• 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

Kal'Stang said:
Still waiting AdamT. Got anything yet?
Click to expand...

Sorry, even I have to sleep sometimes. :)

So yes, let's get to yourinanalysis:

http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincen...nd-Turnout.pdf and this study: http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc0..._i3m6bjdeh.pdf

Your first link there does the same thing that you disregarded another study a few posts back for doing. Only analyzing 2 elections. Your second link states....
Click to expand...

I objected to the other study because it looked at only one state in two elections. The Alth study is probably the most thorough on the subject as it looks at TWENTY FIVE different states -- some with new voter ID laws, some with other new restrictions, and some with no changes.


States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections. Which basically boils down to them talking out their ass and have no actual proof themselves past that paragraph. IE its all conjecture, opinions etc etc.
Click to expand...

Well no ****, Sherlock. Any time someone applies data analysis to predict future results they are engaging in conjecture. Projections, by definition, involve conjecture. But this particular author bases her predictions on a broad survey of past results.

Originally Posted by AdamT

The Disproportionate Impact of Photo-ID Laws on the Minority Electorate « Latino Decisions
Click to expand...

These people are basically trying to say that if they don't have ID now then they cannot get ID period. Idiotic.
Click to expand...

The article says absolutely nothing of the kind. What an incredibly dishonest appraisal. All the article says is that, statistically, speaking, "minority and foreign-born voters are less likely to have a valid photo-ID. Therefore, these laws place a disproportionate and additional cost to voting for specific segments of the electorate." Nowhere in the article does it say, or even suggest, that it would be impossible for these people to obtain valid ID.

Originally Posted by AdamT

http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5782740e418..._snm6bhfwg.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow...this link jumps from religion and abortion and voter ID requirements....just...wow.
Click to expand...

Wow, another incredibly dishonest (or simply ignorant) analysis. The paper is about statistical methodology and they use two unrelated examples to demonstrate their model.

In addition to developing this model in this paper, we presented two empirical applications of our
empirical Bayes estimator using examples drawn from contemporary research problems. One of these
problems involved an ordinal treatment variable drawn from a widely used survey (abortion preferences
from the GSS), whereas the other focused on a variable that measured a dimension of state election administration
policies (voter identification policies). We showed with each application the utility of our
approach.
Click to expand...

The fact that they applied their model to two different problems in no way detracts from their results. Your "analysis" couldn't be more trivial.

And so I see little point in going on. It's perfectly obvious that you either haven't bothered to read the articles, or you did and are simply too closed minded to address them seriously, or you just don't understand them. Either way you are a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Just for the record, posting a self portrait? Again?

Now to provide obviously much needed assistance to the needy, what "stellar debaters" do is cite a study and elaborate on the points in it that relate to their "debate" of the topic. Only naive morons play the here is a link to 7,000 "studies" that support my argument idiocy. Aside from the fact that you can't articulately keep track of your own argument, you have not been able to correlate a single claim of yours with even one of the links to the "studies" you have supplied. That was before you ran downstairs and crapped on the rug.

Let us say that we just dropped everything that has come before now in this thread. What is your argument supposed to be?
Click to expand...

Again, you have absolutely nothing to offer but lame ad hominem. Like your bobbsey twin, I suggest you move on unless you have something to say about the topic. If you want to talk smack I have provided an appropriate forum for that.
 
AdamT said:
Again, you have absolutely nothing to offer but lame ad hominem. Like your bobbsey twin, I suggest you move on unless you have something to say about the topic. If you want to talk smack I have provided an appropriate forum for that.
Click to expand...
Again you offer lame ad hominem commentary like bobbsey twin (what is a bobbsey twin supposed to be?) while talking about lame "ad hominem" commentary at the same time. I suggest you address the subject and tell me, hell tell someone or even anyone for your patron saint Google's sake, what is your argument supposed to be again? That you think anyone at all is *punting* on? Honestly, I'm telling you that I know right here and now, you can't intelligently say what your argument is supposed to be. But go ahead, show me up and prove me wrong. I triple dog dare you! Contact that Ivy League professor you had dinner with, maybe he can help?
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Again you offer lame ad hominem commentary like bobbsey twin (what is a bobbsey twin supposed to be?) while talking about lame "ad hominem" commentary at the same time. I suggest you address the subject and tell me, hell tell someone or even anyone for your patron saint Google's sake, what is your argument supposed to be again? That you think anyone at all is *punting* on? Honestly, I'm telling you that I know right here and now, you can't intelligently say what your argument is supposed to be. But go ahead, show me up and prove me wrong. I triple dog dare you! Contact that Ivy League professor you had dinner with, maybe he can help?
Click to expand...

