quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
IMO There's a big difference between passing something that is going to be ruled unconstitutional (Banning Gay Marriage) and which is a Civil Rights issue, and Allow something to be done that doesn't hurt others.
Democratic Votes (Of which California IS one of the most Direct Democracy States in the Union) is supposed to be Majority rule. But that's why we have courts and higher courts, and federal law. To determine if the "Will of the people" should be accepted, or if it becomes the tyranny of the majority.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh, that reminds me. I need to check and see how liberals did nationally on initiatives while they weren't otherwise getting their lunch eaten by the big boys for terms of office
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Meanwhile in Florida, Rick Scott gets re-elected and medical marijuana rejected.
I don't really understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. Even if medical marijuana is just a cover for getting it fully legalized down the road, what's the argument against it? AFAIK, the gateway drug thing has been thoroughly debunked.
Technically it was "Accepted" by a majority of the people in Florida. But they passed a stupid law making all initiatives need 60%, it only got 58%...
I've seen that reaction a lot, and I have to say, there is absolutely nothing "stupid" about such a law. In fact it was passed in 2010 in Florida, in the wake of California, which has a 50% constitutional ammendment law, passing prop 8. And California's constitutional process is a mess because of this: we can vote in changes to the constitution for virtually anything, as long as they're mildly popular at the time. That's not a smart way to treat your supreme law.
IMO There's a big difference between passing something that is going to be ruled unconstitutional (Banning Gay Marriage) and which is a Civil Rights issue, and Allow something to be done that doesn't hurt others.
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea to have a 50% majority rule for changing your state constitution.
What you're saying is that a 50% majority should be allowed to change laws, as long as the changes are "right." Well, what I think Florida was thinking in 2010 when they altered that arrangement, was that this is what the legislature is for. Not the constitution.
It *should* be easier to elect a new legislature than it is to change your constitution. Otherwise it's rule of the mob, and for every "good" law that you want to see pass because it has over 50%, there are 10 bad ones that might get close to that as well.
Literally nothing stops people amending their constitutions to do literally anything, and bypass their own legislatures. Lower taxes? Yeah, we did that in California, thanks. It's worked out great, just look at the schools. Top 5 in the nation until the 1970s, then we passed prop 13, and now we're comfortably in the top 40.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
I'm doing the math on just the numbers in that blurb and the only way anything changes is if near 100% of the suppressed voters would have voted democrat. I'm sure a large percentage of them would have but there is no way all of them would.
No that doesn't make it right. I agree with the point you're trying to make but the blurb said do the math and the math says the Republicans won either way.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me."
the west wing seems to have predicted the future
I've been thinking of watching that since I've really enjoyed Newsroom. Worth watching?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
So much fail in three words... look you. 'Literally' is a binary concept; either something actually does happen as in the words described, or it happens in a metaphorical sense. And what does it mean to be 'literally astounded'? 'Astounded' is not a metaphor. "My head asplode" is a metaphor, and if someone said "my head literally asploded" they would be a filthy liar, but they wouldn't be incoherent; 'literally' would be adding information, albeit false information. This here is like saying "I am literally typing this on my literal keyboard." Yeah, no, really? What the devil good is 'literally' doing in this sentence? Throw the bum out!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Voter suppression watch: In the North Carolina Senate race, Thom Tillis beat Senator Kay Hagen by 48,000 votes. North Carolina’s voters were, for the first time, voting under one of the harshest new election laws in the country — which Tillis helped craft. The Election Protection hotline reported widespread problems with voter registrations and voters being told they were in the wrong precinct. Numbers from recent elections suggest the magnitude of voter suppression is close to 45,000 to 50,000 votes.
Similarly, in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback beat back challenger Paul Davis by fewer than 33,000 votes. The Kansas secretary of state says more than 24,000 Kansans tried to register this year but their registrations were held in “suspense” because they failed to present the documentary proof of citizenship now required by state law. And the Government Accountability Office found that Kansas’s voter ID law reduced turnout by 17,000 voters in 2012. You do the math.
