led to the prosecution of 0.0007 percent of voters.

Nationwide: Between 2002 and 2005, out of the 197 million votes there were 26 cases of voter fraud, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

This is your evidence of voter impersonation fraud. If you think the above justifies making the voting process more difficult, there is no logical explanation other than that being your actual goal.


 With only a minor correction of the submitter's original submission, we now appear to be back on topic.
 
2013-11-13 08:02:21 AM

Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.


What holes?
 
2013-11-13 08:02:55 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: winterbraid: Millennium: thatboyoverthere: Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

...which is a catch-22, because if there were widespread evidence of voter fraud, it would mean that most fraudsters were being caught, in which case it would not be a problem. Convenient thing for the Dems to demand, really.

Patching holes before they get exploited, if you can manage to find them first, is nothing but good security practice.

translation: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE HERPA DERPA DOOO

Do you have any evidence that I'm NOT banging a supermodel on a pile of bacon right now? I didn't think so.


Wow, that's awesome!

What kind of bacon?
 
2013-11-13 08:05:29 AM

clowncar on fire: thatboyoverthere: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

Wrong thread?

The topic here was whether or not the voter ID law suppressed voter turn out.  Although conservatively biased, the author seemed to be doing a good job pointing out that the numbers of voters actually went up after the law was enacted.  The protocol this early in the argument would be to produce a body of citations showing evidence to the contrary rather than to rely on the distraction of whether voter fraud exists.

Unless of course, evidence to the contrary is in short supply.

Actually, any sort of factual refutation (in terms of voter number data rather than a debate about the existence of in person fraud) ) would probably knock this article on its ass as there weren't exactly too many cited facts and sources contained within the article anyhow.


Wrong. The topic here is whether or not the voter ID law suppressed the turnout of certain demographics.
 
2013-11-13 08:08:19 AM

KeatingFive: women who look like Swedish women instead of the People of WalMart


sucker! I'd have settled for just this one.
 
2013-11-13 08:17:01 AM

theknuckler_33: clowncar on fire: thatboyoverthere: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.

Wrong thread?

The topic here was whether or not the voter ID law suppressed voter turn out.  Although conservatively biased, the author seemed to be doing a good job pointing out that the numbers of voters actually went up after the law was enacted.  The protocol this early in the argument would be to produce a body of citations showing evidence to the contrary rather than to rely on the distraction of whether voter fraud exists.

Unless of course, evidence to the contrary is in short supply.

Actually, any sort of factual refutation (in terms of voter number data rather than a debate about the existence of in person fraud) ) would probably knock this article on its ass as there weren't exactly too many cited facts and sources contained within the article anyhow.

Wrong. The topic here is whether or not the voter ID law suppressed the turnout of certain demographics.



I know that.  Somehow it has degenerated into whether voter fraud is an issue.


If one wanted to go that way one would have simply said, "Although recent voter turn out data suggests that voter ID laws appear to have not suppressed the number of voters as originally estimated, one may still speculate on the need for such laws in the first place."


At that point- the lines are open as to whether fraud is even really an issue.  Otherwise, it appears that you are using the issue of in person voter fraud as a diversionary tactic from the original premise that voter ID laws are not suppressing voter numbers.
 
2013-11-13 08:23:51 AM

thatboyoverthere: Lionel Mandrake: Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes.

And Republicans have consistently claimed that in-person voter fraud is a problem.

...still waiting for someone to make that case...

Oh they've made that case. What they need to do is prove that in-person fraud is actually a problem.


They make the case in the same fashion they attack entities like welfare and food stamps; find one person abusing the system (or fake one) then say the entire system needs to be dismantled.
//The ironic part is when they skip right over folks like the Florida election commissioner (R) who voted in 2 separate districts.
 
2013-11-13 08:24:54 AM
Actual, provable voter fraud is statistically irrelevant.

Voter ID laws are intended to suppress voters. And are reasonably effective at doing so.

No amount of obfuscating derp will change these facts.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report