Seriously? After 36 pages you still can't figure out what the argument is? :lol:
 
AdamT said:
Seriously? After 36 pages you still can't figure out what the argument is? :lol:
Click to expand...
Well forgetting I asked you a similar question earlier, which you dodged, but now you are throwing back at me as if it was an original thought? NO I can't. Nor for that matter can anyone else.

What is your argument supposed to be ?

The only reason you can't answer that simple question is because even you can't keep up with the quicksilver (look it up) nature of your so called "argument".

Go ahead "Stellar Debater" explain, I guarantee you can't do so intelligently, what is your Ivy League argument supposed to be? Now? This is the most obvious of all internet "debates". Either put up or shut up. Or post another picture of yourself *punting* like you have been for over a month.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Well forgetting I asked you a similar question earlier, which you dodged, but now you are throwing back at me as if it was an original thought? NO I can't. Nor for that matter can anyone else.

What is your argument supposed to be ?

The only reason you can't answer that simple question is because even you can't keep up with the quicksilver (look it up) nature of your so called "argument".

Go ahead "Stellar Debater" explain, I guarantee you can't do so intelligently, what is your Ivy League argument supposed to be? Now?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Gie, but if you haven't figured out what the thread is about after 36 pages, I think it's simply beyond your reach.
 
AdamT said:
Sorry, Gie, but if you haven't figured out what the thread is about after 36 pages, I think it's simply beyond your reach.
Click to expand...
Who the hell said anything about what the thread is supposed to be about? You lost sight of that a long long time ago. The question of mine you quoted, and which I am asking again, is what is your argument supposed to be ? I just said I did not think you could intelligently supply an answer to that question. Ergo (look it up) your last Ivy League reply.

Uno mas...................what is your argument supposed to be?
 
I notice you skipped over my response Adam, so I'll post it again:

AdamT said:
Again, this is pure stupidity. Your argument for ID laws is that voter impersonation is rarely seen.
Click to expand...

Were the things I listed factual or not? If not please explain... If they were, then your response defies logic.


As for your list, let me correct it a bit in red:


Try this instead:

1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes. False. People getting caught doing it is rare and since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know the frequency in which it takes place.
2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No. Since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know whether it has actually effected an elections outcome or not.
3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes. False. That is an opinion on your part based on speculation, not something that has been determined factual based on substantive evidence.
4. accordingly, are these laws an idiotic waste of time and money? Yes. That is another opinion that you based on your previous opinion, neither of which is supported by any factual, concrete evidence.
5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES. That is a baseless accusation motivated by liberal/progressive political beliefs, that's totally vacant of facts or substance.
Click to expand...

As you see, nothing you presented is factual except #2, and it was based on a misleading premise.

On the other hand, every one of those I listed are absolutely factual except #7, which is a logical conclusion rendered using the known facts and simple common sense.

You're going to have to do a lot better than that to even come close to resembling someone with a legitimate argument.
 
Grim17 said:
I notice you skipped over my response Adam, so I'll post it again:



Were the things I listed factual or not? If not please explain... If they were, then your response defies logic.


As for your list, let me correct it a bit in red:
Click to expand...

Let me address this first:

1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes. False. People getting caught doing it is rare and since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know the frequency in which it takes place.

Yes, in absolute terms we can't know EXACTLY how often it occurs, but we have over 200 years of elections and many many concerted efforts to uncover election fraud and they have unieversally failed to uncover a serious issue with voter impersonation -- at least in the modern era. Again -- this is the starting point. If you can't demonstrate that there's a problem, and you can't, then you don't get to B.

