Amaya wrote:Lastly, yes, saying that this could theoretically impact blacks more than any other ethnic group is playing the race card, because that line of reasoning suggests that proponents of the law want it in order to disenfranchise minorities to weaken the Democratic voting base.

That is not the race card.

You can argue the semantics, but it comes dangerously close to saying "Republics support this because they don't want minorities to vote."

What I am saying is that Republicans don't want minorities who are likely to vote for Democratic candidates to vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:That is completely irrelevant as there significantly higher numbers of poor white people. In all likelihood, they vote Republican.

I think the idea of disproportionate effect was explained to you in the last thread.

Basing your argument disproportionate effect is quite frankly, stupid, and I am incredibly surprised that you continue to use it in your defense.

I'm not going to bother digging up the actual numbers, but I'll give you an example.

Population = 10,000
Blacks make up 10% of the population. 1,000
Whites make up 60% of the population. 6,000
30% of blacks are 'poor'. 300
10% of whites are 'poor'. 600

Twice as many whites are unable to vote. Poor blacks tend to vote Democratic, poor whites tend to vote Republican. Republicans lose more votes than Democrats if this law truly disenfranchises the poor.

Amaya wrote:
Twice as many whites are unable to vote. Poor blacks tend to vote Democratic, poor whites tend to vote Republican. Republicans lose more votes than Democrats if this law truly disenfranchises the poor.

Actually, that's not correct. The last census (2010) reported that non-Hispanic whites make up about half of the people living in poverty. You then have to look at voting rates for each group to determine net effect, but I don't have data for that. I do know, however, that black people tend to vote at an unusually high rate.

That being said, I think the real purpose of photo ID restrictions is two fold. The first is to create and imagined problem that ties in well with immigration reform so that the GOP can appear proactive without actually doing anything. The second is to paint Democrats as endorsing voter fraud due to their opposition to these restrictions, which do not actually do anything to prevent voter fraud.

Moreover, this type of voter fraud is difficult to carry out en masse, because it involves either convincing a bunch of people to break the law by voting multiple times, or rounding up a bunch of people who cannot vote (most likely illegal immigrants) and convincing them to risk breaking the law at least once (and likely being deported). Plus, while convincing fake IDs are relatively cheap, the cost adds up when you're providing them for multiple people.

Amaya wrote:Population = 10,000
Blacks make up 10% of the population. 1,000
Whites make up 60% of the population. 6,000
30% of blacks are 'poor'. 300
10% of whites are 'poor'. 600

Using your numbers, I am three times more likely to be poor if I am black than if I am white.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:That being said, I think the real purpose of photo ID restrictions is two fold. The first is to create and imagined problem that ties in well with immigration reform so that the GOP can appear proactive without actually doing anything. The second is to paint Democrats as endorsing voter fraud due to their opposition to these restrictions, which do not actually do anything to prevent voter fraud.

Good analysis. I hadn't even thought of those "incidental" benefits to Republicans.

Manchu wrote:

Amaya wrote:Population = 10,000
Blacks make up 10% of the population. 1,000
Whites make up 60% of the population. 6,000
30% of blacks are 'poor'. 300
10% of whites are 'poor'. 600

Using your numbers, I am three times as likely to be poor if I am black than if I am white.

Go on...

Well it's obvious that you have your own agenda that has nothing to do with voting ID laws Manchu.

@AustonT: That is what is meant by disproportionate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that you have your own agenda that has nothing to do with voting ID laws Manchu.

If you have some time, please let me know what it is.

Manchu wrote:@AustonT: That is what is meant by disproportionate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Well it's obvious that you have your own agenda that has nothing to do with voting ID laws Manchu.

If you have some time, please let me know what it is.

Aside from the fact you insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that they don't even know what disproportionate is?

It's especially humorous since you apparently don't even know what in total means...

Haha, okay

Seaward wrote:
No. You could make plenty that are very distinguishable from real IDs, but if they're out of state, it won't matter, unless whoever's looking them over is intimately familiar with, say, Alaska driver's licenses.