I don't fully understand this voter suppression issue. Is requiring a photo ID to vote really that much to ask for?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first question, since voting is supposed to be a fundamental right that we ought to be very, very wary of impeding (even in small ways) is this: is fraud a problem?
The simple answer is that the sort of fraud designed to be impressed by voter ID is not a problem. It is in fact an incredibly rare thing, for someone to go in person to vote fraudulently.
That's a fact, and it's really all that needs to be said about whether more stringent voter ID laws are needed anywhere. As to *why* it is such an issue in many places now...well. I wonder if it has anything to do with the possibility that making voting even $10 more expensive and an hour on a weekday more difficult is going to have impact on some kinds of turnout more than others, and to ask who benefits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we know it's not a problem? How do we know there aren't people voting with others' identities in places where photo ID isn't required and they just aren't being caught?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Around 11% of Americans don't have a valid photo ID. Mostly because they don't have a car (so no drivers license) and don't travel. (no passport) Do you want to hazard a guess as far as what socioeconomic, age, racial, and political groups most of these people fall into?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, 11%? That seems fairly high. Do you have a source for that?
And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to infringe on a person's rights, it is customary to prove the necessity. So if you don't know how many fraudulent votes there are, you don't know if you need to require voter ID and thus shouldn't impose burden on people's ability to vote.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, 11%? That seems fairly high. Do you have a source for that?
quote:And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Well, you could read numerous, numerous articles about how there has been no real evidence of voter fraud in recent elections despite an intense monitoring effort, but let me try this from a different angle:
let's assume that fraudulent voters (however many dozens there are nationwide) are out there casting their fraudulent votes. I would assume that there would be a roughly equal number on both sides of the aisle politically, right? Unless you're positing that one party is actively encouraging it's voters to commit fraud, there's a conspiracy, or that a lack of integrity will make you vote a certain way. (which I doubt you are) So the net result is pretty much neutral.
OTOH, due to the socioeconomic and demographic reasons why they wouldn't have them, people who lack photo IDs are pretty heavily skewed towards one political party. And passing laws requiring photo IDs to vote is a pretty great way to disenfranchise them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It actually is hard for some people. Offices where you can get a license can be far away and you usually can't do it by mail so you have to be there in person.
If you don't drive, how do you get there?
If you work, when can you go?
Is there a fee? How do you pay it?
What sort of documentation is needed? Especially for older minority voters, many do not have the necessary documents (birth certificate) to even get it. There are whole non-profits in some southern states dedicated to helping people find their birth certificates.
So is it impossible? No, not for most people. But is it easy? Not automatically. It's pretty easy for me. It's not necessarily easy for everyone.
But it seems to me that the "but how do we know it isn't a problem?" line is a pretty weak excuse for instituting measures that restrict voting. Wouldn't the proper action to take to be to demand a full scale investigation into voter fraud to see if it is a problem first?
Going right to a solution with huge consequences before establishing a problem exists is incredibly stupid. Studies have been done in many, many states over the years and generally find voter fraud rarely even counts into the double digits. Find the problem first. Then we can talk about solutions.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I get that. But it isn't all that hard to get photo ID even if you don't drive. And if you actually care about voting, it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Really now? Have you ever gotten a valid photo ID without applying for or using a drivers license/passport? (I'm not talking about a library card, I'm talking about a valid ID issued by your state) Do you know how, off the top of your head? I'm sure you could Google it... what if you didn't have access to Google? What if you didn't even know it was now a requirement until you went in to vote and got turned away? Do you think you can get one issued to you in a few hours? What paperwork do you need? How long does the process take?
What if it costs $100 (because you have to order an original birth certificate or something) and you have to choose between exercising your right to vote, and buying enough Mac & Cheese to feed your kids for another week? Or paying your rent? Do you think that people without valid photo IDs might also be the sort of people without a lot time or money?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Is there a fee? How do you pay it?
