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 33
    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 (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-13 06:53:33 AM
6 votes:
FTFA: Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media.
farm4.staticflickr.com
2013-11-13 07:50:28 AM
5 votes:
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 07:32:34 AM
2 votes:

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 07:21:12 AM
2 votes:

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 07:14:56 AM
2 votes:

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 07:04:36 AM
2 votes:

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 06:55:38 AM
2 votes:

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 04:41:29 PM
1 votes:

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 12:48:03 PM
1 votes:
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 12:08:35 PM
1 votes:

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 11:08:01 AM
1 votes:

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 11:06:26 AM
1 votes:
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 10:46:11 AM
1 votes:
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 10:22:38 AM
1 votes:
seems like it is working pretty good according to Nate Silver...

graphics8.nytimes.com
2013-11-13 10:04:41 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:42 AM
1 votes:

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 09:22:17 AM
1 votes:

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 09:10:59 AM
1 votes:

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 08:36:37 AM
1 votes:

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 08:24:54 AM
1 votes:
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 08:17:01 AM
1 votes:

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 07:38:13 AM
1 votes:

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 07:37:49 AM
1 votes:

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 07:36:56 AM
1 votes:

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 07:35:07 AM
1 votes:

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 07:31:20 AM
1 votes:

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 07:25:24 AM
1 votes:

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 07:23:01 AM
1 votes:

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 07:22:17 AM
1 votes:

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 07:13:19 AM
1 votes:
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 06:58:57 AM
1 votes:
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 06:57:27 AM
1 votes:

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 06:49:14 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report