Its cheaper and easier to make out of state licenses that pass inspection, but its not much harder, or much more expensive, to make in state IDs that do exactly the same thing. Especially since you effectively work from the template that is a recently obtained, legitimate, in state ID.

Seaward wrote:
Please start using it correctly.

I did, in fact, use it correctly. Though seeing as you have previously demonstrated a highly unreasonable attitude with respect to certain topics, I suspect this is simply a further instance of that behavior.

Seaward wrote:
You would do it to prove you're the criminal mastermind/forgery expert you make yourself out to be, of course.

You don't have to be a criminal mastermind, or a forgery expert to make an ID pass the inspection they go through when being examined by bouncers, which is effectively the same level of inspection they would go through at the voting booth. Its mostly a matter of equipment and materials.

Seaward wrote:
Trouble is, you wouldn't find one. I paid a year of tuition in college making fakes, back when IDs were a lot less complicated than they are now. Even then, we had to get pretty creative with figuring out how to get around holograms. Something like this...

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-image/virginia-drivers-license-turn-laser-black-4539-1.html

...would be much harder. That second, smaller picture isn't solid; you can see right through it. There's also a lot of lettering on there that only shows up if turned a certain way. That's not a matter of choosing the right ink. We could cut some cellophane and slap it under the laminate, but that sort of trick doesn't work anymore.

Virginia has much more complicated DLs than any state I've lived in (MN, IL), I grant that would be very difficult to forge.

Seaward wrote:
It does occur. This whole thread is about a specific instance of it occurring.

For the explicit purpose of developing support for these laws, which is to say, not for the purpose of actually committing voter fraud by falsifying one's identity.

Seaward wrote:
I'm fairly sure I need to be registered to vote at least 30 days before the election in Virginia. Virginia also requires you to get a Virginia driver's license within thirty days of moving to the state. Showing up with a Texas ID wouldn't work.

Those aren't universal requirements. Minnesota allows day-of registration, and out of state ID with proof of residence (basically, mail), so does Illinois.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Amaya wrote:Population = 10,000
Blacks make up 10% of the population. 1,000
Whites make up 60% of the population. 6,000
30% of blacks are 'poor'. 300
10% of whites are 'poor'. 600

Using your numbers, I am three times as likely to be poor if I am black than if I am white.

Go on...

Manchu wrote:@AustonT: That is what is meant by disproportionate.

Go on...

Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Anyone who doesn't agree with Manchu is expressing stupid arguments. That's an interesting way of putting things, also on the insulting side.

That a black person is three times more likely to be poor has little to nothing to do with voter ID, but Manchu has consistently said that the impact of Voter ID is racist. I thought Amaya brought up a good point about the actual numbers of poor being disproportionately white and theoretically Republican. Harming the Republican base more than the Democrats, which Manchu dismissed to talk about the proportion of poor blacks rather than poor VOTERS which is supposedly the position he is defending.
He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.
So if repeating the same thing over and over is laudable stoicism and disagreeing and referring to sources and discussing the actual issue is remarkably stupid; I'll take the later, stupid debate how dare you have two sides!

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

I agree. Are we thinking Presidential Medal of Freedom, or just a drop-in at the State of the Union?

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Well, just goes to show that every individual has a different definition of silliness. I personally think claiming something completely devoid of supporting evidence to be fact is rather silly. You seem to be in the camp that believes claiming voter fraud has happened in the US before is silly. Different strokes for different folks.

AustonT wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.
It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Anyone who doesn't agree with Manchu is expressing stupid arguments. That's an interesting way of putting things, also on the insulting side.

I hat's not what I said, of course. I said that some people in this thread, who are opposing him, are using really stupid arguments. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is stupid. For example, Fraz was mostly being lazy and not honestly participating before, but he recently decided to change tack and have something of a real discussion.

AustonT wrote:That a black person is three times more likely to be poor has little to nothing to do with voter ID, but Manchu has consistently said that the impact of Voter ID is racist.

Have you actually read and thought about what he's posted? Did read the last thread? It really looks like you didn't. The laws disproportionately impact poor people, elderly people, and college students. Demographically, black people are more likely to be poor, so they are disproportionately impacted by these laws. The impact falls more on people of a given race.