Oooh! This is one I actually know! Here, the DMV takes cash, but if you're applying for a valid ID through the office of the Lieutenant Governor, you have to pay them by *money order*. Cash, checks, credit cards not accepted. Do you know how to do a money order? I don't.
I say this because my wife is involved in a similar process (not for an ID)) and so far it's taken her over a month and over a hundred dollars. Because they want a birth certificate *certified within 60 days* of the process happening (so her birth certificate was invalid), which meant she had to call a bunch of courthouses in Illinois and pay a ridiculous fee to get them to mail it to her in a timely manner. I say "so far" because they've turned her application back several times, the most recent time simply because they forgot to check their own paperwork to see she had already sent them a $50 money order.
How easy,, exactly, do you think it is for someone without internet, reliable transportation, or much money to track down all these documents and repeatedly take off work to go visit an office 20 miles away with hours of 8 am - 4 pm?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't actually considered the difficulty of the PROCESS of paying. I was talking about how a poorer person comes up with the money given the hypothetical situation you highlighted two posts up.
I know how to do a money order, but it usually involves one of two things: 1. You have to pay a fee at a bank to have it done. 2. You have to have a bank account (which many, many poor people do not have). That in itself is complicated.
Getting a birth certificate can be tricky too. Here, you have to go, in person, to the country records office, which for me is 25 miles away. They no longer give out original copies, only photo copies, but some places demand an original so it's not perceived as fake.
Also, do you have the right documents to get a birth certificate? Here most people would use a driver's license to get their Birth Cert. But what if you don't have one and need a B.C to get one? Kind of a Catch 22. I guess you'd need a SS Card, but how do you get a SS Card with no B.C or driver's license?
I'm sure there's a way, but it's incredibly complicated.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that what Democrats should be doing is getting behind voter ID with plenty of compliance assistance. Make sure we make it easy and free to get the required ID, while undercutting the right wing narrative that opposition to voter ID stems from a desire to exploit the welfare system.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? You mean these red state legislatures passing voter ID laws aren't making any serious effort to make getting a photo ID easy and intuitive? I am shocked, absolutely shocked.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I still don't understand how we can know what percentage of votes were fraudulently cast to know if it's a significant problem or not.
Well, you could read numerous, numerous articles about how there has been no real evidence of voter fraud in recent elections despite an intense monitoring effort, but let me try this from a different angle:
let's assume that fraudulent voters (however many dozens there are nationwide) are out there casting their fraudulent votes. I would assume that there would be a roughly equal number on both sides of the aisle politically, right? Unless you're positing that one party is actively encouraging it's voters to commit fraud, there's a conspiracy, or that a lack of integrity will make you vote a certain way. (which I doubt you are) So the net result is pretty much neutral.
OTOH, due to the socioeconomic and demographic reasons why they wouldn't have them, people who lack photo IDs are pretty heavily skewed towards one political party. And passing laws requiring photo IDs to vote is a pretty great way to disenfranchise them. [/QB]
The first link uses a smartphone app dependent on anecdotal reports to determine how many instances of voting fraud there was. Not exactly a scientific study. The second link uses the same "report" as the first one.
As I've said, I don't think it's possible to know how many cases of voter fraud there have been. If I know my neighbor isn't going to vote so I walk into a poll and vote for him without photo ID, how will my fraudulent vote ever get counted towards studies examining how widespread voter fraud is? No one will ever know I did it.
Maybe it's not a problem at all like these articles claim. But we'll never really know. The simple solution seems to be require photo ID to vote and start a government program to ensure those 23 million citizens can have an easy way to obtain photo ID, as it is a helpful document to have even if you don't vote. And by the way, your source for that number also doesn't say how it came up with that number and it's not exactly a non-partisan, third party source.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately one thing that poor people would seem to know more about than you rich folks is how to get a money order.
Us broke people know that they are available at such difficult to find places as 7-11 and post offices.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You mean these red state legislatures passing voter ID laws aren't making any serious effort to make getting a photo ID easy and intuitive?
