• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

I dont do it because I am not willing to commit voter fraud. Just because I can, doesnt mean I will. Nothing prevents me from doing it is the point. You really are reaching now.

LOL! That's how criminal laws work! The criminal penalties are obviously sufficient to keep you and 99.999% of the country from attempting fraud.
 
Nothing to prove either of those two things. I can say the same thing but backward. May eliminate millions of fradulent votes, while they would eliminate dozens of legit votes. I think the real problem here is you dont think that your elected officials of choice could win in a fair election.

Yeah, except I've posted three studies, packed with statistical data that support my argument. You've posted jack **** to support yours.
 
Interesting read. Seems to state voter id actually helped voting turnout with no impact on minorities.

A study by the University of Missouri concluded that voter turnout increased by almost 2% in Indiana in the first election after the introduction of a voter ID law (2006) [3] Counties with higher than average minority, poor or elderly populations displayed no detectable reduction in voter participation. According to the study, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase the voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.” [3]

A Rasmussen poll of likely voters (2010) demonstrated massive support (82%) for enhanced photo ID laws, a support that included all racial and ethnic categories. Rasmussen concluded that it was “a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree.” [4]

Likewise, a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska scrutinized election returns for the years 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This study concluded that when viewed as either groups or as individuals, there was no reduction in voter turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly or anyone else as a consequence of the implementation of voter photo-ID laws. It was their informed opinion that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” [5]


The Liberal Fear of Voter Identification
A few things to note.

According to the Indiana Sec of State, turnout among REGISTERED voters in the 2004 primary was 21%, a drop from 2002 primary of 22%.

In the 2006 primary, according to her office, the turnout declined to 19%, not an increase as stated in that "study".
Secretary of State: Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita announces turnout and absentee ballot data for 2010 primary election

I wonder why the author did not reference the SoS Office data in his "research"?
 
Interesting read. Seems to state voter id actually helped voting turnout with no impact on minorities.

A study by the University of Missouri concluded that voter turnout increased by almost 2% in Indiana in the first election after the introduction of a voter ID law (2006) [3] Counties with higher than average minority, poor or elderly populations displayed no detectable reduction in voter participation. According to the study, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase the voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.” [3]

A Rasmussen poll of likely voters (2010) demonstrated massive support (82%) for enhanced photo ID laws, a support that included all racial and ethnic categories. Rasmussen concluded that it was “a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree.” [4]

Likewise, a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska scrutinized election returns for the years 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This study concluded that when viewed as either groups or as individuals, there was no reduction in voter turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly or anyone else as a consequence of the implementation of voter photo-ID laws. It was their informed opinion that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” [5]


The Liberal Fear of Voter Identification

Wow, I made it to the fourth paragraph before I realized it was a right wing sack of ****, which is pretty good! "as some districts entrust their election monitoring, recounts and voting-machine servicing to members of the radical-left Service Employees International Union (SEIU)," :roll:

So what have we got on the Republican side so far? A weak effort from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, and another weak right-wing piece from the right wing Weird Republic blog (that relies on the aforementioned Heritage Foundation puff piece). Powerful stuff. :roll:

btw, the Missouri study is a bit of a joke, given that the author only compared two elections and failed to consider whether there might be other factors that could affect voter participation in two elections four years apart in one state. That's sort of like flipping a coin twice, getting heads each time, and concluding that a coin flip will always come up heads.
 
Yeah, except I've posted three studies, packed with statistical data that support my argument. You've posted jack **** to support yours.

NO you have not. i have explained to you, as have others how easy voter fraud is to commit. And since noone is trying to stop it, they arent getting caught.
 
"Milyo is the University of Missouri professor featured in a BRAD BLOG article by Howard Beale earlier this month. The blog featured an enlightening exchange between Milyo and Senator Chuck Schumer during Milyo’s testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration at a hearing to discuss whether photo ID voting laws lead to voter disenfranchisement. As Beale noted, Milyo’s study purported to show that restrictive photo ID voting laws had no adverse effect on voter turnout in 2006 elections in Indiana. Schumer apparently thought it might be instructive to know who commissioned and paid for the study. Milyo said he had received a grant, but hemmed and hawed and couldn’t seem to remember from whom it came.

As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state."

The BRAD BLOG : Jeffrey Milyo, Academic for Sale?
 