Now, many people supporting these laws are not doing so out of racism. They may genuinely believe that voter fraud is a real threat or a problem. Now, given that the only evidence on offer for that is these publicity stunts made by guys trying to get these laws implemented, we have to question if that fear is legitimate. Whether it's worth spending taxpayer dollars on, and putting an obstacle (even if a relatively low one, given measures like Fraz is talking about- implementing free IDs and extended hours to get them, both of which cost taxpayer dollars) in front of really poor voters. I don't believe it is. There's no evidence of any real voter fraud happening which these laws could actually stop. So one has to wonder why anyone would bother with them. A couple of cynical political rationales for them have been suggested.

AustonT wrote:He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Interesting. Would the voter ID laws stop fraud of that kind? If the illegally-registered voter had to show a driver's license, would it prevent them from voting? It doesn't appear so. Manchu has not said there has been no voter fraud. He's said that it doesn't appear to happen in any real numbers, to which your instance looks like contrary evidence. He has also argued that voter ID laws will not actually do anything to stop real voter fraud. Which looks like might still be true, at least in the case of Colorado.

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't need to explain how we might mitigate the hypothetical disenfranchisement of poor black people because there is no justification for the laws that would require mitigation.

So...you're boxed in now and can't, because you're reduced to defending "the lazy" which isn't a valid disparate impact argument.

Woops off to watch my Poles get their heads handed to them yet again, by Brits today I think. My valiant Poles, so brave, with such an incompetent commander
(helps if I had time to like read the rules...)

wait are you playing FoW now?

Yes and I am proud to report in the great game of Polish Sausage vs. Haggis, Sausage wins! Flawless victory!*

*And by flawless victory I accidentally won...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Impressive way to argue there boyo. Everyone who disagrees is stupid. Instead of defining what the harms are and how they could be ameliorated I'm getting the "na na you're wrong so you're stupid na na." Thats my way of arguing and you're not good at it!

Frazzie wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Impressive way to argue there boyo. Everyone who disagrees is stupid. Instead of defining what the harms are and how they could be ameliorated I'm getting the "na na you're wrong so you're stupid na na." Thats my way of arguing and you're not good at it!

Try to keep up with the thread, old dog.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.
It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

Anyone who doesn't agree with Manchu is expressing stupid arguments. That's an interesting way of putting things, also on the insulting side.

I hat's not what I said, of course. I said that some people in this thread, who are opposing him, are using really stupid arguments. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is stupid. For example, Fraz was mostly being lazy and not honestly participating before, but he recently decided to change tack and have something of a real discussion.

Woof!

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagree with his position.

No justice, no peace.

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagrees with his position.

No justice, no peace.

NO JUSTICE NO PEAS!

(TBone has requested that I interject and note this is no way should be viewed as approval for the eating of peas over tasty chewy snacks. )

Reducing eleven pages of my argument to "insulting everyone who disagrees" with me is an obvious lie.

To reiterate: Voter ID laws are supposed to prevent voter fraud but in-person fraud is the only crime they can possibly address. There is no evidence that anyone is committing this crime and there is no evidence that anyone is going to commit this crime. These laws are therefore useless as to their stated purpose, which is to deter hypothetical but evidently non-existent fraudsters. Their allegedly incidental consequence is the equally hypothetical disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters. This impact is disproportionately experienced by groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. Voter ID laws provide no actual benefit at the cost of placing additional obstacles between eligible voters and the ballot -- unless you would count as "actual benefits" partisan goals such as sabotaging your political opponents during elections or the issues dogma brought up above.

Manchu wrote:Reducing eleven pages of my argument to "insulting everyone who disagrees" with me is an obvious lie.

To reiterate: Voter ID laws are supposed to prevent voter fraud but in-person fraud is the only crime they can possibly address. There is no evidence that anyone is committing this crime and there is no evidence that anyone is going to commit this crime. These laws are therefore useless as to their stated purpose, which is to deter hypothetical but evidently non-existent fraudsters. Their allegedly incidental consequence is the equally hypothetical disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters. This impact is disproportionately experienced by groups that traditionally vote for Democratic candidates. Voter ID laws provide no actual benefit at the cost of placing additional obstacles between eligible voters and the ballot -- unless you would count as "actual benefits" partisan goals such as sabotaging your political opponents during elections or the issues dogma brought up above.

