Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Texas, id laws, editor-at-large, Hidalgo County, PJ Media, Texas Department of Public Safety, voter ID, University of Texas  
•       •       •

1948 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2013 at 6:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-11-13 08:32:15 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.



If you were to be a purist about it, then yes, demographic turnout.


I was referring to direction this thread went from the Boobies which to me sounded very diversionary.


How exactly relevant is citing the number of fraud cases proving demographic suppression- other than for frauds-- is occurring?  It's meaningful support if the topic of this thread was whether in fraud voting was really an issue (which was diversion introduced originally) but does little to support- or refute if you believe the data in the submitter's article to be hogwash-- the notion that voter id laws target various demographics.
 
2013-11-13 08:36:37 AM  

crab66: 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.


I hate doing this but "citation needed".  Subbie's article seems to suggest otherwise.  It's on you to provide evidence to the contrary to support the notion that voter laws did indeed suppress various demographics during the last election in Texas.  Or at least harder evidence than "subbie's derping".
 
2013-11-13 08:39:51 AM  

clowncar on fire: 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.


If you were to be a purist about it, then yes, demographic turnout.


I was referring to direction this thread went from the Boobies which to me sounded very diversionary.


How exactly relevant is citing the number of fraud cases proving demographic suppression- other than for frauds-- is occurring?  It's meaningful support if the topic of this thread was whether in fraud voting was really an issue (which was diversion introduced originally) but does little to support- or refute if you believe the data in the submitter's article to be hogwash-- the notion that voter id laws target various demographics.


Who keeps doing this?  Something FARK has loaded in its programming to discourage referencing other posts because I see this quite often lately?  Censorship is fine but only when used upon opposing views.
 
2013-11-13 08:41:16 AM  

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


You sound like just the right kind of  mark person who would be interested in my patented Tigers-Be-Gone® anti-tiger rock.  Guaranteed* to keep you safe from tigers.

*Guarantee not valid in India, Southeast Asia, the zoo, or if you're Roy Horn.
 
2013-11-13 08:45:09 AM  

clowncar on fire: Who keeps doing this?  Something FARK has loaded in its programming to discourage referencing other posts because I see this quite often lately?  Censorship is fine but only when used upon opposing views.


'Initial comment' time warp
 
2013-11-13 08:52:20 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.


Except the sort of fraud that voter ID would prevent is not only statistically almost non-existent, but it is an INSANELY inefficient way to rig elections. To get enough fraudulent votes to swing elections at a state or national level, you'd have to have hundreds, if not thousands of partners, each potentially able to expose the entire plan and get everyone involved jail time.

The people who COUNT the votes are who you should be watching. Bribing a clerk or two is much more efficient and effective, and lower-risk.
 
2013-11-13 08:53:11 AM  

Teufelaffe: clowncar on fire: Who keeps doing this?  Something FARK has loaded in its programming to discourage referencing other posts because I see this quite often lately?  Censorship is fine but only when used upon opposing views.

'Initial comment' time warp



Thanks for the info on that one.  Especially the time stamp thing.  Explains why I keep getting scoffed at for being either a noob or an alt from time to time.

Apparently Fark holds its first responders in the most highest regards.
 
2013-11-13 08:56:55 AM  

theknuckler_33: 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.


Remember when the PJ Media guy got laughed off of fark, and the term "your blog sucks" was first coined? Ahh the good old days.
 
2013-11-13 08:57:07 AM  
crab66:   Voter ID laws are intended to suppress voters. And are reasonably effective at doing so.

Except for now.  In Texas.  So, there is that.
 
2013-11-13 08:58:58 AM  
Turnout being up doesn't mean these IDs weren't intended to suppress the vote, it just means that if they were intended to, they aren't working as they were meant to. It could be that these laws have made people so mad that folks who had otherwise given up on voting are now making it out to the polls even though voting is now even more difficult for them.
 
2013-11-13 09:07:10 AM  
So Texas voters can expect even more restrictions by the midterms?
 
2013-11-13 09:07:20 AM  
Once again, would it not make sense for the US to look at other countries that have had no problems with elections for a simple formula.   Federal elections regulator, paper ballot that you put an X mark on and put in a box and simple/easy standards for the voters to prove their identity at the time of voting.

Not rocket science.
 
2013-11-13 09:09:13 AM  
FTA:  Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.

This is not necessarily an increase in turnout depending on the number of eligible voters in each year.
 
2013-11-13 09:10:59 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: There is some amount of voter impersonation fraud


Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.
 
2013-11-13 09:11:40 AM  

ambercat: Turnout being up doesn't mean these IDs weren't intended to suppress the vote, it just means that if they were intended to, they aren't working as they were meant to. It could be that these laws have made people so mad that folks who had otherwise given up on voting are now making it out to the polls even though voting is now even more difficult for them.



This is all purely speculation, however.

About all we know from the article is that voter turn out is up despite the voter ID law - which currently undisputed numbers were used to support this assertion.  All one need do is offer verifiable data from this same election that reported voter suppression was up dis-proportionately to dispel the notion that current ID laws have no effect on voter turn out.  Bonus points if you can break this data down demographically to show that indeed, populations were successfully targeted.
 
2013-11-13 09:13:16 AM  

Bloody William: Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.


Right, which is why I followed up with that next post with actual (tiny tiny) numbers.
 
2013-11-13 09:17:01 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Bloody William: Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.

Right, which is why I followed up with that next post with actual (tiny tiny) numbers.


Oh, no, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wanted to underscore the fact that it's so tiny so no one could jump on you and say "HA! SO YOU DO ADMIT THERE'S FRAUD!!!"
 
2013-11-13 09:17:48 AM  
Yes, voter id is intended to suppress votes, hopefully enough to change the outcome of close elections, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.

Yes, it failed badly to change the electorate of the 2012 race, that doesn't mean these laws are in any way benign. It just means that while the right spent the last 6 years ridiculing a certain "community organizer", they didn't know what a community organizer actually does.
 
2013-11-13 09:22:17 AM  

clowncar on fire: 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.


Nate Silver, who is an actual respected statistician rather than a random pundit like the article writer, ran the numbers for the effects of voter ID laws. It shows some voter depression which slightly favors Republicans. All this guy does is compare voter turnout from one election to another ignoring the fact that there can be many factors that may influence turnout for a single election. It's just a sloppy way of doing things and doesn't prove a thing about voter ID effects on turnout.

More to the point the lack of evidence for in person voter fraud means that voter ID laws, at their very best, are a useless layer of bureaucracy that make voting more difficult for no reason. It is clear, given Silver's analysis of voter ID laws, that the Republicans push for these laws is because they wish to slant things in their favor.
 
2013-11-13 09:31:50 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: crab66:   Voter ID laws are intended to suppress voters. And are reasonably effective at doing so.

Except for now.  In Texas.  So, there is that.


Can you provide some sort of citation or evidence of this?  TFA seemed to make a pretty strong case that it was effective at suppressing votes.
 
2013-11-13 09:40:15 AM  

Bloody William: Dusk-You-n-Me: Bloody William: Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.

Right, which is why I followed up with that next post with actual (tiny tiny) numbers.

Oh, no, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just wanted to underscore the fact that it's so tiny so no one could jump on you and say "HA! SO YOU DO ADMIT THERE'S FRAUD!!!"



I seem to remember one of those very rare cases of voter fraud, I think it was in Indiana...
 
2013-11-13 09:53:42 AM  

BMFPitt: Zeb Hesselgresser: crab66:   Voter ID laws are intended to suppress voters. And are reasonably effective at doing so.

Except for now.  In Texas.  So, there is that.

Can you provide some sort of citation or evidence of this?  TFA seemed to make a pretty strong case that it was effective at suppressing votes.


FTA

in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874. . .  according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.

So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections.

Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.

Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic.   In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election.   In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.

Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.


Seems fairly clear.
 
2013-11-13 09:55:12 AM  

udhq: Yes, voter id is intended to suppress votes, hopefully enough to change the outcome of close elections, I don't think anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.