The month after Wisconsin originally passed its voter ID law, the Republican legislature closed 20% of the Department of Motor Vehicles offices around the state.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
There are clear and comprehensive ways of measuring this fairly accurately, and every credible study I've found shows that voter fraud in a non-issue in modern elections. This is something I have never seen seriously contested. Your inability to grasp this basic fact doesn't mean that it's indeed unknowable or somehow a great mystery. It isn't. Nor should ignorance or fear be used as an excuse to deprive others of their civil liberties.
quote:Maybe it's not a problem at all like these articles claim. But we'll never really know.
No, we do know. And it's not a problem.
quote:The simple solution seems to be require photo ID to vote and start a government program to ensure those 23 million citizens can have an easy way to obtain photo ID
Your "simple solution" is a multi-billion dollar problem and a logistical nightmare. That being said, it probably is a good idea to help these 23 million people obtain photo IDs and have better access to their own records, and then require voter ID laws after it becomes a non-issue. Instead, voter ID laws are being passed, no serious effort is being made to ensure every citizen has easy access to a photo ID.
Requiring voter ID laws while understanding the huge bureaucratic quagmire that these 23 million people represent, and knowing that most of them lack the time (like, it can be a months long process) or resources to obtain a valid ID, is nothing short of a deliberate effort to disenfranchise them politically. Especially when there is *no* credible reason to do so other than your refusal to accept basic facts.
quote:as it is a helpful document to have even if you don't vote.
Which is of course the main concern of the Republican party in this issue.
quote:And by the way, your source for that number also doesn't say how it came up with that number and it's not exactly a non-partisan, third party source.
I find it curious that you're willing to make some pretty strong claims in this argument, but can't be bothered to check a citation or do even cursory research on the subject matter. Frankly, your willful ignorance and "gosh shucks I just don't know" naivete on this issue is grating and bordering on disingenuous. Like, it's hard for me to believe that after several posters explaining this issue to you indepth you still seriously think voter ID laws are a "simple solution" to a non-existent problem.
I mean, long term, there will hopefully be a movement started and a lot of NPOs springing up to help disadvantaged people reconcile their paperwork and apply for photo IDs, and 10 years down the road it's possible that, say, 99% of eligible voters will have one. But that's going to take billions of dollars and a huge amount number of man hours and detract from other political efforts. So not only does the Republican Party destroy a fairly large part of the Democratic voter base for the next 10 years, they also force them to redirect a huge amount of their resources towards voter education and helping aging and poor voters track down paperwork, which only sets them back further. It's a pretty brilliant tactic, actually, and shares a lot in common with the Jim Crow era "literacy tests" for voting.
Do you really, truly not see what a huge issue this is?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
There are clear and comprehensive ways of measuring this fairly accurately, and every credible study I've found shows that voter fraud in a non-issue in modern elections. This is something I have never seen seriously contested. Your inability to grasp this basic fact doesn't mean that it's indeed unknowable or somehow a great mystery. It isn't. Nor should ignorance or fear be used as an excuse to deprive others of their civil liberties.
My "inability to grasp this basic fact" was because your support for this fact was a report based on a smartphone app and my cursory google search wasn't answering my question on how we can know the full extent of something that may not always be caught. I am not advocating depriving others of their civil liberties. I am advocating we should make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our voting system AND ensure every citizen has the opportunity to vote. I absolutely agree with your statement that we should first ensure the ability to get photo ID is a non-issue before requiring it. I never said I agree with the Republicans' MO on this issue.
quote: I find it curious that you're willing to make some pretty strong claims in this argument, but can't be bothered to check a citation or do even cursory research on the subject matter. Frankly, your willful ignorance and "gosh shucks I just don't know" naivete on this issue is grating and bordering on disingenuous. Like, it's hard for me to believe that after several posters explaining this issue to you indepth you still seriously think voter ID laws are a "simple solution" to a non-existent problem.
The link you originally posted did not contain a citation on where the 11% 23 million figure was drawn from. I did not see one in the downloadable report either.
Where have several posters answered my question in depth on how we can know if voter fraud is a problem? There were several in depth posts on the difficulties of obtaining photo ID, and I did not continue to question that after reading them.