Plus there are already laws against voter fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Anything else is being filled in by you, and maybe you should re-examine your conceptions of people.

I explained how we're dealing with a specific case that specifically targets black people.

Implying some kind of intent to harm black people by passing this law, which is fantasy.

MR, I have said again and again and again that voter ID requirements are not inherently racist and that supporters of these requirements are not necessarily racists.

Manchu wrote:MR, I have said again and again and again that voter ID requirements are not inherently racist and that supporters of these requirements are not necessarily racists.

Just pointing out that the language there was unfortunately worded, that's all. "Targets" implies that there's some sort of intent.

I also am still working on my first cup of coffee, so forgive my abruptness. No trouble!

Manchu wrote:Reducing eleven pages of my argument to "insulting everyone who disagrees" with me is an obvious lie.

If this refers to my comment, if you go back you will see I first quoted Mannahnin, not you, and then commented.
Sorry for any confusion.

Cheers,

Manchu wrote:Reducing eleven pages of my argument to "insulting everyone who disagrees" with me is an obvious lie.

They are quite obviously talking to and about Mannahnin, and I appear not to be the only one who took his comment as insulting.

There is no evidence that anyone is committing this crime and there is no evidence that anyone is going to commit this crime.

I believe we were discussing willful ignorance.

You are asking me to prove that you have no evidence? I won't accept that burden.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Interesting. Would the voter ID laws stop fraud of that kind? If the illegally-registered voter had to show a driver's license, would it prevent them from voting? It doesn't appear so. Manchu has not said there has been no voter fraud. He's said that it doesn't appear to happen in any real numbers, to which your instance looks like contrary evidence. He has also argued that voter ID laws will not actually do anything to stop real voter fraud. Which looks like might still be true, at least in the case of Colorado.

Well to preface I've never actually said I support voter ID laws because I don't. If the same system UNCHANGED from the current ID system in Colorado continues then Voter IDs would do absolutely nothing. The fraud here is persons not legally able to vote do not have their citizenship (and therefor right to vote) verified, if that isn't fixed a voter ID is useless.

Manchu wrote:You are asking me to prove that you have no evidence? I won't accept that burden.

I'll fix that for you

Manchu wrote:ITT I will ignore any and all evidence of voter fraud, and continue to espouse my belief that it does not occur.

You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

Its always worked for me in the past.

AustonT wrote:Yes the, "nananana I cant hear you" argument is a position of great strength.

Can you explain how that characterizes my position?

repeated more than once since I posted it. Including in a post you responded to.

AustonT wrote:
He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:He has also consistently said the voter fraud NEVER happens in the US and dismissed (I assume without bothering to actually look at) the links I posted; most importantly the one wherein the Secretary of State of Colorado testified before a federal house committee that 12,000 non citizens were registered to vote, and 5,000 of them cast votes in the 2010 Senate election. Which is a clear indication by a state government that voter fraud on a mass scale HAS occured. That's just data from CO based on LEGAL immigrants, lawfully registered with State issued IDs as non-citizens who ALSO registered to vote.

Interesting. Would the voter ID laws stop fraud of that kind? If the illegally-registered voter had to show a driver's license, would it prevent them from voting? It doesn't appear so. Manchu has not said there has been no voter fraud. He's said that it doesn't appear to happen in any real numbers, to which your instance looks like contrary evidence. He has also argued that voter ID laws will not actually do anything to stop real voter fraud. Which looks like might still be true, at least in the case of Colorado.

Well to preface I've never actually said I support voter ID laws because I don't. If the same system UNCHANGED from the current ID system in Colorado continues then Voter IDs would do absolutely nothing. The fraud here is persons not legally able to vote do not have their citizenship (and therefor right to vote) verified, if that isn't fixed a voter ID is useless.

Manchu wrote:You are asking me to prove that you have no evidence? I won't accept that burden.

I'll fix that for you

Manchu wrote:ITT I will ignore any and all evidence of voter fraud, and continue to espouse my belief that it does not occur.

Manchu wrote:You didn't fix anything. You want me to do your work for you in this argument. I have shown you an article backing up my assertion that in-person voter fraud is not an issue in this country. The article has been accused of bias but no one has been able to show that it is inaccurate. Furthermore, when the law was being litigated the State of Indiana (which does enjoy all the subpoena power Seward went on about earlier) could not present a shred of evidence that in-person voter fraud was actually going on. Now what else do you want me to do? Find or make up evidence that there is in-person voter fraud so that you can be right?

Oh look an illustration,
/Responds to post
/Doesn't notice that the rest of the post above directly relates

AustonT, I don't understand what argument you are trying to make. The picture that you posted is not loading on my computer so maybe that is the issue.

As to the registration of non-citizen voters, the article that I posted in response actually directly responds to those kinds of claims.

Manchu wrote:AustonT, I don't understand what argument you are trying to make. The picture that you posted is not loading on my computer so maybe that is the issue.

As to the registration of non-citizen voters, the article that I posted in response actually directly responds to those kinds of claims.

It's a rather fetching Chimpanzee with his fingers in his ears.

Are you referring to the Brennen report?

Yes, I am referring to the Brennan Center journal article.

Manchu wrote:Yes, I am referring to the Brennan Center journal article.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/without-proof-the-unpersuasive-case-against-voter-identification

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/10/new-myths-on-voter-id

If you want to quote liberal think tanks, I suppose that conservative think tanks can refute them.

The first link is critical of a "report" that is not even mentioned in the article I am referencing. Please take a look at the article I posted on pages 18 - 20.

The second link conflates voter fraud generally with in-person voter fraud that might be addressed, if such fraud existed, by voter ID requirements. You have also, unsuccessfully, deployed this misleading conflation against me. The Heritage Foundation goes on to criticize the Brennan Center's identification of who will actually be disenfranchised. I have said repeatedly that disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters is only hypothetical.

Manchu wrote:The first link is critical of a "report" that is not even mentioned in the article I am referencing. Please take a look at the article I posted on pages 18 - 20.

The second link conflates voter fraud generally with in-person voter fraud that might be addressed, if such fraud existed, by voter ID requirements. You have also, unsuccessfully, deployed this misleading conflation against me. The Heritage Foundation goes on to criticize the Brennan Center's identification of who will actually be disenfranchised. I have said repeatedly that disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters is only hypothetical.

The first link is for the original Brennan Center report titled "Citizens Without Proof" which the BC then Repackaged and is refuted in the second link.

This report concludes that voter ID laws have no impact on turn out.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3260864
This one concludes that Voter ID laws increased voter turn out in Democratic majority districts
http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf
which is weird....because it's hosted by Brennan, the same center that produced a report that said Voter IDs disenfranchise voters.
And Robert Pastor had both testified and written that Voter IDs combat fraud and don't disenfranchise voters
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/LPS107910/LPS107910/www.usccr.gov/pubs/voterfraud102408.pdf
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf
You know Robert Pastor that conservative wing nut associated with the Carter and Clinton administrations and serves as a Senior Fellow at the Carter Center.

AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on the last page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

I have yet to read in any of your links an example of someone committing fraud in a manner that would be addressed by these law that cannot be explained as someone not committing voter fraud in manner that would be addressed by these laws.

You can tell me that there are studies showing that voter ID requirements do not disenfranchise eligible voters as much as you want. I am still not arguing that they do, except hypothetically.

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagree with his position.

No justice, no peace.

Report it using the yellow triangle.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

The only examples provided have been of fraud which requiring a driver's license to be shown would not have stopped or caught. I'm all for making it clearer to people that you need to be a citizen to vote, and putting some kind of safeguard in to prevent noncitizens from voting, but these laws wouldn't solve that problem. They're a waste of time and money.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:AustonT, those are interesting links to be sure but none of them have anything to do with the arguments that I've been making and which I helpfully restated on this page. As I just posted, and have been posting for days, the issue does not turn on actual disenfranchisement of voters any more than it does on actual incidents of voter fraud. Both are, apparently, entirely hypothetical. The issue is that a law which provides no benefit or only a hypothetical benefit is unjustified as to its cost of creating actual obstacles between eligible voters and their ballots.

