WWTBAM Bored

And the effect is amplified among blacks and young voters.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for evidence that these laws have any measurable effect on voter fraud, which (when it occurs at all) usually occurs via absentee ballots. --Bob

In theory, it may be possible to write a non-discriminatory voter ID law. But in real life, laws are written by politicians and reflect their biases. The Pennsylvania law (which the courts rejected) accepted student IDs if they had an expiration date; the authors of the law knew that several big urban colleges in Pennsylvania has no expiration date on their IDs.

Too bad the Required ID laws for collecting welfare and foodstamps doesn't have a similar effect.

Why is that?

Bob78164 wrote:And the effect is amplified among blacks and young voters.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for evidence that these laws have any measurable effect on voter fraud, which (when it occurs at all) usually occurs via absentee ballots. --Bob

I am not making any judgement here. I am just pointing out how difficult it is for any individual to ascertain the TRUTH about any issue.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/09/picture- ... cist-myth/

Bob's GAO report, according to Bob (because I refuse to read the gobbledygook), PROVES that voter ID laws make it harder for 'blacks' and 'young voters' to vote. The link I posted above PROVES the exact opposite.

Who the F**K are we supposed to believe? Here are the logical possibilities.

1. The liberal side is telling the truth, the conservative side is lying.
2. The conservative side is telling the truth, the liberal side is lying.
3. One or both are showing factual data that only supports their agenda.
4. One or both are making up or skewing data that supports their side.

The same thing happens with every political campaign commercial or brochure. One side says one thing, sometimes backed up with 'facts', but mostly with a tired narrative or slogan, and the other side says the exact opposite.

So in the case of Voter ID laws, I don't know which of the possibilities is happening. Probably option 3. So what am I to do but discount both arguments and go with my gut and life experience tells me.

The side that is against voter ID laws seems to have no problem imposing restrictions and regulations on anything and everything else. I see it and live it every day.

Just one of thousands of examples you and I live every day: Since I have moved to Oregon, I now get charged an extra 5 cents when I buy a can of soda or a bottle of water, and I am expected to bring it back to the place I bought it to get my money back. They gave very little consideration to the trouble and inconvenience that might cause everyone. And using the same arguments they use against voter ID laws, wouldn't that requirement also be 'racist'? Why are they so against the idea of having to at least have cursory proof that you are who you say you are when casting a vote? If you want to cast a vote, why should you NOT have to show that you are who you say you are?

I do not see the logical argument for those who oppose a law saying that you have to show some kind of ID to cast a vote. Please explain it to me.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:3. One or both are showing factual data that only supports their agenda.
4. One or both are making up or skewing data that supports their side.

This is the case in every political/social issue 100% of the time.... but if everyone realized that, there wouldn't be anything to read on this Bored anymore...

lb13

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the effect is amplified among blacks and young voters.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for evidence that these laws have any measurable effect on voter fraud, which (when it occurs at all) usually occurs via absentee ballots. --Bob

I am not making any judgement here. I am just pointing out how difficult it is for any individual to ascertain the TRUTH about any issue.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/09/picture- ... cist-myth/

Bob's GAO report, according to Bob (because I refuse to read the gobbledygook) . . . .

What you're referring to as "gobbledygook" is known to most people as "raw data and evidence." I know that's the sort of thing many conservatives steadfastly refuse to consider. I'd hoped you were different.

I tried following your link to the Washington Examiner story it's citing. The (second) link didn't work. And frankly, I am very skeptical of the claim that turnout rates for African-Americans in any state are higher than the turnout rates for whites. Even if they were, that's not the issue. The issue is whether Voter ID laws reduce turnout disproportionately among those populations.

If these Legislatures were really concerned about voter fraud, they'd take a hard look at absentee voting. But that wouldn't serve their partisan agenda by artificially skewing the electorate in their favor.

I'm waiting for some ads in the Deep South, preferably with someone like John Lewis as the spokesman, directed at blacks, saying something to the effect that, "We fought long and hard for the right to vote. Now Republicans are trying to take it away. Do whatever you have to do to make it to the polls. Because if we show up in force, the people who passed these laws will never get another chance to take away our rights." --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the effect is amplified among blacks and young voters.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for evidence that these laws have any measurable effect on voter fraud, which (when it occurs at all) usually occurs via absentee ballots. --Bob

I am not making any judgement here. I am just pointing out how difficult it is for any individual to ascertain the TRUTH about any issue.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/09/picture- ... cist-myth/

Bob's GAO report, according to Bob (because I refuse to read the gobbledygook) . . . .

What you're referring to as "gobbledygook" is known to most people as "raw data and evidence." I know that's the sort of thing many conservatives steadfastly refuse to consider. I'd hoped you were different.

I tried following your link to the Washington Examiner story it's citing. The (second) link didn't work. And frankly, I am very skeptical of the claim that turnout rates for African-Americans in any state are higher than the turnout rates for whites. Even if they were, that's not the issue. The issue is whether Voter ID laws reduce turnout disproportionately among those populations.

If these Legislatures were really concerned about voter fraud, they'd take a hard look at absentee voting. But that wouldn't serve their partisan agenda by artificially skewing the electorate in their favor.

I'm waiting for some ads in the Deep South, preferably with someone like John Lewis as the spokesman, directed at blacks, saying something to the effect that, "We fought long and hard for the right to vote. Now Republicans are trying to take it away. Do whatever you have to do to make it to the polls. Because if we show up in force, the people who passed these laws will never get another chance to take away our rights." --Bob

"Now Republicans are trying to take it away."

What I said above now applies to you. Republicans are NOT trying to take it, or anything else away. That is one of the tired slogans that are trotted out every election to outrage the stupid and uninformed. I'd hoped you were not in that category.

As you did not get the point as to what I was saying, I will spell it out for you. I was not interested in the details, I was looking at the face that was painted on each side. Each side had PROOF and presented it that way. I could go through the details on both sides and point out fallacies and valid points in both. And if I had an infinite amount of time at my disposal, I could do that. But I don't, and neither do the majority of the people. So we're presented with 'expert' analysis that contradicts each other. So I explained what my guts and experience tells me.

And you come back with how conservatives are all dumber than you and how we don't consider facts when forming our opinions and that 'Republicans are trying to take away our rights'. That kind of strengthens my gut feeling that opposing voter id laws is a scam with ulterior motives of gaining more votes for the left. Sorry.....

Let's see if this works (Edited to add the map)

Bob78164 wrote:The issue is whether Voter ID laws reduce turnout disproportionately among those populations.

Why is that THE or even an issue? Do those populations have some special dispensation that other populations don't?

If murder is against the law and 1 out of 100 whites commit murder and 50 out of 100 blacks commit murder do we consider the law against murder racists or somehow unfair?

What is right and what is moral should stand on its own without measuring the variations of impact on different populations (who by the way say they want to all be treated equally).

Should there be a requirement of proof of identification to vote? That is all that should be answered and the answer should come from a neutral position on race, sex, age, whatever. The answer to that question is 'yes'.

Flock, I'm not unsympathetic to the point you're trying to make, but this article is not the one to make it with. Once again, people (including your author,) are confusing correlation with causation. And since multiple variables go into any scenario involving human beings, I submit that there might be other forces at work which more than compensate for the effect of voter ID laws.

Your author claims (perhaps rightly, I don't have the raw data in front of me) that black voter participation has not only not decreased in the age of voter ID laws it has actually increased. Therefore, voter ID laws don't depress turnout. Even if his percentages (and I've posted multiple times about the problem with supporting your argument with percentages, like Bill Clinton claiming he improved education in Arkansas 100% because they went from 50th to 49th among the states) are correct, let's pause for a moment and think if there are any other factors at play that might have increased black voter turnout in the last two elections. Hmmmmmm. Coming up with anything? Do you suppose the presence of the first black candidate of one of the two major parties EVER might somehow offset the effect of voter ID laws?

Do you have similarly compelling evidence about voter participation among Latino voters? The elderly, especially those who might not have IDs? How about college students? The article references Indiana's voter ID law, but doesn't mention that it was one of the first to be passed, and was far less radical than Pennsylvania's, or any of the other, more recent Voter ID laws. Can you really convincingly argue that all of the recent laws addressing voter participation (ID laws, early voting, etc,) can be targeted at anything other than depressing turnout among traditionally Democratic bases? I'm laughing at it mostly, because I really think they are trying to depress turnout, but what they're really doing is handing Dems lots of talking points to get voters to the polls who wouldn't ordinarily go.

This article doesn't "destroy" any arguments at all. Instead, by its outrageously whiny tone, all it accomplishes with me is suspicion about its data, methods, and conclusions. I wish that weren't true, because I'm among the denizens here who is tired of the backbiting and outrageously exaggerated political cacophony. But I can't just let it pass.

