or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 390

post #5836 of 8748
The stuff they are doing in Ataturk's state all sounds great. Particularly if they will actually come to you to help get an ID if you are someone who has trouble with it.

But you can't deny that there is blatant evidence that many of these schemes are put forward by people who have made comments to the fact that it will cut out the voters who aren't going to vote for their party, and they are proposing them without any sort of system to make it easier to get an ID.

Especially because there are plenty of states where the nearest ID office can be faraway (especially if you can't drive) and have limited hours (hard if you work a rigid schedule) and long waits.

Hard to say where I stand. On one hand, I don't think it is unreasonable to prove who you are to vote (always weird when I vote here and literally provide nothing), but I can't abide by requirements that are politically motivated and don't have any provisions for helping people get IDs. I am also wary of something like a National ID card (papers please), but I admit that somewhere like Estonia has elections that are vastly simplified partly because of that card (you can use the card in a reader to vote remotely).

If you want to require voter ID and aren't being political about it...you would make the requirement apply to something far away like the *next* presidential election, and you would spend the interim time making sure everyone who is already registered to vote is able to vote (and figuring out how to not hold up future registrations). It would be a lot of manpower, but maybe have ID printers at polling places that print a vote-only ID (basically a one time opportunity to get an ID with only the same requirements as a normal vote...won't do anything for the current election, but would stop any oddities 4 years from now). Set up a printer in a truck and send it around to people at scheduled times?
post #5837 of 8748
As with so many things the US is the special flower in the bunch on this topic. Countries the US left look towards longingly, like Canada, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands...all require ID. I can tell you in Canada you need to show photo ID or have two other pieces of approved ID to vote. Foreign election officials are amazed at US voting procedures in general, and no ID in particular: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/06/foreign-election-officials-amazed-by-trust-based-u-s-voting-system-2/

However, this does not negate the fact Repubs want voter ID laws as it's likely to suppress Dem voters.

It should also be pointed out all those countries requiring voter ID have higher turn out than the US.
post #5838 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As with so many things the US is the special flower in the bunch on this topic. Countries the US left look towards longingly, like Canada, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands...all require ID. I can tell you in Canada you need to show photo ID or have two other pieces of approved ID to vote. Foreign election officials are amazed at US voting procedures in general, and no ID in particular: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/06/foreign-election-officials-amazed-by-trust-based-u-s-voting-system-2/

However, this does not negate the fact Repubs want voter ID laws as it's likely to suppress Dem voters.

It should also be pointed out all those countries requiring voter ID have higher turn out than the US.



They also don't have 2-3 elections per year.  There is a strong correlation between the frequency of elections and voter turnout.

post #5839 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post



They also don't have 2-3 elections per year.  There is a strong correlation between the frequency of elections and voter turnout.

Again, special flower.
post #5840 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Again, special flower.

 

My mom was right!

post #5841 of 8748
There was any doubt on that? confused.gif
post #5842 of 8748
What if elections were open for months with a cutoff date?

Like you could log in and cast your vote at any time from september through november 8th. You can change it at any point during that time, but whatever is in there at Xpm on the 8th is your final vote.

I suppose the question would be...are the stats made public? If somebody is off by a landslide at the beginning, it could discourage people from even bothering (even if the November 8th result would be different)...however if someone like a 3rd party candidate was showing a lot of support, then maybe people would be encouraged to vote for them. Or alternatively, if they saw their third party candidate had no chance, they might swap over to another candidate (kind of like live-action ranked voting).

If the stats weren't public, there'd be a lot of incentive for someone to try and get their hands on that data to cheat the system (optimize spending and message to fit voter groups that you have new inside information about).
post #5843 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

What if elections were open for months with a cutoff date?

Like you could log in and cast your vote at any time from september through november 8th. You can change it at any point during that time, but whatever is in there at Xpm on the 8th is your final vote.

I suppose the question would be...are the stats made public? If somebody is off by a landslide at the beginning, it could discourage people from even bothering (even if the November 8th result would be different)...however if someone like a 3rd party candidate was showing a lot of support, then maybe people would be encouraged to vote for them. Or alternatively, if they saw their third party candidate had no chance, they might swap over to another candidate (kind of like live-action ranked voting).

If the stats weren't public, there'd be a lot of incentive for someone to try and get their hands on that data to cheat the system (optimize spending and message to fit voter groups that you have new inside information about).

 

What if we let the individual states decide on that, and we could almost have a natural experiment!

post #5844 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

But you can't deny that there is blatant evidence that many of these schemes are put forward by people who have made comments to the fact that it will cut out the voters who aren't going to vote for their party, and they are proposing them without any sort of system to make it easier to get an ID.

Those same states are also working to reduce early voting, slash the number of polling places, make it harder to get absentee ballots in ways that prioritize certain groups. It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Republicans just want to suppress voting. What other rationalization is there for taking all those steps, especially when they've come right out and said it a number of times?
post #5845 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I live in a voter ID state with laws that I assume are basically the same as the others. Among other things, you can use almost any ID; you can get a free ID specifically for voting, you can still vote without any form of ID and your vote will be counted as long as you come back with ID or apply for the voter ID cards within 5 days; it's extremely easy to get the voter ID card (you can use almost anything, like a utility bill -- or you can use nothing, and the state will try to verify your ID for you). Hell, the state will actually come get you and bring you to a local courthouse to get the ids. All you have to do is ask.