Have posted actual voter fraud in this thread.
Links show actual research in states with Voter ID laws does not disenfranchise voters, those peer reviewed articles are not hypothetical at all.
You can keep saying it as much as you want, Voter Fraud has occurred, and Voter IDs do not disenfranchise. The proof is in the pudding.

The only examples provided have been of fraud which requiring a driver's license to be shown would not have stopped or caught. I'm all for making it clearer to people that you need to be a citizen to vote, and putting some kind of safeguard in to prevent noncitizens from voting, but these laws wouldn't solve that problem. They're a waste of time and money.

As I have previously stated: I do not support Voter ID laws. I simply have been pointing out that whist Manchu has been sticking to his guns about how voter fraud never happens and voter ID laws "hypothetically" disenfranchise people that niether is true. Voter fraud has occured, and in the real corporial world(even in this country *shock*) research rather than opinion has shown that disenfranchisement has not occured.
I heartily agree that showing a drivers licence to vote wouldn't fix registering to vote through the bloody DMV that doesn't check for eligibility, if anything it encourages it. I'm not even sure if I have presented what I think should be done. I''m about 99.99% sure I haven't. What I have said is I have no sympathy for disenfranchising illegal immigrants(dur), that voter fraud occurs, and that Voter IDs are niether unreasonable nor disenfranchise voters. Whether they are effective or not. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for proof that a person has the RIGHT to vote, either during registration or voting or both. Becuase if the act of confirming someone has the right to a franchise disenfranchizes someone...well I kind of feel like that explains itself. If the only time you have to "show your papers" (cringe) is at the poll, I feel a balance of freedom and democracy is maintained.

AustonT wrote:What I have said is I have no sympathy for disenfranchising illegal immigrants(dur),

No one here disagrees on that. However fear of illegal immigrants voting (even if justified) does seem to be used to drum up support for these laws, which would not actually prevent illegal immigrants from voting. As someone noted, that smacks of pandering for political advantage, rather than taking real steps to fix a real problem.

AustonT wrote:that voter fraud occurs,

Albeit not in a way that is addressed by these laws. Manchu and Holder (and me) have argued that the crime which the pro-ID law activists have been simulating does not seem to actually occur. Not that no voter fraud ever occurs anywhere.

AustonT wrote:and that Voter IDs are niether unreasonable nor disenfranchise voters. Whether they are effective or not.

If they don't fix a problem, and they cost taxpayer money, that makes them an unreasonable waste of time.

If they dissuade any legimate eligible voters from voting, then that also makes them unreasonable. Manchu has conceded for the sake of argument/discussion that the disenfranchisement of these poor/elderly/college student voters is hypothetical/unproven. I'm not sure. I don't think these laws are purely political theater. I suspect that they are intended to put at least a minor hurdle in the way of demographics who overwhelmingly vote Dem, while pandering to fear of illegal immigrants. They look like laws written with cynical political intent, particularly because they don't address the actual voter fraud that apparently happens out there.

AustonT wrote:I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for proof that a person has the RIGHT to vote, either during registration or voting or both.

I could potentially get behind requiring documentation of eligibility at the time of registration.

Seaward wrote:
You seem to be in the camp that believes claiming voter fraud has happened in the US before is silly..

As a result of having voter fraud occur in the past, we have laws which make it a crime that are well enforced.

Truthfully, I think the best course of action given the OP story would be to find, arrest, and charge the person in the video with voter fraud, and O'Keefe with conspiracy.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Manchu's efforts in the face of wilful ignorance and trolling here have been nothing short of heroic.

It's actually been kind of miraculous how Fraz has decided to actually participate honestly in the discussion after so many pages of trolling. It would be nice if more folks would take a few minutes to actually think before responding to Manchu with silliness. Some of you are genuinely intelligent people, expressing remarkably stupid arguments.

I'm not sure what to say when someone with the tag [MOD} starts insulting people that disagree with his position.

No justice, no peace.

Report it using the yellow triangle.

No, I don't think so.
Just surprised.

If you don't want to use the official channels of complaint it is probably a good idea not to complain via the open forums because that might make you look disingenuous.

Perhaps the impression exists that complaining against a Mod is not worth the effort. The fact that a Mod makes those posts implies Mod approval.

We don't actually think much less act with a single brain.

Everyone knows we do it with no brains at all.

CptJake wrote:Perhaps the impression exists that complaining against a Mod is not worth the effort. The fact that a Mod makes those posts implies Mod approval.

As it is the complaining poster plays fast and loose with forum rules on his own (Mormonism is a fraudulent religion, apparently), so I'm not sure he has room to complain. It reeks of the double standards he claims to abhor ever so much, and further plays into the victim narrative that pervades most of his posts. Complaining because someone was a bit snarky to him is throwing rocks in a glass house.

That said, people have lost, or given up, moderator status (for whatever reason). So it seems somewhat odd to think complaining necessarily falls on deaf ears.

Manchu wrote:We don't actually think much less act with a single brain.

Everyone knows we do it with no brains at all.

Then obviously being a MOD on Dakka is a stepping stone to being in Congress!!

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Then obviously being a MOD on Dakka is a stepping stone to being in Congress!!

As a Republican, sure.

Hey, there are intelligent Republicans! I think you meant with a Tea Party endorsement.

And so now the Mods are insulting and dismissive of political parties they disagree with...

Gee, no wonder there is so much faith in them actually being impartial Moderators....

You actually thought there was such a thing as an impartial moderator?

That was a mistake.

Monster Rain wrote:You actually thought there was such a thing as an impartial moderator?

That was a mistake.

I didn't mean to imply I thought that.

I'm not hating on anyone, but no one is impartial.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not hating on anyone, but no one is impartial.

I am, I am 100% impartial exactly 7% of the time.

60% of the time, it works every time.

CptJake wrote:And so now the Mods are insulting and dismissive of political parties they disagree with...

Gee, no wonder there is so much faith in them actually being impartial Moderators....

We're allowed to post on the forums with our own opinions, or even humorous and insincere comments. If I'm moderating, I'm usually using red text to keep it clear, or it's via PM. We make a conscientious effort to be fair and evenhanded in our moderation. You'll note that people get to say mean things about other political parties too. Unless your preference is that we not be permitted the same degree of free expression?

Well there goes Manchu's argument. All benefit payments going paperless, which means people have to have accounts, which means people have to have ID. What is Holder to do now?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-government-phasing-out-paper-checks-all-benefit-programs

Frazzled wrote:Well there goes Manchu's argument. All benefit payments going paperless, which means people have to have accounts, which means people have to have ID. What is Holder to do now?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-government-phasing-out-paper-checks-all-benefit-programs

This is bs; I'm too old to adjust to direct deposit.

Mannahnin wrote:

CptJake wrote:And so now the Mods are insulting and dismissive of political parties they disagree with...

Gee, no wonder there is so much faith in them actually being impartial Moderators....

We're allowed to post on the forums with our own opinions, or even humorous and insincere comments. If I'm moderating, I'm usually using red text to keep it clear, or it's via PM. We make a conscientious effort to be fair and evenhanded in our moderation. You'll note that people get to say mean things about other political parties too. Unless your preference is that we not be permitted the same degree of free expression?

I'm ok with the Manster posting as long as he reminds me what the avatar says at least once a month. Some of us are forgetful when we get old...

If you have an issue with a mod report it. They will get a mod not involved to help out. Just pray its not Malfred. I hear he's building a doomsday bunker out of our socks.

Frazzled wrote:Well there goes Manchu's argument. All benefit payments going paperless, which means people have to have accounts, which means people have to have ID. What is Holder to do now?

In the distance, the whisper is heard:

National ID

Many are haunted, others are encouraged.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well there goes Manchu's argument. All benefit payments going paperless, which means people have to have accounts, which means people have to have ID. What is Holder to do now?

In the distance, the whisper is heard:

National ID

Many are haunted, others are encouraged.

Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere

The article made a point of talking about how many million people presently receive paper checks, and that many seniors don't necessarily have bank accounts.