Also, is the name-calling and condescending attitude really necessary? In my first post on the issue I openly said I don't fully understand the issue and my questions are just my way of wrapping my head around it.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The basic problem, Gaal, is that for a voter ID law to be ethical the sorts of assistance to get ID would need to be fully in place and *before* the ID laws go into effect. It shouldn't somehow be simulateneos or something, because that just wouldn't work without restricting the access to vote of most disadvantaged who *already* have much less a voice in our government than they should.
As for the idea 'we don't really know if there's a problem or not', aside from the very high likelihood that we do understand how big a problem there is (which is: there isn't), shouldn't there be more than 'it might be happening, but we don't know?' before a new law is made?
And isn't it peculiar that the party least inclined to seek out the poor and minority voters, the party least likely to support programs to aid them, is the party most behind an effort to require these 'helpful documents' for those who don't already have them?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Also, is the name-calling and condescending attitude really necessary?
Name calling? Where?
As far as condescending, I actually had two options. I could insult your intelligence by assuming you simply didn't understand the evidence you were being shown, or I could assume you were affecting obstinance with the hopes of accomplishing with attrition what you can't with logic. I went with the latter because it seemed to be the *least* condescending I could be while still calling you out on your behavior in an polite-yet-firm manner.
quote:In my first post on the issue I openly said I don't fully understand the issue and my questions are just my way of wrapping my head around it.
And I feel like it's been adequately explained to you. If you're still not convinced that voter fraud isn't a threat, and you find all the articles posted here to be somehow suspect, then I invite you to research it yourself. There is a massive amount of research that has been done on the subject and hundreds of articles written. At this point, I can either just sit here and continue to copy-paste articles for you to act befuddled at, or you can just read them yourself.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To sort of repeat a question, what is your methodology used to determine there *is* a problem that needs to be fixed? Which should be central to determining whether a new law is needed.
Which is, incidentally, supposed to be rather central to Republican politics-not making new laws unnecessarily.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that it is a problem. I agree that it likely isn't. It just seems like a standard verification for an important process. When I pay my utility bill at my local city office with my credit card, I'm required to show my ID matches the name on the credit card despite the fact that the name on the credit card matches the name on the account. Is it likely that I stole someone's credit card and am paying their utility bill for them with it? Probably not. It's just standard verification.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not, though. My power, utilities, cable, and car insurance I can all pay over the phone with nothing but an account number. From an unassociated phone no less. I believe but can't be sure that on one of those I could even make a payment drawn on my bank account over the phone without a card number, for auto payments.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
You are approaching this issue from the wrong angle. It is not a question of what burden of proof we should place on voters, but what burden of proof we should place on those who would seek to challenge voters. Voting is a constitutionally protected right. In order to limit that right, any limitation must pass a test of basic utility. That is: if you can't prove that voter ID law stops voter fraud, and you can't prove that voter fraud is a problem, then you have no business treating it as a problem that bears the limitation of basic rights.
Just consider other examples for some perspective. For example, you have the right to buy sheet metal in a hardware store. Sheet metal can be used to construct bomb casings. Now, this is not a widespread problem, and the utility of sheet metal is far reaching and various. But because it *can* be used to make a bomb casing, should we require ID in order to buy it? There are numerous substances deemed dangerous enough to do just that: charcoal for example, lighter fluid, phosphorous, gun powder, and other things that can be used to make a bomb. But we have a reasonable suspicion that people buying those items may be using them for nefarious purposes. So we infringe slightly on people's rights in order to limit a real danger.
Voter fraud, in person voter fraud, is not such a danger. This is a proven fact. It is not a mystery. And a remedy to a problem that does not exist, which is inherently impinging upon individual rights, is, QED, a violation of those rights.
The question is not: "is this such a burden," but rather, is this such a problem as to justify *any* additional burden? In the case of on person voter fraud, the answer is no.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to vote? Should people be able to just walk in to a polling location and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Yes. If they are registered.
Voter fraud is a very serious crime. If, for example, a voter were to be recognized by a poll worker or neighbor voting fraudulently, and reported, they could be in serious trouble. This is, in itself, a sufficient deterrent to massive in person voter fraud. We know this, because reliable data shows that in person voter fraud is vanishingly rare. It is rare partly because it carries serious penalties, and is of little criminal utility.
Conspiracy to commit voter fraud is an even worse crime, and carries an even greater risk that the perpetrators will be caught, and it too is of little relative utility. Thus, it does not happen. You see?
In the same way that the IRS doesn't require you to prove all your deductions on your tax returns, because if you lie and are audited, the penalties are so much worse than the small gains you stand to make, so too with in person voter fraud. And the IRS still recognizes tax cheating as common enough to warrant audits. But audits of polling places essentially never discover in person voter fraud.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
You now want to armchair the methodology of a broad base of research, none of which is disputed in the literature (because others have already analyzed it, and didn't find fault)? You think this is a reasonable request?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
You now want to armchair the methodology of a broad base of research, none of which is disputed in the literature (because others have already analyzed it, and didn't find fault)? You think this is a reasonable request?
I can't raise a question regarding the methodology because other people haven't had the same question? That's unreasonable?
Let's settle this. I agree that voter fraud is most likely not a problem. I agree with all the reasons you outlined above.
My only question regarding the methodology is this: from what I read, the number of instances of voter fraud that the study lists as being insignificant to warrant a correction in the voting process is the number of instances of voter fraud that were caught. I don't understand how a study can know how many times it happened and wasn't caught and factor that into their analysis. Can you explain this to me?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A federal ID program, while probably very difficult to achieve at first due to the issues that already exist with vulnerable populations today, would nevertheless probably solve any voter ID issues within a generation. There are countries where you don't even register, but whenever you move your records are automatically moved to your new precinct and put on a list. Doesn't that sound like the perfect solution to everything?
Cue government overreach rant in 3...2...1...
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the purpose of these voter id laws has never ever ever been to prevent voter fraud, and i am sincerely impressed when people can't figure that out and make arguments predicated on essentially ignoring that the point of these laws is to try to prevent as many poor and minority populations from voting because they would vote against the people who institute these laws in order to keep election turnouts favorable to them
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Do you think I'm actually a research analyst? When you read that, say, Shark Tank had 7.45 million viewers on it's premiere this season, how exactly do you think they know that? Do you actually research the exact methodology and run simulations to test it's effectiveness? Because there are people who do this, who are far smarter and make far more money than me. Yet strangely none of them have been able to find conclusive evidence of voter fraud, even the ones who set out to try and prove it exists.
What it breaks down to is you do a sample study where, say, you monitor 10,000 voters in several distinct areas that represent every major sociopolitical and cultural group in the U.S. proportionally. Then you multiply the number of voters attempting to vote fraudulently to the total number of registered voters in the country. If you do this experiment several dozen times and still find absolutely no one voting fraudulently, then it's a pretty good indication that in person voter fraud doesn't exist, or if it does, it's an anomaly small enough that it's irrelevant.
It's actually a lot more complex than that, and I haven't the expertise, the incentive or the time to defend the methodology to you. As has been pointed out (and you've chosen to ignore), there are people who do this for a living ho *have* examined this and found no issue with it, and more importantly, no one has been able to successfully challenge it.
More to the point, voter fraud is a felony and will get a you a year in a jail, conspiracy to commit voter fraud 5 years. You would need a pretty powerful incentive to vote fraudulently considering the risk - i.e, someone would have to pay you. And anyone going around paying people to commit voter fraud would get caught pretty quickly - it'd be an extremely difficult conspiracy to pull off.
But the main point is that the onus is on you to prove that is this is actually happening. Like, any evidence at all that voter fraud is actually a problem. I can't prove to you there's not an invisible flying giraffe living in my backyard at this moment, but I have no evidence to believe there is. (None of the leaves on my trees have been eaten, the grass isn't depressed, and I haven't walked over any invisible droppings, etc.)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Do you any reason to think Gaal is against proving your ID to buy a guy or...?
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Ok, so definitely not. What's your point here Elison?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I have read the research. And yet you've never answered my one question regarding the accuracy of the methodology used to get those results.
Do you think I'm actually a research analyst? When you read that, say, Shark Tank had 7.45 million viewers on it's premiere this season, how exactly do you think they know that? Do you actually research the exact methodology and run simulations to test it's effectiveness? Because there are people who do this, who are far smarter and make far more money than me. Yet strangely none of them have been able to find conclusive evidence of voter fraud, even the ones who set out to try and prove it exists.
What it breaks down to is you do a sample study where, say, you monitor 10,000 voters in several distinct areas that represent every major sociopolitical and cultural group in the U.S. proportionally. Then you multiply the number of voters attempting to vote fraudulently to the total number of registered voters in the country. If you do this experiment several dozen times and still find absolutely no one voting fraudulently, then it's a pretty good indication that in person voter fraud doesn't exist, or if it does, it's an anomaly small enough that it's irrelevant.
It's actually a lot more complex than that, and I haven't the expertise, the incentive or the time to defend the methodology to you. As has been pointed out (and you've chosen to ignore), there are people who do this for a living ho *have* examined this and found no issue with it, and more importantly, no one has been able to successfully challenge it.
More to the point, voter fraud is a felony and will get a you a year in a jail, conspiracy to commit voter fraud 5 years. You would need a pretty powerful incentive to vote fraudulently considering the risk - i.e, someone would have to pay you. And anyone going around paying people to commit voter fraud would get caught pretty quickly - it'd be an extremely difficult conspiracy to pull off.
But the main point is that the onus is on you to prove that is this is actually happening. Like, any evidence at all that voter fraud is actually a problem. I can't prove to you there's not an invisible flying giraffe living in my backyard at this moment, but I have no evidence to believe there is. (None of the leaves on my trees have been eaten, the grass isn't depressed, and I haven't walked over any invisible droppings, etc.)
Dogbreath, I appreciate your posts and patience in thread. I've said I agree that we should make sure voter disenfranchisement is a non-issue before creating any laws.
That said (and at this point, this is basically irrelevant to the photo ID issue), I think with your comparison to tv ratings you're not understanding my question about the numbers.
Nielsen ratings come from knowable data. Certain TVs are equipped with meters to determine how many people in the sample are watching Shark Tank, which is then projected to the entire population, based on research techniques that I have no understanding of. However, unless people are tricking their meter into thinking they're watching something else when they're really watching Shark Tank, it's fair to say the data in the sample is accurate. My question about the data in voter fraud is how can you know the data in the sample is accurate? Like I said before, if I know my neighbor isn't voting and I go and cast a ballot in his name, that would never count in the sample because no one would ever no I did it. If my polling location were being used as a sample for voter fraud, it might show no cases of it when really there was one.
I'm going to drop the topic now. Again, I agree with your conclusion regarding the costs of losing voters vs. the benfit of reducing what is likely an insignificant number of instances of voter fraud. And I agree that the only reason Republicans want to legislate laws like this is for their own benefit.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
There are ironically a lot of republicans who would disagree with you, because of the constitution, but that's just too vomit enducingly ironic.
Buying a gun, in the opinion of many but not all courts in the US, is a right that is not substantially infringed by the need of ID. Certainly the Supreme Court has consistently seen things that way for quite a long time. On the contrary, voting is a right that *is* substantially infringed by the same requirement.
And it isn't hard to see why that is: voting is not inherently dangerous, it is not involved with the purchase or sale of goods which can be trafficked illegally (a big part of why gun control advocates want ID laws), and there is very small potential for voting rights to be abused (voting libertarian not withstanding )
The only "danger," to voting without ID is that someone will criminally vote when they are not supposed to, an act which carries significant risk, and offers an extremely small benefit to the would-be criminal. This would involve someone registering fraudulently, an act that can be easily found out and prosecuted, and going in to vote in person, or mail in a ballot, also both acts that carry significant risk.
By all means, hunt down and prosecute people who do this. Since there isn't anyone doing it, it should be easy (or hard, depending on how you look at it). The answer is not a serious impingement of the rights of a broad set of people who have the right to vote.
quote: My question about the data in voter fraud is how can you know the data in the sample is accurate
I suggest Khan Academy. I think he has some videos on statistics and survey/polling data. Or sign up for a JC course on the subject. I took one in college, which is part of why I understand what's wrong with this question.
In short: a survey or study, of which there have been many, samples a specifically defined cross section of the population, representative of the whole, and applies certain assumptions to the data it collects. The more assumptions you have to make, the larger your margin of error tends to be.
So, for example, a study might randomly select 10,000 people from the population, representing in many ways, the larger population. This is accomplished by spreading the survey geographically, by age, by sex, and by race. It then finds out more about those people through a questionnaire. It then attempts to determine, by several means, if the participants have voted, and if they are eligible to vote. If it finds that a number of people have voted when they weren't supposed to, then it can be extrapolated that this trend is also true (within some margin) for the greater population.
Studies of the subject have found that in person voter fraud is about 0%. It is unlikely to be 0%, but it is *extremely* unlikely to be more than 0.0001%, which covers the margin of all national, and most state and local elections.
If what concerns you is the idea that people being surveyed might lie*, then yes, rest assured, that is also accounted for in the data. The thing is, a study where you assume that perhaps 25% of those guilty of a crime might confess, if told there will be no recourse for confessing, and *nobody* confesses, then you are still multiplying 0 by 4. It's still 0. In person voter fraud does not appear to happen at a statistically significant rate.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If what concerns you is the idea that people being surveyed might lie*, then yes, rest assured, that is also accounted for in the data. The thing is, a study where you assume that perhaps 25% of those guilty of a crime might confess, if told there will be no recourse for confessing, and *nobody* confesses, then you are still multiplying 0 by 4. It's still 0. In person voter fraud does not appear to happen at a statistically significant rate.
I guess I would add that on similar surveys with guarantees of anonymity, people admit to cheating on their spouse, doing hard drugs, having sexual fantasies about children, theft, rape, and just about anything else. There's a fairly constant percentage of people who lie/tell the truth about various offenses, and it's fairly easy to take that into account.
Surveys and statistical analysis is a highly sophisticated, effective science - if they didn't work, our economy wouldn't work either. I'm an uneducated schlub and only have a rudimentary grasp on how it works, Orincoro seems to have a better understanding. It can't tell you whether or not any given person will commit voter fraud (though it might indicate who is more likely to do so), but it can tell you at least within a order of magnitude how many Americans do commit voter fraud.
So Gaal, when you say "how can you know the data in the sample is accurate?", and then simply refuse to accept any evidence or explanation - no matter how conclusive - that proves that is is accurate with "well, we can't really know that", it becomes extremely frustrating. It reminds me of YE Creationists who use that as their go to line - "there are stars more than 6000 light years away", "well, we can't really know that for sure." No, we actually can know it, refusing to accept logic or evidence that proves it doesn't make it any less true. (I don't mean to insult you here, and FWIW I don't think you're in any way comparable to a YEC. You've simply employed a similar rhetorical tactic)
That being said, I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on this issue somewhat, and are aware of the extremely disingenuous way red state legislatures are enacting these laws.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why? Photo ID is required for lots of things. What is the an acceptable proof of identification to buy a gun? Should people be able to just walk in to a gun store and state who they are and we will take their word for it?
Do you any reason to think Gaal is against proving your ID to buy a guy or...?
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: i'm not sure what you're trying to imply by that but I absolutely think that purchasing a gun should require photo ID.
Ok, so definitely not. What's your point here Elison?
Just checking; there have been those on this forum who think the restrictions on voting should be higher than on purchasing firearms, because background checks and the like are an onerous burden on ones constitutional right.
In reality there should be a national id paid for with perhaps a 5 cent tax.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) 