I don't mind a voter ID requirement as long as we figure out how to enfranchise 90-year-old voters who have no driver's license (for good reason) and no birth certificate (because they were born at home or the courthouse really did burn down in 1928 or whatever). My state has an ID you can get that looks just like a license if you can't get a license, and that should work for most folks (I assume most states have something similar). If there is a reason someone can't get one of those IDs, maybe it is a reason they shouldn't be trying to vote.

I faithfully switch out my new voter registration in my wallet every time they send me one when a district changes (and a couple of times when I switched registration to a party and then back to unaffiliated), but they never ask to see it. They ask me to verify my address, and they have seen me enough times that it's not an issue. But I kind of wish I had gotten to show it just once.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The issue is whether Voter ID laws reduce turnout disproportionately among those populations.

Why is that THE or even an issue? Do those populations have some special dispensation that other populations don't?

As a matter of fact, they (or at least some of them) do. It's called the Voting Rights Act. You may have heard of it. You may also have read, in your history class, of the reasons the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the first place. --Bob

I have no trouble with requiring the presentation of a valid photo ID to vote, provided that the state bends over backwards to make this process easy and free. By now, state legislatures have had enough experience to understand why some citizens (who are entitled to vote) can't provide the documents necessary for issuance or others simply can't appear in person in the designated place.


What I do object to are the supplemental provisions that are often enacted by Republican state legislatures. In the past couple of years these have lessened the number of places one can vote, have reduced early voting hours or made it generally more difficult to cast an absentee ballot. There is no question that these are enacted with the intent to suppress voting in the African-American community. Of course, the same Republicans would never make it more difficult for someone in the armed forces to cast an early ballot.

bazodee wrote:I have no trouble with requiring the presenton thaation of a valid photo ID to vote, provided that the state bends over backwards to make this process easy and free. By now, state legislatures have had enough experience to understand why some citizens (who are entitled to vote) can't provide the documents necessary for issuance or others simply can't appear in person in the designated place.


What I do object to are the supplemental provisions that are often enacted by Republican state legislatures. In the past couple of years these have lessened the number of places one can vote, have reduced early voting hours or made it generally more difficult to cast an absentee ballot. There is no question that these are enacted with the intent to suppress voting in the African-American community. Of course, the same Republicans would never make it more difficult for someone in the armed forces to cast an early ballot.

I guess since you have declared there's no queation about it that ends the discussion. So glad you could solve it for us. Of course republicans number one agenda is to suppress voting in the African American community. Thats number one on the platform.

I recently had to help a man who could not get a drivers license because his name on most of his documents did not match his birth certificate.

He was born in New Mexico in the late 40s. When he went to school in California they anglicized his name. That was fine until after 9/11. We had to do a formal name change in court.

Oh and he was Jewish. His family fled the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th century and had probably been in what is now New Mexico long before 1776.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

bazodee wrote:I have no trouble with requiring the presenton thaation of a valid photo ID to vote, provided that the state bends over backwards to make this process easy and free. By now, state legislatures have had enough experience to understand why some citizens (who are entitled to vote) can't provide the documents necessary for issuance or others simply can't appear in person in the designated place.


What I do object to are the supplemental provisions that are often enacted by Republican state legislatures. In the past couple of years these have lessened the number of places one can vote, have reduced early voting hours or made it generally more difficult to cast an absentee ballot. There is no question that these are enacted with the intent to suppress voting in the African-American community. Of course, the same Republicans would never make it more difficult for someone in the armed forces to cast an early ballot.

I guess since you have declared there's no queation about it that ends the discussion. So glad you could solve it for us. Of course republicans number one agenda is to suppress voting in the African American community. Thats number one on the platform.

I stand corrected. Suppressing African American votes is only number 2 on the platform. Number one is, of course, the War on Women. Conservatives all hate women, too, even the female conservatives.

Sorry for the mistake. It's difficult to keep track of who I'm supposed to hate, suppress and oppress..... Perhaps one of the bored's enlightened liberals can make me a cheat sheet so I can remember.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Oh and he was Jewish.

So was Sammy Davis, Jr. What's your point?

And by the way, Democratic candidates consistently get 70% of the Jewish vote as well. Republican policies manage to alienate just about every ethnic and religious minority there is.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Oh and he was Jewish.

So was Sammy Davis, Jr. What's your point?

And by the way, Democratic candidates consistently get 70% of the Jewish vote as well. Republican policies manage to alienate just about every ethnic and religious minority there is.

I thought his post was an argument against voter ID.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Oh and he was Jewish.

So was Sammy Davis, Jr. What's your point?

And by the way, Democratic candidates consistently get 70% of the Jewish vote as well. Republican policies manage to alienate just about every ethnic and religious minority there is.

I mentioned the religious angle because it made the story interesting and is the kind of little known history that should delight the trivia fans usually found here and the irony.

This guy's story is interesting to me because all the other Jews I've ever read/heard about fleeing the Inquisition who wound up in the American Southwest are not practising Jews by the current era. A lot of them were pretending to be Catholic during the Inquisition, & continued the pretense here until it became the real thing for them. Many have family customs about closing the curtains on Friday nights, lighting candles & making hand gestures about their foreheads while doing so (the curtain closing was to avoid being caught; the forehead gestures were apparently common in Europe, but my family, here, never did them) which they carry on to this day without knowing that they were Jewish customs. I guess saying prayers over the candles in Hebrew would have been a dead giveaway, but they aren't doing that by the current era.


So this guy has an interesting family history to tell, if he knows much of it.

ghostjmf wrote:This guy's story is interesting to me because all the other Jews I've ever read/heard about fleeing the Inquisition who wound up in the American Southwest are not practising Jews by the current era. A lot of them were pretending to be Catholic during the Inquisition, & continued the pretense here until it became the real thing for them. Many have family customs about closing the curtains on Friday nights, lighting candles & making hand gestures about their foreheads while doing so (the curtain closing was to avoid being caught; the forehead gestures were apparently common in Europe, but my family, here, never did them) which they carry on to this day without knowing that they were Jewish customs. I guess saying prayers over the candles in Hebrew would have been a dead giveaway, but they aren't doing that by the current era.


So this guy has an interesting family history to tell, if he knows much of it.

I'd like to read some of those stories. Most of the Spanish in the Southwest were Basque who required certificates of "limpieza de sangre" for marriages.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Oh and he was Jewish.

So was Sammy Davis, Jr. What's your point?

And by the way, Democratic candidates consistently get 70% of the Jewish vote as well. Republican policies manage to alienate just about every ethnic and religious minority there is.

I mentioned the religious angle because it made the story interesting and is the kind of little known history that should delight the trivia fans usually found here and the irony.

I too think this is fascinating. One of my college profs is half Spanish, half Irish ancestry, and some of those Spanish ancestors were Jewish. I was lucky enough to go on a field trip with one of his classes to the San Luis Valley, where he showed us the family farm and explained a lot of things you don't find in history books.

Check.

Appeals court OK's Voter ID in next month's election

Your move Kasparov.

The plaintiffs opposing the strict law likely will appeal the stay to the full court, to the Supreme Court, or both benches simultaneously.

BackInTex wrote:Check.

Appeals court OK's Voter ID in next month's election

Your move Kasparov.

The plaintiffs opposing the strict law likely will appeal the stay to the full court, to the Supreme Court, or both benches simultaneously.

Kind of a misleading headline, there, isn't it? A stay granted by a portion of the appeals court is a lot different than the court OK-ing voter ID.

I'm with Skoop here. I don't mind people being required to prove who they are, as long as the proof is not burdensome and there are multiple ways to prove it. I'm not familiar with Texas's law, so I don't know if I'd favor it or not. Indiana's law is pretty much okay -- it allows for multiple forms of ID, and most important, allows for a contingent vote to have an appeals process. So if a guy like, say Jim Wright forgets his driver's license, he can go ahead and vote and then present his proof later.

Many of the subsequent "voter ID laws" go much further and are much more restrictive. One can almost picture TRPTB rubbing their hands together with glee after Indiana's passed and saying, "All right! Let's see how much further we can push it!"

mrkelley23 wrote:One can almost picture TRPTB rubbing their hands together with glee after Indiana's passed and saying, "All right! Let's see how much further we can push it!"

I'll assume the R is for Republican. So you are joining in on all the thoughtless, broad brush, memeing, silly Sorosing of Republicans, Tea Party supporters, and conservatives in general? I thought you were above that. I guess I was wrong.

For your information, there are a small number of idiots who truly don't want certain eligible voters to vote. But the majority don't care who votes as long as they are legitimately able to.