Yes, it failed badly to change the electorate of the 2012 race, that doesn't mean these laws are in any way benign. It just means that while the right spent the last 6 years ridiculing a certain "community organizer", they didn't know what a community organizer actually does.


The intention is to suppress a virtually non-existent problem: in person fraudulent voting.  As with any sort of legal filtration, there are undoubtedly unintentionally targeted populations effected as well.

Speeding laws are in place to define safe speeds for various environs- what they end up doing is targeting people with fast cars.  To say these laws were set up strictly to target people with fast cars would be a bit of a stretch.

In the case of a voter ID law, the intent would be stopping voter fraud but the unintentional consequence would be that various populations that don't carry id's may be excluded from the vote as well.  To assert that this was both intentional and successful would require hard data.  The data on amount of voters excluded as a result of the law would not be dissimilar from data collected on the number of speeding citations handed out in that a population failed to meet a requirement of the law.  Do we know exactly how these voters would have voted had the law not been in place or are we working with the premise that all suppressed votes would have been disproportionately cast in favor of one candidate in lieu of the other?  And if so, to what degree these suppressed votes would have counted toward the final results of the election?

Agreeably though, if voter fraud is proven to be that negligible on the results of the whole, and that voter suppression is way up as a result of this law, some sort of reform or repeal of this law would be needed.  Off  topic but shouldn't we be working on making sure that all of our citizenry have at least one form of identification if the need arises?
 
2013-11-13 10:04:41 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: BMFPitt: Zeb Hesselgresser: crab66:   Voter ID laws are intended to suppress voters. And are reasonably effective at doing so.

Except for now.  In Texas.  So, there is that.

Can you provide some sort of citation or evidence of this?  TFA seemed to make a pretty strong case that it was effective at suppressing votes.

FTA

in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874. . .  according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.

So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections.

Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.

Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic.   In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election.   In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.

Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.

Seems fairly clear.


I think you're mincing over the writer's inability to understand his own usage of percentages.  When he says numbers increased by 63%, he actually means an increase of 63% in numbers over the number that voted in the last election (163%).  Not that these numbers are telling us much more than there was a higher voter turn out this time around.  Still not the smoking gun that voter ID laws aren't still suppressing someone somewhere as subbie would lead you to believe.
 
2013-11-13 10:07:29 AM  

odinsposse: clowncar on fire: 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.

Nate Silver, who is an actual respected statistician rather than a random pundit like the article writer, ran the numbers for the effects of voter ID laws. It shows some voter depression which slightly favors Republicans. All this guy does is compare voter turnout from one election to another ignoring the fact that there can be many factors that may influence turnout for a single election. It's just a sloppy way of doing things and doesn't prove a thing about voter ID effects on turnout.

More to the point the lack of evidence for in person voter fraud means that voter ID laws, at their very best, are a useless layer of bureaucracy that make voting more difficult for no reason. It is clear, given Silver's analysis of voter ID laws, that the Republicans push for these laws is because they wish to slant things in their favor.


Increased public awareness of - and possibly anger over - Voter ID laws may also have driven the higher turnout.  People can get pretty upset when they think something's being taken away from them, whether they were using that thing beforehand or not.  It's an unintended consequence that doesn't reduce the horribleness of these laws in any way.
 
2013-11-13 10:12:03 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections.
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.
Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic.   In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election.   In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.
Seems fairly clear.


What do you think those numbers make clear, and why?

It's kind of like saying "The DOW is up 100 today, therefore raising corporate taxes last month had no effect on profits."
 
2013-11-13 10:14:20 AM  
I'm sure they're sorry they caused such a fuss and are happy to find out those that have the right got to exercise the right.
 
2013-11-13 10:22:38 AM  
seems like it is working pretty good according to Nate Silver...

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-11-13 10:39:41 AM  

udhq: Yes, voter id is intended to suppress

illegal votes

                                                                        ^
 
2013-11-13 10:39:47 AM  
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right?

When you start with a faulty premise, all the evidence in the world won't make you right
 
2013-11-13 10:46:11 AM  
Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.
 
2013-11-13 10:47:52 AM  

BMFPitt: Zeb Hesselgresser:

What do you think those numbers make clear, and why?


What?  The voter ID law did not suppress minority voting in Texas during the November, 2013 elections.

Why?  I don't think Texas had a large problem with illegal alien voter fraud.

It's kind of like saying "The DOW is up 100 today, therefore raising corporate taxes last month had no effect on profits." <= Sounds like what Matt Stafford would say.
 
2013-11-13 10:54:06 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Why?  I don't think Texas had a large problem with illegal alien voter fraud.


How did the numbers you cited provide evidence for this?

Also, how does that prove:

What?  The voter ID law did not suppress minority voting in Texas during the November, 2013 elections.
 
2013-11-13 11:04:02 AM  
Well, the GOP has successfully turned attention away from whether voter fraud even exists.

"We need voter ID to solve the problem of voter fraud"

"Is that really a problem?"

"WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM????"
 
2013-11-13 11:05:25 AM  
The ID laws are just a vector to pull in the other suppression techniques.  The North Carolina law is a prime example.  So many facets of that law have nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with throwing roadblocks in front of Democratic voters.
 
2013-11-13 11:06:26 AM  
I'm one of those Texas voters who actually voted.  It was raining, it was an off year amendment election, but I was gotdammed sure I was going to vote. Democrats are pissed about the voter ID law, and republicans in general.  I noted on the voter roles (I can read upside down, just like all parents) many of my liberal neighbors had also voted.  So in my little neck of the woods, I think turnout had little to do with amendments and more to do with sending  a message.  I understand both parties have detailed databases and pretty much know who's a democrat and who's a republican. So our turnout was a message to the Democratic Party to up its game this time around.
 
2013-11-13 11:08:01 AM  

Headso: seems like it is working pretty good according to Nate Silver...

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 423x279]


I still say if you lose your right to vote without committing a crime, you should have a right to shoot as many legislators as you want.  I'd acquit on all charges if I was on that jury 100% of the time.
 
2013-11-13 11:31:10 AM  
Heh, in WI, my MIL is in a facility, and a staunch Republican. The new Scott Walker voter suppression ID laws are hitting her, and it isn't clear that she will be able to vote. She just received another letter about it. It has to do with her receiving her mail at another address because she is no longer competent.
 
2013-11-13 11:35:20 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.


People do get caught. And often they are conservative morons who have been taken in by all the people claiming that voter fraud is widespread and decide to try to prove it (or even it out) by doing it themselves. Investigation reveals, however, that individual voter fraud is very rare: 18 proven examples in the entire state of Texas in the 10 year period from 2002 to 2012.

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

Sure, that's fine. But you also have to focus on patching the worst ones first -- it doesn't do any good to fix a flaw that lets someone make unauthorized comments responding to a blog post when you have root exploits un-patched.

The "root exploits" in our voting system are around unverifiable electronic ballots that leave no auditable paper trail and run on closed source, proprietary systems; followed by absentee ballot handling/alteration. There are also voter disenfranchisement efforts: compiling a list of voters who you think will vote against you and then attempting to purge those voters from the registration rolls.

Those are the sorts of things that will easily throw a few percentage points of voting your way, enough to sway a close election. Trying to sway anything but the tiniest local election by individual voter fraud is for chumps.

As Tom Stoppard said "It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting."
 
2013-11-13 11:54:09 AM  
 When a law is created and pushed by ALEC in order to address an issue that doesn't exists then it's not that great of a leap in logic to the conclusion that they are doing so for reasons they're not willing to own.  Given that they cranked this one out extra hard after the Democrats legitimately won all branches of government makes it a bit difficult to argue that this is anything but a naked power grab by a party that is on it's way to irrelevancy. The Ironic cherry on this cake is that their efforts will only hasten their trek.
Good.
 
2013-11-13 12:05:31 PM  

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.


You're one of those 'both sides are bad' assholes, huh?  Good to know.
 