Your comprehension skills are seriously lacking.

When exactly did I say laws stop people from committing voter fraud?

Worse than blind....


More irony! You TOTALLY skipped over the point THAT WAS MADE.

You just said:

"I dont do it because I am not willing to commit voter fraud"

followed by:

"Nothing prevents me from doing it is the point."


I suppose if you don't know the meaning of irony (obviously), it would seem "cryptic".

Thanks again.
 
Yes, it is an interesting read. Unfortunately, it means nothing. The studies are biased. They don't "prove" anything. /sarcasm

yep. the republicans must have gone out in mass to vote to screw with the results and survey.:mrgreen:
 
NO you have not. i have explained to you, as have others how easy voter fraud is to commit. And since noone is trying to stop it, they arent getting caught.

Dude, guess what? Murder is also really easy to commit. I could walk outside my house and murder someone inside of five minutes. But I don't, and in fact hardly anyone does, because the laws against it are an effective deterrent. The same goes for voter fraud. The risk does not justify the reward.
 
"Milyo is the University of Missouri professor featured in a BRAD BLOG article by Howard Beale earlier this month. The blog featured an enlightening exchange between Milyo and Senator Chuck Schumer during Milyo’s testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration at a hearing to discuss whether photo ID voting laws lead to voter disenfranchisement. As Beale noted, Milyo’s study purported to show that restrictive photo ID voting laws had no adverse effect on voter turnout in 2006 elections in Indiana. Schumer apparently thought it might be instructive to know who commissioned and paid for the study. Milyo said he had received a grant, but hemmed and hawed and couldn’t seem to remember from whom it came.

As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state."

The BRAD BLOG : Jeffrey Milyo, Academic for Sale?

Wow, righteous bust. :thumbs:
 
Why did I know that AT would attack the source. So no matter what study or info, guess the dems are always right. or is it left.?
Truth hurts.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Why did I know that AT would attack the source? So no matter what study or info, guess the dems are always right. or is it left.?
Truth hurts.:lol:

Correction: I attacked the source AND the content.
 
Yeah, except I've posted three studies, packed with statistical data that support my argument. You've posted jack **** to support yours.
Actually no you have not posted three studies packed with statistics that support your argument. You posted one link to a PDF that contains the results of multiple studies and that is a bit of a mixed bag as far as results go. Given that you dismiss out of hand everything shown to you, you really are just interested in stating your obstinate opinion and basically doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting nannananabobobo, I can't hear you. Over and over again, and you have been doing this across several threads for over a month. :roll:

Posting links to articles and pieces from the NY Times does not three linked studies packed with stats that support your ever shifting and changing "argument" make.
 
Last edited:
Correction: I attacked the source AND the content.

I stand correct. but the fact remains voter id hurts voting is a myth spoken by the dems/left.
 
That would be a lie.

we are at a stand off. I don't believe in your position, you don't believe mine. I support States who pass voter id laws.

(and we all know politicans never lie, no matter what party they are from):mrgreen:
 
Dude, guess what? Murder is also really easy to commit. I could walk outside my house and murder someone inside of five minutes. But I don't, and in fact hardly anyone does, because the laws against it are an effective deterrent. The same goes for voter fraud. The risk does not justify the reward.

Uh. Poor argument. Murders happen. We actively pursue murderers moreso than any other crime. You odds of being caught for murder are much higher than committing voter fraud. Furthermore, are you aware of the number of crimes committed in the United States every year that laws fail to prevent?
 
Actually no you have not posted three studies packed with statistics that support your argument. You posted one link to a PDF that contains the results of multiple studies and that is a bit of a mixed bag as far as results go. Given that you dismiss out of hand everything shown to you, you really are just interested in stating your obstinate opinion and basically doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting nannananabobobo, I can't hear you. Over and over again, and you have been doing this across several threads for over a month. :roll:

Posting links to articles and pieces from the NY Times does not three linked studies packed with stats that support your ever shifting and changing "argument" make.

Ay yay yay. I posted this study: http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...tent/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf and this study: http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc09e8d88_i3m6bjdeh.pdf (or it may have been a related Brennan Center study), and another one dealing with voter attitude about the effectiveness of voter ID laws.

I could add these:

The Disproportionate Impact of Photo-ID Laws on the Minority Electorate « Latino Decisions

http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5782740e4185414a8_snm6bhfwg.pdf

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0340ec86d18adb4a18_vqm6bne7f.pdf

etc., etc.
 
Uh. Poor argument. Murders happen. We actively pursue murderers moreso than any other crime. You odds of being caught for murder are much higher than committing voter fraud. Furthermore, are you aware of the number of crimes committed in the United States every year that laws fail to prevent?

There are fewer than five homicides per 100,000 people per year. Often the motives for homicide are FAR stronger than any possible motive to commit voter fraud.

The point is that just because something may be easy to do doesn't mean that people will do it. The laws against voter fraud are a strong deterrent, and there is very little to gain by violating the law. It is extremely rare for federal elections to be decided by fewer than a few thousand votes. Who in his right mind is going to risk a felony conviction to do something that will probably have absolutely no impact? It would be robbing a bank to steal the pennies from the take a penny leave a penny dish.
 
Last edited:
I never claimed that there is no voter fraud. But your example doesn't support your argument as it involved absentee ballots, and like almost all voter fraud it is not something that would have been prevented by these photo ID laws.

WTF?? Dude, I didn't make any argument at all. You asked for an actual example of voter fraud. I gave you one. As for the "absentee ballots" crap, in California (and I hope in every other state) ID and proof of citizenship/residence is required to register to vote. Once you are properly registered, you can vote either at the polling place or via absentee ballot. In this case, illegal voters were illegally registered to vote.

See, that's another way that you can tell that Republican politicians don't really give a **** about voter fraud. It happens, but almost all of it is the result of manipulation of ballots by poll workers and fraudulent absentee ballots. So why aren't those issues being addressed? Why is all this effort being expended on a type of fraud that is virtually nonexistent? Pretty simple, really. Photo ID laws reduce Democratic participation.

Again WTF??? Dude!! In the example I gave, it was the Democratics that were caught stuffing the ballot box, and the Republicans were complaining!

Try actually reading before you, y'know, post the wrong stuff.
 
There are fewer than five homicides per 100,000 people per year. Often the motives for homicide are FAR stronger than any possible motive to commit voter fraud.

The point is that just because something may be easy to do doesn't mean that people will do it. The laws against voter fraud are a strong deterrent, and there is very little to gain by violating the law. It is extremely rare for federal elections to be decided by fewer than a few thousand votes. Who in his right mind is going to risk a felony conviction to do something that will probably have absolutely no impact?

You just don't get it, do you? It doesn't make any difference "who in his right mind is going to risk a felony conviction...." Voters deserve to have integrity in the system. Every single voter should be able to prove (and should have to prove) they are who they say they are. The effects of not having a system in place that assures that very thing are so deleterious as to preclude any argument against it.
 

And again, no you did not post three studies packed with stats that support your argument. You posted two links in this thread, one to a study conducted by the Bush admin and one to the Brennan Center. The one from the Brennan center is a mixed bag as far as results go, partially confirming some things you have claimed, partially debunking just as many. You have also begged posters here to show you "one" example of voter fraud and guess what? Several posters, including myself have shown you several examples of voter fraud. You have been shown articles, news reports and even some of those YouTube videos you like to cite as *proof* in other threads. Not surprisingly your argument just "changes" when you get shown an inconvenient fact that does not fit your view. In fact, the one I supplied was an actual "conviction" for voter fraud, which you claimed did not exist and here you are still acting like it does not. Of course admitting that there have been convictions for voter fraud means you have to admit it exist in the first place. So we are right back to your child like insistence that there is no voter fraud, and you'll blithely ignore anything shown to you that debunks the idiotic stance.

Once again, any fact or reply to you that does not fit your cherry picked ever shifting, ever morphing and changing argument you simply dismiss and follow up with another mental enema that resets your mind back to blank. Which explains why here we are a month later and three or four threads on this topic are littered with all manner of reports, studies and evidence that debunks your puerile stance that there is no voter fraud and if there is it is not serious enough to warrant doing anything about it. Where laws have been passed the warned about "disenfranchisement" of "hundreds of thousands" of voters has simply not occurred.

Clearly, just on this page, you have again been reminded that you were given exactly what you asked other posters for, like DiAnna. There is a reason why this stuff escapes you and you are able to ignore it all and just keep repeating the same drek over and over again..................
lather rinse repeat adamT.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom