Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?