It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
The voter suppression us just a side effect to the real idea here.
If there is a law to keep Illegal Immigrants from voting that means that illegal immigrants ARE voting.
No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.
No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.
There is an opportunity cost for participation in the political life of the nation. Arguments like these against a valid ID to vote would be just as useful in countering complaints about stupid people who vote, but we all complain about ill-informed voters! Informing yourself about political issues costs you in time, usually more time than it takes to go to the DMV for an afternoon.
Anyhow, shouldn't we instead be arguing that a more streamlined process for getting a valid ID is the solution? Or proposing alternate solutions? It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Yes, and much like getting a driver's license, you have to educate yourself on the issues between the hours of 9-5, M-F. Oh, wait...
There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
I can see the law inconveniencing a lot of people, financially and otherwise, but harm to the poor seems overstated here. Have the suggested harms been proven? It doesn't seem they have been, any more convincingly than the possibility of fraud prevention has been.
Do we even know how many people there are who a) work all day, on every day the DMV is open, and b) don't have a valid ID already?
Also, it seems like one hell of a challenge to estimate how much fraud by non-citizens is happening when the only way to measure it would be to ask foreign nationals to be honest about something likely to get them deported.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
The voter suppression us just a side effect to the real idea here.
If there is a law to keep Illegal Immigrants from voting that means that illegal immigrants ARE voting.
Not neccessarily. Again the kind of fraud they are alledging has never happened to a signifigant extent. Its the tiger rock concept except their solution will only work to suppress voters, which is the point, they don't want the poor to vote because they don't tend to vote republican outside of trailer parks.
This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.
Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.
There were plenty of anecdotal cases of Indiana's law preventing the poor from voting in 2008. The one I remember specifically was an elderly woman who no longer had valid ID.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.
Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.
Which is funny because the only real voter fraud issue I'm aware of occured in wisconsin, but because it helped a republican its a ohmotherfucking k!
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
There is an opportunity cost for participation in the political life of the nation. Arguments like these against a valid ID to vote would be just as useful in countering complaints about stupid people who vote, but we all complain about ill-informed voters! Informing yourself about political issues costs you in time, usually more time than it takes to go to the DMV for an afternoon.
Anyhow, shouldn't we instead be arguing that a more streamlined process for getting a valid ID is the solution? Or proposing alternate solutions? It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Yes, and much like getting a driver's license, you have to educate yourself on the issues between the hours of 9-5, M-F. Oh, wait...
There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
I can see the law inconveniencing a lot of people, financially and otherwise, but harm to the poor seems overstated here. Have the suggested harms been proven? It doesn't seem they have been, any more convincingly than the possibility of fraud prevention has been.
Do we even know how many people there are who a) work all day, on every day the DMV is open, and b) don't have a valid ID already?
Also, it seems like one hell of a challenge to estimate how much fraud by non-citizens is happening when the only way to measure it would be to ask foreign nationals to be honest about something likely to get them deported.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
Considering we had a pretty massive scandal where several US Attorneys were fired because they found no evidence of the specific kind of vote fraud ID laws combat, I think the onus is on you to prove this is an actual problem, and not just a made up scandal.
Voter fraud on any measurable scale has to be a inside job, otherwise there is just too much risk of getting caught.
Recruiting people to walk in to a polling station and cast votes in other peoples name? You would need dozens if not hundreds of people to do it at seperate polling stations. Checking that somebody was registered but not voting that day? The risk of the poll officals actually knowing the person you are impersonating? Then getting everybody to shut up afterwards? It only takes for one of these things to happen for the entire thing to unravel.
Or having 1 county offical "find" the votes you need to win?
Which one would you try for? Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Since you're the one so sure we need voter ID laws, it's your job to find proof.
In The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. Based on painstaking research aggregating and sifting through data from a variety of sources, including public records requests to all fifty state governments and the U.S. Justice Department, Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout
In The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine C. Minnite presents the results of her meticulous search for evidence of voter fraud. She concludes that while voting irregularities produced by the fragmented and complex nature of the electoral process in the United States are common, incidents of deliberate voter fraud are actually quite rare. Based on painstaking research aggregating and sifting through data from a variety of sources, including public records requests to all fifty state governments and the U.S. Justice Department, Minnite contends that voter fraud is in reality a politically constructed myth intended to further complicate the voting process and reduce voter turnout
Lorraine C. Minnite is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and a Senior Fellow at Demos. She is coauthor of Keeping Down the Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters.
He said objective and non partisan this lady is a hyper partisan Obambi follower!
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.
but nixon was so suave and charming, how else could he have lost?
Lets not change history, there were voting irregularities that could have been fraud, Nixon actually did the reasonable thing and chose not to challenge it.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
The voter suppression us just a side effect to the real idea here.
If there is a law to keep Illegal Immigrants from voting that means that illegal immigrants ARE voting.
No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
Although I don't believe any of those allegations was proven.
Oh they never where, but as a conspiracy to commit voter fraud its the only one that could actually work.
Get the poll watchers to go through the graveyard and add the names to the voting rolls. Then stuff the ballot box with votes of your choosing when the polls close.
If you want to be carefull, only add the recently deceased to the voter roll and pretend they cast a absente ballot before their death.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
Occam's razor is effective only to the extent you can fairly describe the possible explanations. I don't think you have in this case.
People seem to be making all sorts of gratuitous assumptions here. Is there any good evidence? In thinking about balancing the possible harms and the possible goods, it seems to me that if financial harm and deterrence in participation by citizens cannot be demonstrated, the case against action is very much weakened. I still believe the conservative position should be to avoid action when the causes and effects are largely unknown.
It seems obvious that we have a public interest in asking voters to prove they are citizens.
Well yeah it would seem obvious, and on its face it doesn't seem a bad idea. But it is, one, because id laws hurt the poor, as you've seen argued here, and two, there really isn't any evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented via ID is a serious issue.
The voter suppression us just a side effect to the real idea here.
If there is a law to keep Illegal Immigrants from voting that means that illegal immigrants ARE voting.
No, it doesn't. It's unconstitutional for someone who isn't a natural-born citizen to be president, but that doesn't mean that any of ours haven't been.
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
Occam's razor is effective only to the extent you can fairly describe the possible explanations. I don't think you have in this case.
People seem to be making all sorts of gratuitous assumptions here. Is there any good evidence? In thinking about balancing the possible harms and the possible goods, it seems to me that if financial harm and deterrence in participation by citizens cannot be demonstrated, the case against action is very much weakened. I still believe the conservative position should be to avoid action when the causes and effects are largely unknown.
Occams razor. Apply it to everything you just said.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
spool, you're just claiming we haven't proven that stricter requirements for voting don't hurt the poor, but you've presented no case for why these requirements would be at all good.
spool, you're just claiming we haven't proven that stricter requirements for voting don't hurt the poor, but you've presented no case for why these requirements would be at all good.
I'm not - I'm saying that neither the good nor the harm is proven, and that in the absence of any proof on either side, a conservative should argue for inaction.
It seems sensible that only our citizens should be able to vote for our leaders, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that illegal aliens should get a vote, or that we should turn a blind eye to fraud. It seems unproven that a voter ID requirement is an effective way to prevent non-citizens from voting, and it seems unproven that a voter ID would harm the poor.
Therefore, I don't believe we should act.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely. Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship, getting them to vote would be a lower hurdle than some are suggesting.
I'm not - I'm saying that neither the good nor the harm is proven, and that in the absence of any proof on either side, a conservative should argue for inaction.
Just conservatives?
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely.
And yet its been shown to be the case that they aren't.
There were plenty of anecdotal cases of Indiana's law preventing the poor from voting in 2008. The one I remember specifically was an elderly woman who no longer had valid ID.
I'm not - I'm saying that neither the good nor the harm is proven, and that in the absence of any proof on either side, a conservative should argue for inaction.
Just conservatives?
I don't believe a progressive position on an issue requires as a pre-requisite that some good is proved - only that some good might be possible. I also don't believe a progressive position requires that the harm be disproved - only that potential harm is outweighed by the potential good.
So yes, since neither the harm nor the good is proved conservatives should choose inaction, but other political leanings might arrive at different conclusions.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely.
And yet its been shown to be the case that they aren't.
I've been asking for proof of the harm, or proof that the harm does not exist - care to offer some? "It's been shown"... who showed? Where? When?
Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship
There is the Christian conservative ideology, the fiscal/libertarian conservative ideology, and the neo-conservative ideology. The three definitely run counter to each other on multiple issues. Its a mighty feat of doublethink for a person to believe in all three simultaneously.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Posts
Spokane has a fair number of people.
You're forgetting about Barrock HUSSEIN NObama.
Check and mate!
/Poe
There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
I can see the law inconveniencing a lot of people, financially and otherwise, but harm to the poor seems overstated here. Have the suggested harms been proven? It doesn't seem they have been, any more convincingly than the possibility of fraud prevention has been.
Do we even know how many people there are who a) work all day, on every day the DMV is open, and b) don't have a valid ID already?
Also, it seems like one hell of a challenge to estimate how much fraud by non-citizens is happening when the only way to measure it would be to ask foreign nationals to be honest about something likely to get them deported.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.
Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.
Poor areas rarely have DMV offices. And even if they do, they are often understaffed.
Which is funny because the only real voter fraud issue I'm aware of occured in wisconsin, but because it helped a republican its a ohmotherfucking k!
pleasepaypreacher.net
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
Recruiting people to walk in to a polling station and cast votes in other peoples name? You would need dozens if not hundreds of people to do it at seperate polling stations. Checking that somebody was registered but not voting that day? The risk of the poll officals actually knowing the person you are impersonating? Then getting everybody to shut up afterwards? It only takes for one of these things to happen for the entire thing to unravel.
Or having 1 county offical "find" the votes you need to win?
Which one would you try for? Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Since you're the one so sure we need voter ID laws, it's your job to find proof.
It must be entirely a coincidence that the ways in which we fight voter fraud tend to disenfranchise the poor and minorities!
link
He said objective and non partisan this lady is a hyper partisan Obambi follower!
pleasepaypreacher.net
A google search for voter fraud site:.edu comes up with almost nothing else.
but nixon was so suave and charming, how else could he have lost?
Lets not change history, there were voting irregularities that could have been fraud, Nixon actually did the reasonable thing and chose not to challenge it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
Oh they never where, but as a conspiracy to commit voter fraud its the only one that could actually work.
Get the poll watchers to go through the graveyard and add the names to the voting rolls. Then stuff the ballot box with votes of your choosing when the polls close.
If you want to be carefull, only add the recently deceased to the voter roll and pretend they cast a absente ballot before their death.
Conservatives delegitimizing the election of a so-called liberal to office? Why, I've never heard of such a thing.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
People seem to be making all sorts of gratuitous assumptions here. Is there any good evidence? In thinking about balancing the possible harms and the possible goods, it seems to me that if financial harm and deterrence in participation by citizens cannot be demonstrated, the case against action is very much weakened. I still believe the conservative position should be to avoid action when the causes and effects are largely unknown.
There are no urban poor?
Occams razor. Apply it to everything you just said.
It seems sensible that only our citizens should be able to vote for our leaders, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that illegal aliens should get a vote, or that we should turn a blind eye to fraud. It seems unproven that a voter ID requirement is an effective way to prevent non-citizens from voting, and it seems unproven that a voter ID would harm the poor.
Therefore, I don't believe we should act.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely. Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship, getting them to vote would be a lower hurdle than some are suggesting.
Just conservatives?
And yet its been shown to be the case that they aren't.
Yeah less intrusive like abortion legislation, increased immigration enforcement, and warrantless wiretaps.
pleasepaypreacher.net
When their ideology doesn't line up with their actions, I think you can toss the ideology. The modern conservative movement is anything but.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't believe a progressive position on an issue requires as a pre-requisite that some good is proved - only that some good might be possible. I also don't believe a progressive position requires that the harm be disproved - only that potential harm is outweighed by the potential good.
So yes, since neither the harm nor the good is proved conservatives should choose inaction, but other political leanings might arrive at different conclusions.
I've been asking for proof of the harm, or proof that the harm does not exist - care to offer some? "It's been shown"... who showed? Where? When?
There is the Christian conservative ideology, the fiscal/libertarian conservative ideology, and the neo-conservative ideology. The three definitely run counter to each other on multiple issues. Its a mighty feat of doublethink for a person to believe in all three simultaneously.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".