2013-11-13 12:08:21 PM  
People are more likely to vote against you if you systematically piss them off.
 
2013-11-13 12:08:35 PM  

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.


You've forgotten a key part of the security mantra though: Availability.

Not a bad, but if the patch you install makes it too hard for the user to get any work done, they quit trying.

Try again? Do yourself a favor and don't take your basic 640-554 exam yet if you forgot that basic item. Definitely don't take your CISSP exam.
 
2013-11-13 12:15:59 PM  

Millennium: ...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.


Getting Americans to get off of their asses to go and vote is like herding cats, but you're saying that there's tons of people out there that are just itching to go and fraudulently vote.

Sure thing. Totally believable.
 
2013-11-13 12:17:38 PM  

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.


Mike Tarzai (or whatever the f*ck name he has) from PA would disagree.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:37 PM  
I would like to know how the author knows it's not suppressing votes.  Disclaimer: DNRTFA

If the amount of votes being cast stays the same, that doesn't mean the vote isn't being suppressed.  It usually means a hotly contested election where more people are participating and even MORE would have been able to participate if the vote wasn't suppressed.  Again, this is just supposition, which is nothing more than what the article suggest (I'm guessing).
 
2013-11-13 12:22:22 PM  

coeyagi: I would like to know how the author knows it's not suppressing votes.  Disclaimer: DNRTFA



The author is a republican, and that would support their biases, and some people voted in 2013.   The end.
 
2013-11-13 12:30:48 PM  

coeyagi: I would like to know how the author knows it's not suppressing votes.  Disclaimer: DNRTFA

If the amount of votes being cast stays the same, that doesn't mean the vote isn't being suppressed.  It usually means a hotly contested election where more people are participating and even MORE would have been able to participate if the vote wasn't suppressed.  Again, this is just supposition, which is nothing more than what the article suggest (I'm guessing).


That's exactly what he is suggesting. Voter turnout is up over last year therefore the new voter ID laws didn't have any effect. No thought towards any other factor that may effect voter turnout. It's exactly the level of thinking you would expect from a Pajamas Media editor.
 
2013-11-13 12:35:02 PM  

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.


You can tell after the fact, even without ID. Look at the list of who voted, find people on the list that didn't actually vote. Add in the people who got turned away because it looked like they already voted. That's an upper bound on the number of people who successfully impersonated a voter.
 
2013-11-13 12:38:43 PM  

Mentat: The ID laws are just a vector to pull in the other suppression techniques.  The North Carolina law is a prime example.  So many facets of that law have nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with throwing roadblocks in front of Democratic voters.


Usually they have a nice (for Republicans) side effect of keeping college students from voting at their college location, by requiring an address match. (Even though the address you give DMV isn't any more secure or verified than the address you give when registering).

NC tried, at first, to just directly ban college students from voting at college, but that got shot down IIRC.
 
2013-11-13 12:41:35 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Mentat: The ID laws are just a vector to pull in the other suppression techniques.  The North Carolina law is a prime example.  So many facets of that law have nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with throwing roadblocks in front of Democratic voters.

Usually they have a nice (for Republicans) side effect of keeping college students from voting at their college location, by requiring an address match. (Even though the address you give DMV isn't any more secure or verified than the address you give when registering).

NC tried, at first, to just directly ban college students from voting at college, but that got shot down IIRC.


Well, not ban, but remove parents' tuition deduction from their taxes if they did.  Republicans literally tried to create a poll tax specifically for college students.   Anti-democracy cowards.
 
2013-11-13 12:44:29 PM  

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.


Actually, they are about suppression. Just ask that guy from Pennsylvania. It's just that this is causing the same sort of reaction that the boycott of Chik-fil-A. It's pissed people off so much that even people who wouldn't normally vote are doing their damnedest to vote.
 
2013-11-13 12:48:03 PM  
It's important to note that provisional ballots cast are counted toward the actual "number of people who turned out to vote" but aren't, you know, counted as votes in many cases.