2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No. Since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know whether it has actually effected an elections outcome or not.

See above. You can't formulate a law based on something that you haven't shown to be a problem. I could just as well posit that elections are being influenced by undetectable radio transmissions from Russia, so we should install tinfoil shields around all polling places.

3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes. False. That is an opinion on your part based on speculation, not something that has been determined factual based on substantive evidence.

It is an opinion based on numerous studies of states that have and have not passed voter ID laws, comparing before and after participation rates. It is perfectly valid to base policy decisions on this sort of data. We do it every day in government and in the private sector.
....

5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES. That is a baseless accusation motivated by liberal/progressive political beliefs, that's totally vacant of facts or substance.

It certainly is not baseless. The basis is that these laws are universally pushed by Republicans and Republican lobbying groups, and opposed by Democrats. It's based on the fact that the people who lack the required ID are predominantly in voting blocks that tend to vote Democratic. And thus, it's based on the fact that these laws tend to suppress the Democratic vote, which would obviously benefit Republicans. And finally, it's based on a clear pattern of Republican efforts to deter Democratic voter registration and to generally make it more difficult to vote.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
I notice you skipped over my response Adam,
Click to expand...

I did respond to your post, but I'll do so in more detail, because we aims to please. :)

1. Does voter fraud happen? Yes. No argument there, though all available evidence indicates that it happens very rarely.

2. Is it proved and prosecuted very often? No. Exactly.

3. Is voter fraud difficult to catch? Yes Not as difficult as you might think. First, votes are checked against registration roles. It should go without saying that unless the registration process is secure, voter ID laws are meaningless (since they just prove the voter is registered). So someone can't just make up a name and vote. That will be discovered. And it would be very risky to use a real name, because it will be discovered if the person you've chosen also casts a ballot. And finally, there are comprehensive exit polls and preelection polls which would set off red flags should actual results diverge significantly. Of course close elections are always challenged and in those cases (like FL in 2000) the ballots are examined very carefully. All of these procedures would uncover election fraud if it occurred in a significant way. It doesn't.

4. Even if detected after the fact, is it difficult to catch the person(s) involved? Yes, very difficult. Depends how stupid the perpetrater was. They usually aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer

5. Is it easy without having to show an ID, to vote under a name other than your own? Yes, as the latest hidden videos have shown. The person in the O'Keefe video didn't actually vote. If he had the vote would have been thrown out when it was discovered that the real Eric Holder had voted.

6. Has there been wide spread cases of voter registration fraud in recent years? Yes, ACORN has faced legal action in at least 13 states since 2004. The case against ACORN has been wildly exaggerated by the right wing media (another example of Republicans attempting to curtail Democratic voting)

7. When you combine #5 and #6, would it be easy and low risk to commit voter fraud? Yes. If it happened it would be discovered with great regularity, but it isn't. Therefore we can only conclude that it rarely happens. While it may be hard to catch someone, the consequences are quite severe if someone is caught, and there is very little reward for casting a fake ballot. Elections are usually decided by thousands or tens of thousands of votes. Who in their right mind is going to risk a felony conviction and jail time in order to cast a ballot that probably will have no effect at all? That's why present laws are effective.

8. Is a legal ID required to receive: legal employment, A Pell grant, student loan, college enrollment, welfare assistance, government housing, food stamps, SCHIP benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, ACCESS, subsidized prescription drugs and Social Security retirement/disability benefits? Yes Irrelvant, as well as 9 and 10.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I did respond to your post, but I'll do so in more detail, because we aims to please. :)

Irrelvant, as well as 9 and 10.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you if what I listed was irrelevant in your estimation (which those 2 certainly were not), I asked you if they were factual.
 
Grim17 said:
I didn't ask you if what I listed was irrelevant in your estimation (which those 2 certainly were not), I asked you if they were factual.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they're factual, and it's not worth checking because they're irrelevant. But I had student loans and I don't recall ever presenting a photo ID to get them. Likewise, I'm sure that many of the government assistance items just require a social security number. You know you don't need a photo ID to get a photo ID, right?
 
AdamT said:
1. is voter impersonation extraordinarily rare? Yes. False. People getting caught doing it is rare and since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know the frequency in which it takes place.

Yes, in absolute terms we can't know EXACTLY how often it occurs, but we have over 200 years of elections and many many concerted efforts to uncover election fraud and they have unieversally failed to uncover a serious issue with voter impersonation -- at least in the modern era. Again -- this is the starting point. If you can't demonstrate that there's a problem, and you can't, then you don't get to B.
Click to expand...

So you agree me.


2. has voter impersonation ever been shown to change the outcome of an election? No. Since catching it is extremely difficult, there is no way to know whether it has actually effected an elections outcome or not.

See above. You can't formulate a law based on something that you haven't shown to be a problem. I could just as well posit that elections are being influenced by undetectable radio transmissions from Russia, so we should install tinfoil shields around all polling places.
Click to expand...

Again, you agree with me.

3. do voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of people who would otherwise vote? Yes. False. That is an opinion on your part based on speculation, not something that has been determined factual based on substantive evidence.

It is an opinion based on numerous studies of states that have and have not passed voter ID laws, comparing before and after participation rates. It is perfectly valid to base policy decisions on this sort of data. We do it every day in government and in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Once again, you agree with me.

Since you skipped #4, I'll take it that is also your agreement with me.

5. are they actually nothing more than a transparent attempt to suppress the Democratic vote? YES. That is a baseless accusation motivated by liberal/progressive political beliefs, that's totally vacant of facts or substance.

It certainly is not baseless. The basis is that these laws are universally pushed by Republicans and Republican lobbying groups, and opposed by Democrats. It's based on the fact that the people who lack the required ID are predominantly in voting blocks that tend to vote Democratic. And thus, it's based on the fact that these laws tend to suppress the Democratic vote, which would obviously benefit Republicans. And finally, it's based on a clear pattern of Republican efforts to deter Democratic voter registration and to generally make it more difficult to vote.
Click to expand...

Finally, you disagree.... In that case, would you be so kind as to post evidence that substanciates your accusation? If you have none, then as I already stated, such an accusation is baseless.
 
Grim17 said:
So you agree me.




Again, you agree with me.



Once again, you agree with me.

Since you skipped #4, I'll take it that is also your agreement with me.



Finally, you disagree.... In that case, would you be so kind as to post evidence that substanciates your accusation? If you have none, then as I already stated, such an accusation is baseless.
Click to expand...

Pretending that I agree with you when I've written obvious caveats isn't going to get you very far. As far as the evidence you asked for, I've posted it at least four times now. WTF is up with you people?
 
AdamT said:
It certainly is not baseless. The basis is that these laws are universally pushed by Republicans and Republican lobbying groups, and opposed by Democrats. It's based on the fact that the people who lack the required ID are predominantly in voting blocks that tend to vote Democratic. And thus, it's based on the fact that these laws tend to suppress the Democratic vote, which would obviously benefit Republicans. And finally, it's based on a clear pattern of Republican efforts to deter Democratic voter registration and to generally make it more difficult to vote.
Click to expand...

Please show proof that people who lack the ability to easily get a photo i.d. are Democrats. There is no evidence of this. The only votes that would be surpressed by requiring something as simple as a photo i.d. at the voting booth would be dishonest people who have no business voting in the first place.

Are you saying most of these people are Democrats?
 
AdamT said:
I don't know if they're factual, and it's not worth checking because they're irrelevant. But I had student loans and I don't recall ever presenting a photo ID to get them.
Click to expand...

Often, you only need to present a student ID to get a student loan, but you have to present a legal ID for college admission. Either way, you need an ID.
 
MaggieD said:
Please show proof that people who lack the ability to easily get a photo i.d. are Democrats. There is no evidence of this. The only votes that would be surpressed by requiring something as simple as a photo i.d. at the voting booth would be dishonest people who have no business voting in the first place.

Are you saying most of these people are Democrats?
Click to expand...

Again, I've posted at least seven studies and articles, most of them three or four times. What they show is that most of the people who lack proper ID are poor, and/or minorities, and/or younger people -- all of which groups disproportionately vote Democratic.
 
MaggieD said:
Please show proof that people who lack the ability to easily get a photo i.d. are Democrats. There is no evidence of this. The only votes that would be surpressed by requiring something as simple as a photo i.d. at the voting booth would be dishonest people who have no business voting in the first place.

Are you saying most of these people are Democrats?
Click to expand...

You think he's passionate about defending this freedom for conservatives? :mrgreen:
 
AdamT said:
Pretending that I agree with you when I've written obvious caveats isn't going to get you very far.
Click to expand...

You can write caveats all day long, but that doesn't change what I said, or the fact you agree that they were not facts.

As far as the evidence you asked for, I've posted it at least four times now. WTF is up with you people?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence you've posted that shows Republicans support Voter ID laws to screw democrats out of voting.
 
Here's some more evidence demonstrating that this is a non-issue ... and an attempt to curtail democratic voting:

The Bush administration was hot and bothered to try to show that election fraud was a problem in the U.S. As mentioned above, Bush's DOJ ran a five-year investigation all across the country that ultimately came up with no evidence of organized electoral fraud. As part of his campaign, Bush requested that the U.S. Election Commission do a study on election fraud. To that end the Commission established a bipartisan team of consultants to study the available evidence.

The first observation of the working group was as follows:

1. The main problems today are structural barriers to voting and administrative error. Mr. Perez observed that, in accordance with the research, the biggest issues today are structural barriers to voting, not stealing votes. Election administrators share this view. Election fraud is negligible, and to the extent it occurs, it needs to be prosecutred with stonger criminal laws. The biggest problem is properly preparing people, which is the respnsibility of election administrators. (p. 27)

http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/EAC_VoterFraud_DraftReport.pdf
Click to expand...

And now for the really interesting part. The EAC severely watered down the submitted draft report to suggest that there was more uncertainty about election fraud and intimidation than the report actually found. Critics have charged that the EAC -- which was created in 2002 under the Bush administration and a Republican Congress, of bowing to Republican pressure....

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal panel charged with conducting elections research, misrepresented the findings of a bipartisan team of experts on the highly politicized topic of voter fraud. In a report contracted by the EAC, the experts found little evidence of voter fraud across the nation;1 the EAC replaced these findings with language injecting uncertainty into the pervasiveness of fraud and downplaying the findings on voter intimidation.2 As one author states, "the conclusions that we found in our research and included in our report were revised by the EAC, without explanation or discussion with me, my co-author, or the general public."3


The EAC reduced the draft to half of its length and only released a final version after receiving a petition with 13,000 signatories, sponsored by the People for the American Way.4 Among the substantive changes, the draft report's conclusion that "there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,"5 was altered by the EAC to read "there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud."6 The EAC replaced the section of the draft stating "there is evidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression … a number of people also raise the problem of poll workers engaging in harassment of minority voters,"7 with this language: "intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation."8

Election Panel Delays, Edits Reports on Voter Fraud | Union of Concerned Scientists
Click to expand...
 
Grim17 said:
You can write caveats all day long, but that doesn't change what I said, or the fact you agree that they were not facts.



There is no evidence you've posted that shows Republicans support Voter ID laws to screw democrats out of voting.
Click to expand...

I took exception to a lot of what you wrote, which is obvious from reading my post. It's just dishonest for you to pretend that I agreed with you, and you know it. Smacks of desperation.

Obviously Republicans aren't going to admit that they don't think there's a real fraud problem and they're really only interested in suppressing Democratic voter turnout. They're not THAT stupid. :roll:
 
And this....

The EAC is also being criticized for failing to adopt a second commissioned report on the effects of voter identification laws. This report, prepared by Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute, concluded that voter identification requirements and other laws intended to address voter fraud can reduce turnout and particularly disenfranchise minorities.18 The EAC delayed action for nine months and later released it unofficially, citing concerns "regarding the data, analysis, and statistical methodology" of the report.19

Election Panel Delays, Edits Reports on Voter Fraud | Union of Concerned Scientists
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom