• 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

AdamT said:
http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...tent/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf

There is the statistical proof. Obviously it's not a question of someone being LITERALLY incapable of getting an ID. But it's a fact that the more roadblocks you throw up between a potential participant and an activity (voting), the fewer participants you will get. It's backed by statistical evidence as well as common sense.
Click to expand...

Considering that the vast majority of adult in the United States have some form of government ID its really not a road block to most. Common sense would tell you that if a person is too lazy to get up to get an ID they probably arent getting up to go vote. But any of that is irrelvant. You are claiming that voter ID laws prevent people from voting. Are you demoting your argument to voter id laws discourage voting? those are two separate arguments.
 
AdamT said:
Maybe you should start a different thread, because that has nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with your argument. You are saying that voter ID laws would prevent voting, then you changed it to discourage. And your saying that proof that voters are already discouraged is irrlevant? I hate to be the one to break it to you but you don't get to pick and choose your evidence or facts. It is all pertinent.
 
muciti said:
Voter fraud is rediculously simple.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and the liberals/democrats are doing everything in their power to keep it that way. The ends always justify the means with the left, even if they have to lie, cheat or steal to reach them...
 
AdamT said:
Maybe you should start a different thread, because that has nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...

Ah but it does. Have you not taken the stance that voter ID would keep some people from voting? My point, they are not voting now. So requiring an ID would have little impact on the non voters. Those that take the time to vote would come up with an ID, if it is part of the process.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
You've been shown it before.

O’Keefe Releases New Voter ID Video About Eric Holder | Video | TheBlaze.com

There ya go again.

Furthermore, I can register as my brother and go vote for him right now. Nothing stops me.

I can go out and give $10 to 1,000 people to not show up to vote and go vote for them.

There is no way I would get caught.

Voter fraud is rediculously simple.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we've discussed this before. Of course O'Keefe is a notorious bull**** artist who has been caught faking videos before, so I would hardly count that as proof. And in any case, the guy could have gone to his car and brought back a false ID and the poll worker would have been none the wiser. Fake IDs are a dime a dozen. Further, if the guy had actually voted under Holder's name it would have been discovered when the real Holder voted. The result would be that only the real Holder's vote would count.

As mentioned before, you can't register your brother unless, at minimum, you know his social security number ... and are willing to do hard felony time in order to cast an extra vote that's less likely to make a difference than chances of you winning the PowerBall.
 
muciti said:
It has everything to do with your argument. You are saying that voter ID laws would prevent voting, then you changed it to discourage. And your saying that proof that voters are already discouraged is irrlevant? I hate to be the one to break it to you but you don't get to pick and choose your evidence or facts. It is all pertinent.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the topic. People choose not to vote for a variety of reasons. It has nothing to do with the fact that imposing additional hurdles to voting reduces voting.
 
mike2810 said:
Ah but it does. Have you not taken the stance that voter ID would keep some people from voting? My point, they are not voting now. So requiring an ID would have little impact on the non voters. Those that take the time to vote would come up with an ID, if it is part of the process.
Click to expand...

Your "point" is ridiculous. Voter ID laws reduce the proportion of people who ARE voting now.
 
AdamT said:
Oh yeah, we've discussed this before. Of course O'Keefe is a notorious bull**** artist who has been caught faking videos before, so I would hardly count that as proof. And in any case, the guy could have gone to his car and brought back a false ID and the poll worker would have been none the wiser. Fake IDs are a dime a dozen. Further, if the guy had actually voted under Holder's name it would have been discovered when the real Holder voted. The result would be that only the real Holder's vote would count.

As mentioned before, you can't register your brother unless, at minimum, you know his social security number ... and are willing to do hard felony time in order to cast an extra vote that's less likely to make a difference than chances of you winning the PowerBall.
Click to expand...

He would willingly give me his SSN. He could care less about politics. I would not be at any risk of hard felony time because I would never get caught. Becaue noone polices this. Noone does anything at all to stop voter fraud. No one does anything to catch those that commit voter fraud.
 
AdamT said:
It has nothing to do with the topic. People choose not to vote for a variety of reasons. It has nothing to do with the fact that imposing additional hurdles to voting reduces voting.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Nothing can prove it reduces voter turn out. You can speculate all you want.
 
AdamT said:
Your "point" is ridiculous. Voter ID laws reduce the proportion of people who ARE voting now.
Click to expand...

Actually, they reduce votes cast fraudulently. You keep arguing that is a bad thing :roll:
 
muciti said:
He would willingly give me his SSN. He could care less about politics. I would not be at any risk of hard felony time because I would never get caught. Becaue noone polices this. Noone does anything at all to stop voter fraud. No one does anything to catch those that commit voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Why don't you do it then? Have you asked him for his social security number? Would you tell him that you are making him a conspiracist in a voter fraud scheme? Would he still give it to you voluntarily, knowing that he could go to jail?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Actually, they reduce votes cast fraudulently. You keep arguing that is a bad thing :roll:
Click to expand...

They may eliminate some dozens of fraudulent votes, while they eliminate some millions of legitimate votes. Sort of like trying to cure a hang nail by cutting off your arm.
 
AdamT said:
Why don't you do it then? Have you asked him for his social security number? Would you tell him that you are making him a conspiracist in a voter fraud scheme? Would he still give it to you voluntarily, knowing that he could go to jail?
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
They may eliminate some dozens of fraudulent votes, while they eliminate some millions of legitimate votes. Sort of like trying to cure a hang nail by cutting off your arm.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
Do you have a shred of evidence to support the premise that Democrats cheat more than Republicans? Save yourself some time and start with Watergate.
Click to expand...

Here is your famous switcheroo/goal post movement. He wasn't talking about one party cheating more than the other.
 
AdamT said:
Apparently the education effort is not insubstantial or it wouldn't fade away over a few years. But they could spend taxpayers money year after year to keep it up, and to provide more IDs, when there was never a problem to begin with. It's a great plan if you're into government waste.
Click to expand...

Yeah, government waste like driver's licenses, state i.d.'s. Horrible waste to ensure American votes aren't disenfranchised by fraudsters.

AdamT said:
You can spew partisan, utter nonsense until the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is NO EVIDENCE of a serious voter fraud problem in this country, and therefore one has to question why one party, and one party only, is so focused on a non-issue. The answer is obvious: they want to reduce Democratic voter turnout. It couldn't be more obvious.
Click to expand...

And you can spew 'til the cows come home that one must show voter fraud before having voter i.d.'s make sense.

AdamT said:
http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...tent/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf

There is the statistical proof. Obviously it's not a question of someone being LITERALLY incapable of getting an ID. But it's a fact that the more roadblocks you throw up between a potential participant and an activity (voting), the fewer participants you will get. It's backed by statistical evidence as well as common sense.
Click to expand...

Roadblocks? You mean like actually, ahhhh, registering to vote with a photo i.d. in your hand? Oh!!!! The humanity!!!!
 
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
 
muciti said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL...the irony is so obvious....even a blind man can see it.

PS...define "noone". Thanks.
 
mike2810 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an interesting read. Unfortunately, it means nothing. The studies are biased. They don't "prove" anything. /sarcasm
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...the irony is so obvious....even a blind man can see it.

PS...define "noone". Thanks.
Click to expand...

OOOH NOOOOO! I forgot to hit the space bar. You must be right if you are so keen as to notice a spelling error. When nothing else is working and your arguments are flawed and you have no valid points to make, resort to nothingness, statements that are cryptic and grammar correcting.
 
muciti said:
OOOH NOOOOO! I forgot to hit the space bar. You must be right if you are so keen as to notice a spelling error. When nothing else is working and your arguments are flawed and you have no valid points to make, resort to nothingness, statements that are cryptic and grammar correcting.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you think the law actually stops people that want to commit crimes from commiting those crimes?
 
American said:
Here is your famous switcheroo/goal post movement. He wasn't talking about one party cheating more than the other.
Click to expand...

Of course he was. His theory is that Democrats don't want to stop election fraud and the obvious implication is that Democrats must be doing more of it. If Dems get no advantage from it why would they oppose regulations to limit it? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom