Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Here's the abstract of a interesting look at Voter ID laws. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=9122051 Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in state legislation likely to reduce access for some voters, including photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements, registration restrictions, absentee ballot voting restrictions, and reductions in early voting. Political operatives often ascribe malicious motives when their opponents either endorse or oppose such legislation. In an effort to bring empirical clarity and epistemological standards to what has been a deeply-charged, partisan, and frequently anecdotal debate, we use multiple specialized regression approaches to examine factors associated with both the proposal and adoption of restrictive voter access legislation from 2006–2011. Our results indicate that proposal and passage are highly partisan, strategic, and racialized affairs. These findings are consistent with a scenario in which the targeted demobilization of minority voters and African Americans is a central driver of recent legislative developments. We discuss the implications of these results for current partisan and legal debates regarding voter restrictions and our understanding of the conditions incentivizing modern suppression efforts. Further, we situate these policies within developments in social welfare and criminal justice policy that collectively reduce electoral access among the socially marginalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Here's the abstract of a interesting look at Voter ID laws. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=9122051 Are you going to tell us the study does not have an agenda? Further, we situate these policies within developments in social welfare and criminal justice policy that collectively reduce electoral access among the socially marginalized. They tipped their hand right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bullshit. If you want to drive you have to get a photo ID plus you have to pay for it. You have to provide photo ID to get on an airplane. It shouldn't be any different to vote. Texas is issuing FREE voter ID cards. All you have to do is prove residency and citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bullshit. If you want to drive you have to get a photo ID plus you have to pay for it. You have to provide photo ID to get on an airplane. It shouldn't be any different to vote. Texas is issuing FREE voter ID cards. All you have to do is prove residency and citizenship. Bullshit??? Really? I've shown you the problems with Texas in other threads and you continue to deny that the laws are set up to disenfranchise minorities. Your just going to act like the sky is really yellow till you die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Are you going to tell us the study does not have an agenda? They tipped their hand right there. Fired, I( know you think that is bias, where the rest of the people who look at these issues in an academic statistical way have more than enough evidence that minorities are disenfranchised under a number of different ways more so than the majority. You have shown your feelings suffrage towards ex-felons and it's disingenuous to say that they have a bias, because they don't agree with your own bias. Could you possible show a constitutional reason that ex-felons should not be given sufferage back? You are this supposed fighter for all of our rights, well except for ex-felons and that sort of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Absolute bullshit. Requiring a photo id to vote when that photo id is provided for free doesn't disenfranchise anyone and doesn't prevent anyone from voting if they're allowed to vote. What it does is make it much more difficult to perpetrate voter fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 More liberal BS......I'm sure there are few older people in this country that don't require medical care from time to time....the first thing they ask for is a picture ID.....another miss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bullshit??? Really? I've shown you the problems with Texas in other threads and you continue to deny that the laws are set up to disenfranchise minorities. Your just going to act like the sky is really yellow till you die. You haven't shown me shit! Just your twisted spin on reality based on liberal talking points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Absolute bullshit. Requiring a photo id to vote when that photo id is provided for free doesn't disenfranchise anyone and doesn't prevent anyone from voting if they're allowed to vote. What it does is make it much more difficult to perpetrate voter fraud. All it requires is someone to get off their ass and get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 All it requires is someone to get off their ass and get one. Precisely. And if they're unable to get off their ass there are plenty of folks willing to help them. In GA they even provided a mobile service. Obviously the liberals are counting on illegal votes to help get them elected and this would cost them votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Absolute bullshit. Requiring a photo id to vote when that photo id is provided for free doesn't disenfranchise anyone and doesn't prevent anyone from voting if they're allowed to vote. What it does is make it much more difficult to perpetrate voter fraud. Again, your feelings like those of Tom are incorrect compared to the statistical evidence. And there is statistically near zero proven voter fraud for lack of ID. Voting experts will tell you that the greatest threat of voter fraud is absentee ballots, and that using illegal ID's is as likely as not having an ID and illegally voting. Those conservatives who read the NRO, that rag have probably heard or read some of John Fund's work, but here is the voter ID apologist's feelings on what is real voter fraud issue. "Absentee vote ballot fraud is the tool of choice amongst fraudsters," Fund told a group of bloggers munching on Chick-Fil-A at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. "Everytime you see a truly massive, coordinated effort at voter fraud, it usually relies in part on absentee voter fraud." Fund said that many voter ID laws "take some provisions to curb absentee ballot fraud," with a few exceptions. But he confessed that Democrats had a point when they say that Republicans focus on voter ID because of a potential electoral advantage. "I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don't want to restrict that," Fund said. "But the bottom line is, on good government grounds, we have to have both voter ID laws and absentee ballot laws. He also shows that voter fraud is statistically highly unlikely to effect outcomes Critics of voter ID and other laws cracking down on voter fraud claim they're unnecessary because fraud is nonexistent. For instance, Brennan Center attorneys Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt claimed last year: "A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike." Well, lightning is suddenly all over Cincinnati, Ohio. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe. in case of your wondering, The 645,212 votes cast in the presidential election was down about 20,000 from 2008, which was about 8,000 less than 2004. Part of this could be attributed to Cuyahoga County's declining population, which fell by 80,000 residents over the last decade. Would you like to do the math on what the percentage is? http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/01/potential_voter_fraud_cases_fr.html Cuyahoga County chose not to pursue criminal charges in any of the 15 cases referred to the prosecutor's office. Most of the cases involved confusion about the so-called Golden Week, the one week during early absentee voting when a person can both register to vote and also cast their absentee ballot. Some mail sent to potential voters to confirm their registrations was returned as undeliverable, said Joseph Frolik, communications director for Democratic Prosecutor Timothy J McGinty. But the problems with delivery didn’t appear to be a result at someone trying to fraudulently register. On some, it appeared the person had simply moved. None were determined to have criminal intent needed as a basis for prosecution, he said. Delaware County investigated 13 voting cases, and filed no charges. But Republican Prosecutor Carol O’Brien’s staff did charge a man with falsifying names on an election petition he circulated. The investigations came at the request of Secretary of State Jon Husted, who last year directed all 88 county boards of elections in Ohio to investigate all claims of voter fraud from the 2012 election. Husted’s staff and the county boards identified 625 cases. At the time Husted released his initial report, 135 had been forwarded to prosecutors. Eventually, another 135 were also forwarded, bringing the total to 270. Those cases represented less than five one-thousandths of 1 percent of the 5.6 million ballots cast in Ohio in the 2012 election. Yeah, you guys want it because there is rampant voter fraud and not because it would effect minorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You can't use known cases of voter fraud to prove percentages because they only investigate specific allegations in specific cases. There is no way to know how much fraud exists without a comprehensive analysis of all voters in a specific election, otherwise the sample is statistically invalid. Even IF the actual cases today are low (which I don't believe) - the POTENTIAL exists for massive fraud in the future so why wouldn't you want to close that potential loophole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I see no reason we can't enact "common sense" measures to ensure the integrity of the ballot process. Getting a voter ID only takes a little of a person's time. In something this important, that's not too much to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I have no problem with requiring an ID to vote, but I ask those against.... Exactly why is it a problem to show an ID? And if it is that much of a burden, just how does the individual get to the polling place to vote at all? I've heard of people without birth certificates, but if they have a right to vote, then presumably they have the right to a birth certificate. Although I would like to know how to reconcile such ID laws with absentee ballots. Getting an absentee ballot only requires a letter sent in the mail; no ID, only a stamp. I've done this for years, due to my fluctuating work schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The average drunk driver will have driven while intoxicated over 80 times before getting caught the first time. What we don't know is the success rate for voter fraud, we only know about the times some one gets caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Fired, I( know you think that is bias, where the rest of the people who look at these issues in an academic statistical way have more than enough evidence that minorities are disenfranchised under a number of different ways more so than the majority. You have shown your feelings suffrage towards ex-felons and it's disingenuous to say that they have a bias, because they don't agree with your own bias. Could you possible show a constitutional reason that ex-felons should not be given sufferage back? You are this supposed fighter for all of our rights, well except for ex-felons and that sort of stuff. Never commit a felony and I'm fine with your right to vote. And the politically correct jargon sounds all liberal and touchy feely. If you use the code words used by the patently biased liberal society impunes your credibility as far as unbiased data interpretation and the results presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Mandela did not have a problem with voter ID......smart man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bullshit??? Really? I've shown you the problems with Texas in other threads and you continue to deny that the laws are set up to disenfranchise minorities. Your just going to act like the sky is really yellow till you die. Bullshit. In your mind everything is about trying to keep minorities down because you can't get around your own pathetic hatred of white people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 You can't use known cases of voter fraud to prove percentages because they only investigate specific allegations in specific cases. There is no way to know how much fraud exists without a comprehensive analysis of all voters in a specific election, otherwise the sample is statistically invalid. Even IF the actual cases today are low (which I don't believe) - the POTENTIAL exists for massive fraud in the future so why wouldn't you want to close that potential loophole? The potential does not exist for massive fraud and you should know that. Registered voters can not more than once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 The average drunk driver will have driven while intoxicated over 80 times before getting caught the first time. What we don't know is the success rate for voter fraud, we only know about the times some one gets caught. And that has nothing to do with voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Never commit a felony and I'm fine with your right to vote. And the politically correct jargon sounds all liberal and touchy feely. If you use the code words used by the patently biased liberal society impunes your credibility as far as unbiased data interpretation and the results presented. Could you tell me where in the Constitution that felons lose their right to vote? You are the constitutional superstar, who defends the rights of all American's, except for women's reproductive and sufferage. I'm getting out your way so you can defend the voting rights of ALL CITIZENS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Bullshit. In your mind everything is about trying to keep minorities down because you can't get around your own pathetic hatred of white people. That's not true, but I really feel bad about correcting you in that little fantasy world you live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The potential does not exist for massive fraud and you should know that. Registered voters can not more than once. The New York City Department of Investigations says you're wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The potential does not exist for massive fraud and you should know that. Registered voters can not more than once. And NOTHING stops multiple registrations. No I.D. makes that inevitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Mandela did not have a problem with voter ID......smart man. The laws behind voter ID are much more restrictive than a majority of these. we are talking about college students and the elderly You can get a professional license with an out of state license, the same for the Bar in many states. You can apply to school with an out of state ID. The same for utilities, checks, bank accounts, home purchases, store purchases and credit, bank transactions and so on and so on. Let's face it you love the dumb downed meme because your incapable of understanding anything more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.