The idea that it's some kind of conspiracy to disenfranchise anyone is preposterous. But it's par for the course these days for the courts and the media to accept preposterous things as gospel.

Of course it is intended to disenfranchise voters.

Voter id only covers in person voting; it doesnt cover, for example, absentee voting. In person voter fraud is practically nonexistent (31 incidents among over 1 billion ballots casted between 2000 and 2014).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

absentee ballot fraud is more common (although also relatively rare); however, absentee voters tend to be white and voter id laws do target minority voters and do increase the burdens a minority voter needs to overcome to vote. Yet legislatures since 2010 are more concerned about in person voer fraud and ignore absentee fraud. It's clearly pretextual and a response to the legitimate turnout in the 2008 election because in person voter fraud is statistically insignificant.

And it works hand in hand with reductions in early voting hours and other restrictions.

There are ways to draft legitimate voter ID laws that mitigate or completely eliminate disparate impacts (I think either RI or Connecticut has an example of how to do this). But the disparate impact is the point of many of these new laws that have been implemented since 2010. NC's new laws, for example, was clearly all about achieving a disparate impact.
post #5846 of 8748

It keeps getting better and better

 

 

 

14595618_10157572678595230_3487522530021946500_n.jpg?oh=17ac6a2db7801717e8d84c58ff4ff09e&oe=58646E2114595832_10157572679960230_4664455800184257188_n.jpg?oh=e564b63ca2ac66066910f6117043ad76&oe=586BBD0A

post #5847 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Of course it is intended to disenfranchise voters.

Voter id only covers in person voting; it doesnt cover, for example, absentee voting. In person voter fraud is practically nonexistent (31 incidents among over 1 billion ballots casted between 2000 and 2014).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

absentee ballot fraud is more common (although also relatively rare); however, absentee voters tend to be white and voter id laws do target minority voters and do increase the burdens a minority voter needs to overcome to vote. Yet legislatures since 2010 are more concerned about in person voer fraud and ignore absentee fraud. It's clearly pretextual and a response to the legitimate turnout in the 2008 election because in person voter fraud is statistically insignificant.

And it works hand in hand with reductions in early voting hours and other restrictions.

There are ways to draft legitimate voter ID laws that mitigate or completely eliminate disparate impacts (I think either RI or Connecticut has an example of how to do this). But the disparate impact is the point of many of these new laws that have been implemented since 2010. NC's new laws, for example, was clearly all about achieving a disparate impact.

Not a lot of documented cases because there's nothing in place to actually catch people who cheat. What's that supposed to prove? And absentee ballots are a separate issue.

You talk about what legislatures since 2010 are concerned about, ignoring that Voter ID pushes have been going on since long before that. In fact, once upon a time it used to be a more or less bipartisan issue -- especially after the 2000 election. Remember that? Maybe you do with that very clever phrasing.

Also, the claim that it's intended to target minority voters is rubbish. Even assuming for the sake of argument that blacks wouldn't get ID at a higher rate than whites, for disparate impact to have the desired impact it has to be grossly disparate. Otherwise far more whites are affected than blacks because there are far more whites to begin with. If you take the national percentages, according to google it's 69% of the electorate to 12%. If you had a law that say affected 20% of blacks and 10% of whites (which is of course a gross exaggeration) it would knock out 6.9% of the total electorate who were white and only 2.4% of the electorate who were black.

I can't say I've read all the surveys about ID, but I do remember looking at one. The best predictor of whether you said you couldn't get an ID to vote wasn't whether you were black or white or male or female, it was whether you were a Democrat. Is that because of the tough life of Democrat voters? Somehow I doubt it.
post #5848 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

it would knock out 6.9% of the total electorate who were white and only 2.4% of the electorate who were black.

Before someone jumps in to say that this still reduces the total share of the black votes, obviously it does. But not by very much. And does removing three times as many elderly white voters as black voters really have the supposed effect of tilting elections in the Republicans' favor?

Also, I'd note that voter ID laws are enormously popular across all demographic and party lines, to this day, despite the attempts to politicize the issue.

For example: http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx
post #5849 of 8748
It might be an Obama effect, but does everyone realize that blacks voted at higher percentages than whites in the last 2 Presidential election.

The point being that if they are being disenfranchised, others are too.
post #5850 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Before someone jumps in to say that this still reduces the total share of the black votes, obviously it does. But not by very much. And does removing three times as many elderly white voters as black voters really have the supposed effect of tilting elections in the Republicans' favor?

Also, I'd note that voter ID laws are enormously popular across all demographic and party lines, to this day, despite the attempts to politicize the issue.

For example: http://www.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx

 

You don't find it too much of a coincidence that many of the same states that in the past actively sought to suppress the black vote seem to be the same ones that are attempting to push these new voter ID laws?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field