Once we see a demographic study of the voter turnout as well as a look at the content of uncounted provisional ballots... well, then we'll have some actual data. As of now, we know two things: jack and shiat.
 
2013-11-13 01:17:03 PM  

pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.


Actually I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet.
 
2013-11-13 01:49:01 PM  
clowncar on fire: [S]houldn't we be working on making sure that all of our citizenry have at least one form of identification if the need arises?

Make it free and easy to obtain, and all of these problems go away.
 
2013-11-13 01:55:37 PM  

austerity101: Make it free and easy to obtain, and all of these problems go away.


And yet still completely unnecessary.
 
2013-11-13 03:15:54 PM  

AeAe: 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.

You're one of those 'both sides are bad' assholes, huh?  Good to know.


Both sides ARE bad. You're using the fallacy fallacy, and you're STILL doing it wrong. 

Just because I don't think these laws are primarily about voter suppression doesn't mean that it's not an element. It is. 

These fights are about white people continuing to have a stranglehold on national politics versus this country changing to become a true pluralistic multi-ethnic melting pot of the sort that it has always pretended to be, but never actually been. If the right can maintain that, they will, with or without voter suppression.

If the left can break the stranglehold on power that the right has had since the late 70s, they will. With or without voter suppression. 

Don't kid yourself: the left doesn't care about fringe poor people voting any more than the right does. Nor does history indicate that the people who will be suppressed by these sorts of laws vote in the numbers or with enough regularity to really make a difference. This is just a point to fight over. It has very little to do with the actual issues at hand.

/ however, if forced between the shiathead who favors getting to power through rich men and the asshole who favors getting to power through me, I'll side with the asshole every time
 
2013-11-13 03:43:34 PM  

ambercat: Turnout being up doesn't mean these IDs weren't intended to suppress the vote, it just means that if they were intended to, they aren't working as they were meant to. It could be that these laws have made people so mad that folks who had otherwise given up on voting are now making it out to the polls even though voting is now even more difficult for them.


The reason that voter turn out was up in Texas this year is because there were things on the ballot people wanted their voices to be heard on.  A number of municipalities had ballot initiatives on allowing alcohol sales, in addition to state constitutional amendments dealing with water projects and veteran's benefits.

In a few counties, if your ID name didn't match your voter registration, the election board allowed you to vote under your name on file and had you fill out a change of voter registration card.  The one thing I forgot to change my name on after my recent marriage was my voter registration.  It probably didn't hurt that I showed up at the polls with my certified copy of my marriage license in hand and the receipt for the name change filed with the Secretary of State's office.
 
2013-11-13 04:41:29 PM  

LoneWolf343: People are more likely to vote against you if you systematically piss them off.


Also more likely to vote for you if you keep giving them free stuff.
 
2013-11-13 04:45:10 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still to early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 04:56:57 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still too early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 05:13:07 PM  
Not impressed with his reasoning. The kinds of people who vote in a constitutional amendment election in an off year are already going to be extremely politically aware and active. We won't really know the impact of these laws until next year or maybe even 2016. I'm generally suspicious of these laws and I do believe that party leadership intended this to suppress votes, but it's still too early to say that I'm right or wrong about the impact.
 
2013-11-13 06:25:13 PM  

pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.


Here's a little quiz for you, since you seem to be in the "Every Day Is Opposite Day" camp I'm referring to.

1. Currently we have millions of people without health insurance, who can't afford to go to a doctor, so they wait until they have a medical emergency, then go to the ER, can't pay for the bill, so it is put on the public tab, also known as "making other people pay for your health care."

TRUE   FALSE

(Alternative Real Murcan answer: LET THE SCUM SCREAM AND DIE IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT.)

2. ACA requires everyone either to buy health insurance, or to pay a penalty, so that in fact it is the opposite of "making other people pay for your health care", or at least a big step in that direction.

TRUE   FALSE

(Alternative Real Murcan answer:  WEBSITE DISASTER DEATH SPIRAL LIES POTATO BENGHAZI.)

3. If more people were insured, and therefore could afford to get regular, preventive medical care, they would be healthier, and therefore their medical costs would be lower, not higher.

TRUE   FALSE

(Can't think of an alternative Real Murcan answer for that one.)
 
2013-11-13 10:39:30 PM  

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.

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


HOW DARE 4 white people vote at the same place at the same time. I mean what is this, a klan rally?
 
2013-11-13 10:46:40 PM  

Bloody William: Dusk-You-n-Me: There is some amount of voter impersonation fraud

Which is a statement that carries exactly as much weight as "there is some amount of fatal lightning strikes." It happens, but not to the extent that anyone should wear lightning rods and grounding wires all the time.


That would probably increase lightening deaths by a significant portion.  It would cause a huge spike in lightning strikes immediately next to a person.  Lightning hitting the ground nearby or striking a nearby tree, lightpost, whatever is very dangerous.  It causes a huge change in potential in the ground at impact, and as the charge dissipates to the surrounding area it causes a huge surge of current through the ground which goes out in all directions, which creates potential differences in the ground.  If one leg is at a point with a large potential difference from the other, there is enough voltage across the feet to cause current to flow up one leg, through the torso, and down the other.

It's called step potential.

Scary video of step potential in action (possibly NSFW or sensitive people)

Nobody got struck, but you can see how various people near a ground strike had very different reactions based on how close they were, whether they had two feet on the ground, how their feet were oriented, and how far apart their feet were.

Don't know why if felt the need to share that, but there ya go.
 
2013-11-13 10:53:04 PM  

Kangaroo_Ralph: LoneWolf343: People are more likely to vote against you if you systematically piss them off.

Also more likely to vote for you if you keep giving them free stuff.


I know I've been voting for free stuff.

Methane-free water, E. coli-free meat, creationism-free education, bankruptcy-free health care, and itchy-trigger-finger-free foreign policy.
 
2013-11-14 12:48:24 PM  

Kibbler: pdee: Kibbler:

Gun ownership is a right (and a duty), health care is a privilege

Buying a gun with your own money is a right.  Making other people pay for your health care is a privilege.

Apple=/=Orange.

When the NRA demands the the government buy guns for people who cant afford them you can play again.

Here's a little quiz for you, since you seem to be in the "Every Day Is Opposite Day" camp I'm referring to.

1. Currently we have millions of people without health insurance, who can't afford to go to a doctor, so they wait until they have a medical emergency, then go to the ER, can't pay for the bill, so it is put on the public tab, also known as "making other people pay for your health care."

TRUE and FALSE

People without insurance receive incomplete care.  The real expensive treatments like cancer and AIDS are not treated so costs are lower than they would be if treated completely.


(Alternative Real Murcan answer: LET THE SCUM SCREAM AND DIE IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT.)

2. ACA requires everyone either to buy health insurance, or to pay a penalty, so that in fact it is the opposite of "making other people pay for your health care", or at least a big step in that direction.

TRUE   FALSE

As has been pointed out here repeatedly those who lack insurance for financial reasons and many of those who are loosing their healthcare and are being forced to purchase more expensive healthcare plans that meet the new regulations will receive government subsidies.  Government money is not free.  It is the definition of someone else paying for it.

(Alternative Real Murcan answer:  WEBSITE DISASTER DEATH SPIRAL LIES POTATO BENGHAZI.)

3. If more people were insured, and therefore could afford to get regular, preventive medical care, they would be healthier, and therefore their medical costs would be lower, not higher.

TRUE   FALSE

Healthcare costs too much.  This is the source of the problem.  Obamacare does nothing to address this.  If anything it will make it much worse.  If many more people receive more health care costs will go up. See the law of supply and demand.  The biggest health problems in the US are related to lifestyle choices.  Drinking, smoking, drugs and over eating.  People who engage in these behaviors already know that smoking causes cancer, drinking to excess is unhealthy, drugs are bad um'kay and they are fat.  Going to the doctor will not change their behavior.

(Can't think of an alternative Real Murcan answer for that one.)
 
Displayed 117 of 117 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report