• 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!

Photo ID to vote?

Photo ID to vote?


  • Total voters
    92
"As of September 12, 2011, the Obama Administration had deported roughly 1.06 million in just 2.5 years, putting him in a good position to deport more than President Bush did in his four year term, which was 1.57 million illegal immigrants."
Obama Has Deported More Illegal Immigrants Than President Bush Says Miami Immigration Lawyer - Law Firm Newswire

What else you got?

But oddly enough the article in you linked goes on to say:

“Enough is enough,” commented Rifkin. “When does the talking stop and the action start? When does the problem of a failed immigration system actually get addressed?

It WAS an attack piece on BHO.
 
But oddly enough the article in you linked goes on to say:

“Enough is enough,” commented Rifkin. “When does the talking stop and the action start? When does the problem of a failed immigration system actually get addressed?

It WAS an attack piece on BHO.

It was an attack piece on our immigration system, though it noted that Obama is on a better track than Bush for deporting illegals.

This has nothing to do with the topic however because we don't have any statistics that show that individual voter fraud by illegals is being carried out for a lack of photo ID requirement.

Its what is called a strawman.

Got anything relevant to the topic?
 
It was an attack piece on our immigration system, though it noted that Obama is on a better track than Bush for deporting illegals.

Work on your reading comprehension. He was attacking BHO on his campaign rhetoric and not following through…but whatever.

This has nothing to do with the topic however because we don't have any statistics that show that individual voter fraud by illegals is being carried out for a lack of photo ID requirement.
Its what is called a strawman.

I agree…so why did YOU bring it up?

Got anything relevant to the topic?

Yeah, go back about 700 posts.
 
You're blurring together all ID laws into one bucket, but they vary dramatically.The ones that have had a minor effect have been ones that only require a valid ID. The ones that threaten to radically rig elections are the new ones in some states that would not allow valid IDs that are issued by other states, that are issued by the federal government, that have an old address, etc. Only about 1% of people lack a valid ID, but 10% of people lack an ID that meets those requirements. So we can expect that the number of people disenfranchised by the newer ID laws with all those extra requirements will be about 10 times as severe.

Typical liberal/progressive worse case scenarios.

#1 Indiana has one of the strictest laws. It was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme court of the United States.

#2 in 2008 all states that had ID laws showed negligible affects on voter turnout.

#3 The worst case scenarios's have all been found unconstitutional or had the courts stop the law during litigation. So the system IS working.

Take the typical partisan overreaction with worst case scenario's and disfranchisement language someplace else.

Maybe next time have some evidence to support your claim.
 
Last edited:
Typical liberal/progressive worse case scenarios.

#1 Indiana has one of the strictest laws. It was found to be Constitutional by the Supreme court of the United States.

#2 in 2008 all states that had ID laws showed negligible affects on voter turnout.

#3 The worst case scenarios's have all been found unconstitutional or had the courts stop the law during litigation. So the system IS working.

Take the typical partisan overreaction with worst case scenario's and disfranchisement language someplace else.

Maybe next time have some evidence to support your claim.



You seem to have missed this part of Teamosil's post, "You're blurring together all ID laws into one bucket,"

The topic of this thead is photo ID's, not ID's in general. As previously documented, The Brennan Center has determined the photo IDs may disenfranchise 5 million voters.
 
in 2008 all states that had ID laws showed negligible affects on voter turnout.

Source please. Saying that the effect was negligible in all states. The only source I'm aware of that found only a negligible effect was about Georgia where all they required was any valid ID.
 
You seem to have missed this part of Teamosil's post, "You're blurring together all ID laws into one bucket,"

And you seem to have missed where I said....

#3 The worst case scenarios's have all been found unconstitutional or had the courts stop the law during litigation. So the system IS working. - Blackdog

The topic of this thead is photo ID's, not ID's in general. As previously documented, The Brennan Center has determined the photo IDs may disenfranchise 5 million voters.

The Brennan center data or "guess" is outdated by recent accounts in the 2008 elections that don't have to "guess" at voter turn out because they have actual statistics.
 
Source please. Saying that the effect was negligible in all states. The only source I'm aware of that found only a negligible effect was about Georgia where all they required was any valid ID.

2008 election turn out rates...

United States Elections Project

No difference between Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, New Mexico, Washington, Georgia, Ohio, Georgia, Missouri and New Mexico and the US average voter turnout.

The US average was 56.9% over all states. Most if not all ID states had higher rates of turnout than the average including Indiana and Alabama.
 
And you seem to have missed where I said....

#3 The worst case scenarios's have all been found unconstitutional or had the courts stop the law during litigation. So the system IS working. - Blackdog

You have a link that explains what the hell you are trying to say there?

The Brennan center data or "guess" is outdated by recent accounts in the 2008 elections that don't have to "guess" at voter turn out because they have actual statistics.


I'm gonna need a link too that show how the 2011 Brennan Report is outdated by the 2008 election accounts. Only two states had photo ID requirements before 2011.

34 states have since introduced legislation for photo IDs.
 
You have a link that explains what the hell you are trying to say there?

Don't need one, you often ignore what you don't want to admit to being wrong on.

I'm gonna need a link too that show how the 2011 Brennan Report is outdated by the 2008 election accounts. Only two states had photo ID requirements before 2011.

34 states have since introduced legislation for photo IDs.

I have already posted many in this thread you ignored and never replied to, but hell look at the post above this one #785.

Read em' and weep.

PS: Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Rhode Island, Wisconsin. South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas tightened existing voter ID laws to require photo ID.

That is a far cry from 34.
 
Last edited:
Don't need one, you often ignore what you don't want to admit to being wrong on.



I have already posted many in this thread you ignored and never replied to, but hell look at the post above this one.

Read em' and weep.

Read what and weep? Results of something 3 years before it was required???? LOL!
 
2008 election turn out rates...

United States Elections Project

No difference between Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, New Mexico, Washington, Georgia, Ohio, Georgia, Missouri and New Mexico and the US average voter turnout.

The US average was 56.9% over all states. Most if not all ID states had higher rates of turnout than the average including Indiana and Alabama.

That isn't really a very systematic analysis. Indiana required a photo ID issued by the state, but not that it have your current address. So it's like half as bad, or maybe less, than the ones that are being proposed now that require your current address. Current address is really the biggest gotcha. So, maybe we'd expect something like 4% of people being disenfranchised? Not sure how you could definitively say whether such an effect happened or not just looking at the overall percentage and comparing states. States range from 49% turnout to 71% turnout... Who can say where Indiana would have been without the law.

You need a proper study. One that controls different variables, looks at turnout between groups that are more likely to have already had an ID that meets their requirements vs groups that don't, etc. You can't really draw any conclusions based on this except that it didn't like reduce turnout by 20% or something, but nobody is claiming it would.
 
Read what and weep? Results of something 3 years before it was required???? LOL!

Note that these data provide preliminary estimates of the turnout and voting-eligible population for the November, 2008 election. These statistics are updated continually as new data become available. Most recently, they have been updated for July 1, 2009 voting-age population estimates. - United States Elections Project

Keep shucking and jiving, it's OK, lol.
 
That isn't really a very systematic analysis. Indiana required a photo ID issued by the state, but not that it have your current address. So it's like half as bad, or maybe less, than the ones that are being proposed now that require your current address. Current address is really the biggest gotcha. So, maybe we'd expect something like 4% of people being disenfranchised? Not sure how you could definitively say whether such an effect happened or not just looking at the overall percentage and comparing states. States range from 49% turnout to 71% turnout... Who can say where Indiana would have been without the law.

You need a proper study. One that controls different variables, looks at turnout between groups that are more likely to have already had an ID that meets their requirements vs groups that don't, etc. You can't really draw any conclusions based on this except that it didn't like reduce turnout by 20% or something, but nobody is claiming it would.

Keep asking for a study when the numbers are right there in front of you. So you need someone to tell you 2+2=4 as well? It is simple if the national average is 56.9 and states with photo ID laws fall within that average, what is the effect of photo ID laws?

It would be like the turnouts in Indiana and Georgia... negligible.
 
Last edited:
Keep asking for a study when the numbers are right there in front of you. So you need someone to tell you 2+2=4 as well? It is simple if the national average is 56.9 and states with photo ID laws fall within that average, what is the effect of photo ID laws?

That doesn't make sense at all. To know what effect the voter ID law had you would need to be able to make a reasonable guess what the turnout would have been without the law. 59% voted. Maybe without the law it would have been 71% like New Hampshire and the voter ID law knocked out 12% of voters. Maybe without the law it would have been 59% and it had no impact. No way to tell just from the turnout rate. You'd need a real study that controls for the other variables and whatnot... That isn't 2+2, that's sophisticated statistical and sociological analysis that needs doing. We're looking for a 3% deviation in a number that varies by 22% on it's own. That's not something you can just guess at.
 
Last edited:
Note that these data provide preliminary estimates of the turnout and voting-eligible population for the November, 2008 election. These statistics are updated continually as new data become available. Most recently, they have been updated for July 1, 2009 voting-age population estimates. - United States Elections Project

Keep shucking and jiving, it's OK, lol.

Since 2009:

"New voting laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, according to the first comprehensive study of the laws’ impact."

" * The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012—63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

* Of the 12 battleground states identified by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering cutbacks."

Study: New Voting Restrictions May Affect More than Five Million | Brennan Center for Justice
 
That doesn't make sense at all. To know what effect the voter ID law had you would need to be able to make a reasonable guess what the turnout would have been without the law. 59% voted. Maybe without the law it would have been 71% like New Hampshire and the voter ID law knocked out 12% of voters. Maybe without the law it would have been 59% and it had no impact. No way to tell just from the turnout rate. You'd need a real study that controls for the other variables and whatnot... That isn't 2+2, that's sophisticated statistical and sociological analysis that needs doing.

No it is simple math using averages. More states without photo ID laws make up the average. You don't need a study to point out common sense numbers.

In fact if you look at the averages from previous elections, turnout has gone up, not down even in photo ID states.

Does not take a study, just a little common sense.
 
Since 2009:

"New voting laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, according to the first comprehensive study of the laws’ impact."

" * The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012—63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

* Of the 12 battleground states identified by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering cutbacks."

Study: New Voting Restrictions May Affect More than Five Million | Brennan Center for Justice

And so they are still guessing when we have the actual number. :lol:

Why don't you post this one more time. It may actually convince someone other than a liberal, but I doubt it.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, disputed the methodology of the study of 900 people. The credibility of the survey was contested by another question, where 14% of respondents said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.[25] In 2010, the voting age population was an estimated 237.3 million, and the citizen voting age population was 217.5 million. Of those, 186.9 million were registered voters.[26] The Heritage Foundation has pointed to U.S. Department of Transportation records showing that there were 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in 2009, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters, as evidence that photo ID is not hard to obtain.[27] Similarly, Kris Kobach, a Republican supporter of Voter ID laws, points to evidence in Kansas that more than 30,000 registered drivers in Kansas are not registered to vote.[28] - Voter ID laws (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
No it is simple math using averages. More states without photo ID laws make up the average. You don't need a study to point out common sense numbers.

Actually, Indiana came in 2% below the national average. But that still doesn't tell us anything. Maybe it would have been 2% low anyways for some other reason. Maybe it would have been 2% above without the voter ID law. No way you can tell just on this data. Could be that voter ID laws were passed in states that usually tend to have higher turnout. Could be that many voter ID states were passed in states with higher numbers of minority voters whose turnout surged nationally and that explains why they had higher turnout.

It's just way too many variables to just make a guess based on the total turnout like that. That would be like trying to prove that Rush Limbaugh isn't fat by weighing a crowded city bus he is on and pointing out that the total weight was roughly in the same range as crowded buses usually weigh. It's not common sense, it's non-sense.

In fact if you look at the averages from previous elections, turnout has gone up, not down even in photo ID states.

Turnout went way up nationally in the 2008 elections. It was a record breaker.
 
Actually, Indiana came in 2% below the national average. But that still doesn't tell us anything. Maybe it would have been 2% low anyways for some other reason. Maybe it would have been 2% above without the voter ID law. No way you can tell just on this data. Could be that voter ID laws were passed in states that usually tend to have higher turnout. Could be that many voter ID states were passed in states with higher numbers of minority voters whose turnout surged nationally and that explains why they had higher turnout.

That is not true. The national average was 56.9 and Indiana was at 57. It is a point .1% difference in Indiana's favor.

Lets compare Illinois with 14.1% black to Indiana's 9.1% black.

Illinois voter turnout was .4% higher with no ID laws. Again, negligible compared to an ID state.

It's just way too many variables to just make a guess based on the total turnout like that. That would be like trying to prove that Rush Limbaugh isn't fat by weighing a crowded city bus he is on and pointing out that the total weight was roughly in the same range as crowded buses usually weigh. It's not common sense, it's non-sense.

Occam's razor in this case is common sense.

Turnout went way up nationally in the 2008 elections. It was a record breaker.

Then voter turnout should have been allot less in photo ID states if it was a hardship. I mean 5,000,000 voters would be hard to miss?
 
Last edited:
And so they are still guessing when we have the actual number. :lol:

Their report is the "first comprehensive study of the laws’ impact."
 
That is not true. The national average was 56.9 and Indiana was at 57. It is a point .1% difference in Indiana's favor.

You're looking at the wrong column. That's the percentage of people who are 18 or older, not the percentage of people who are legally allowed to vote. The first column is the relevant one- what percentage of people who are allowed to vote did vote.

Occam's razor in this case is common sense.

Occam's razor? That doesn't have anything to do with this. You're arguing that, contrary to the scientific method itself, we shouldn't bother controlling for external variables...

Then voter turnout should have been allot less in photo ID states if it was a hardship. I mean 5,000,000 voters would be hard to miss?

5 million voters if photo ID laws were applied nationally, not just in the photo ID states.

You can't really draw any conclusions just based on this table. You have no idea what impact it had from this table. To know that you'd need to control for as many other variables as possible. For example, say that 99% of voters that make more than $100k/year have photo IDs, but only 80% of voters that make less than $20k/year do. A proper study would look to see how turnout changed for people making $100k/year or more vs how it changed for people making $20k/year or less. If turnout increased by more for people making more than $100k, it would also need to look at how turnout changed for those groups nationally. From that you could begin to make a reasonable guess about the impact it had. A study would compare changes in various groups in Indiana to changes in those groups' turnout nationally, compare all that to the percentage of the groups that have photo IDs issued by Indiana, look for correlations, etc. Just trying to skip over all that analysis doesn't work. You can't make any useful conclusions without thinking all that through.
 
"Meanwhile, here in the Reality-Based Community, the REAL danger to democracy is ELECTION FRAUD with the help of electronic voting machines.

The Party of No,” with the help of electronic voting machines flipping Democratic votes to Republican, illegal vote caging tactics employed despite a standing court order, as well as inside men on the Supreme Court, will do anything to maintain power for the top 1% – including rigging elections.

Jonathan D. Simon, Executive Director of Election Defense Fund wrote,

“Study after study–from Princeton, to Johns Hopkins, to NYU’s Brennan Center, to the California Secretary of State’s office, to the GAO itself (see http://tinyurl.com/3hz7xj2 ) –conclude that this counting process is obscenely vulnerable to insider manipulation and outsider hacking. So have many studies examining computerized voting abroad–which is why countries such as Germany, Ireland, and Holland have begun turning back to human counted ballots. There is consensus verging on unanimity among the experts.”

Recently, the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory, run by the Department of Energy, remotely hacked a Diebold electronic voting machine, leaving no trace of their presence behind. So, naturally, Republicans want to ensure the easily-hacked machines are implemented from sea to shining sea."


Republican Class War Year In Review | Republican Dirty Tricks
 
"Meanwhile, here in the Reality-Based Community, the REAL danger to democracy is ELECTION FRAUD with the help of electronic voting machines.

The Party of No,” with the help of electronic voting machines flipping Democratic votes to Republican, illegal vote caging tactics employed despite a standing court order, as well as inside men on the Supreme Court, will do anything to maintain power for the top 1% – including rigging elections.

Jonathan D. Simon, Executive Director of Election Defense Fund wrote,

“Study after study–from Princeton, to Johns Hopkins, to NYU’s Brennan Center, to the California Secretary of State’s office, to the GAO itself (see http://tinyurl.com/3hz7xj2 ) –conclude that this counting process is obscenely vulnerable to insider manipulation and outsider hacking. So have many studies examining computerized voting abroad–which is why countries such as Germany, Ireland, and Holland have begun turning back to human counted ballots. There is consensus verging on unanimity among the experts.”

Recently, the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory, run by the Department of Energy, remotely hacked a Diebold electronic voting machine, leaving no trace of their presence behind. So, naturally, Republicans want to ensure the easily-hacked machines are implemented from sea to shining sea."


Republican Class War Year In Review | Republican Dirty Tricks

:lamo

OK you made me laugh at your post if nothing else.
 
Back
Top Bottom