Voter Suppression?

[Darth Executor]

Renowned Republican and Conservative stalwart Bill Clinton supports voter ID.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...56a_story.html

Also according to Phank, 74% of Americans are Republicans looking to suppress the votes of minorities that the Democrats bought with your tax dollars.

Phank's post is so stupid it almost defies belief. Almost.

[Cow Poke]

My bad. I'll try to spell better in the future.

Thanks, I tried to refrain, but... I know... I'm such a spelling nazi. (which means I will screw up badly in the very near future )

[phank]

Renowned Republican and Conservative stalwart Bill Clinton supports voter ID.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...56a_story.html

Also according to Phank, 74% of Americans are Republicans looking to suppress the votes of minorities that the Democrats bought with your tax dollars.

Phank's post is so stupid it almost defies belief. Almost.

Your interpretation defies belief all by itself. I personally suppport voter ID requirements, because I think it makes sense. The only reservations I have are that (1) the pictorial ID be provided without charge, and (2) that enough time be allowed for such ID to be procured. After all, we're trying to prevent a sort of fraud that NEVER actually happens.

The rest of your post is simple idiocy. Go blather your ideological nonsense elsewhere. Us adults are discussion an issue here.

[Cow Poke]

Us adults are discussion an issue here.

[Darth Executor]

Your interpretation defies belief all by itself. I personally suppport voter ID requirements, because I think it makes sense. The only reservations I have are that (1) the pictorial ID be provided without charge, and (2) that enough time be allowed for such ID to be procured. After all, we're trying to prevent a sort of fraud that NEVER actually happens.

The rest of your post is simple idiocy. Go blather your ideological nonsense elsewhere. Us adults are discussion an issue here.

Dirtbag Phank: Posts a partisan post full of manufactured BS. Complains about "ideological nonsense".

Here's another whopper:

3) One might note that a Pennsylvania state senator crowed that their voter ID law "delivered the state for Romney". The implication is that placing hurdles in front of potential Democratic voters benefits the Republicans, and THAT is why ONLY Republican states passed voter ID laws.

No you miserable sack of crap, the implication is that Democrats are engaged in election fraud and the voter ID law will allow (not "deliver") Romney to win by preventing Democrats from defrauding him. You only assume he was talking about voter suppression because you're owned mind, body and soul by the Progressive machine and apparently completely unaware of the irony of whining about "ideological nonsense" when your entire post was partisan ideological BS of the highest order..

Here's the actual quote:

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done. EAT THE POOR! HAIL SATAN!"

[lilpixieofterror]

Uh, so? I don't understand your point. You had the necessary documentation to vote. Great. You also, of course, had the necessary document to register to vote. Great. NOW you need an ADDITIONAL document, provided when you produce the first. Why is the additional documentation NOT superfluous, since you need the first to get it anyway, and the first was ALREADY good enough?

You can make the same argument about why they need an ID card to open an bank account and not a birth certificate too. Should the same also apply for boarding an aircraft? Those are the laws for other things, so what is wrong with making voter ID laws the same way? You really don't have an argument here, do you?

Your very question implies that you are not that stupid.

And you are asserting, without a single piece of evidence, that a massive conspiracy to prevent lots of people from voting is happening. There is absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion considering that most voting age adults already have an ID card anyway and the number of those who don't is far lower than those who vote.

Let's make it as simple as I can. You have documentation X. It's good enough, and you vote. But the law is changed so you need documentation Y to vote. What do you require to get documentation Y? Well, you need X, and that's it. So WHY, if X isn't good enough, is Y good enough? THey are the SAME DAMN THING! The ONLY difference is, you have to make a separate trip to get Y. Could the requirement to make such a trip be important?

And again, you need one to open a bank account, most business require you to have one to be hired, most apartment complexes require you to have one to even look at a house, most banks require you to have one to get a loan, to board an aircraft, etc. Do you like being obtuse phank? Id cards are pretty much something every adult should have to start with to conduct almost any kind of business that adults need to conduct. You can make the same argument for all of these things too, why do you need an ID card to board an airplane when a social security card and birth certificate are what you need to get an photo ID?

A drivers licence has been good enough all along. All potential voters with drivers licences have sufficient documentation already. So who does NOT have a drivers license? There actually ARE such people, you know. And how do THOSE people tend to vote? Why, by golly, those lacking drivers licences tend to vote for Democrats! Who would have guessed?

In other words, you don't have a single piece of evidence to back up your case beyond a list of assertions. The reality is your own stats are showing the percentage points it would give an 'advantage' to are so small, it would be irrelevant and a bigger hassle to pass these laws anyway. If 75% of students already drive and need a drivers license to drive, but less than 50% of the general population ends up voting anyway (and I'm sure you're aware that the number of the young voting is even lower), what sort of advantage was gained? Can you explain how this logically is going to work or did you not think before you made up all these assertions?

[lilpixieofterror]

To repeat, statistically fewer students have drivers licenses than the population at large. It might only be a couple hundred people. And a couple hundred votes MIGHT decide an election.

You're own stats work against your phank. You said that 75% of them have driver license. The average voter turn out, for the 2012 election was about 57% of the voter population showed up to vote. The percentage of those of college age (18-24) of the total voting population was 11%. Also, a couple hundred votes deciding an election? Do you have any actual examples to back up your assertion that the voter ID laws have lowered the ability of people to vote? I also looked at the voter turn out back in 2012, voter ID states had a higher average turn out rate than non voter ID states, kind of rendering your argument invalid.

Back to reality, Republicans by their own admission were seeking an edge. Edges matter in close elections.

Do you have any examples of where this 'edge' actually helped any republican win in office or not? My guess is... no... correct? Again, I did spend the time back in 2012 to look this up and your side was unable to dig up any examples to prove their assertion. You are also basing your assertion that the Republicans were 'seeking an edge' upon one comment, made by one republican. So now Phank, put up your evidence or admit you don't have any.

Good point, for a change. In practice, MOST of those affected by the voter ID laws never voted anyway, so making it harder for them to do something they never did normally didn't affect voting patterns, EXCEPT that a few of them were angry at the attempt to disenfranchise them, and they made extra effort.

In other words, you're now admitting that the voter ID laws were the best thing that happened to them. If the Republicans truly wanted an edge, they should have done absolutly nothing, per your own admission. Thanks for taking out your own argument.

BTW I made a good point, for a change. Funny how you are so incapable of making points yourself or answering mine with any specific examples. Now, I want a specific example, where voter ID laws allowed a republican to win in office. Go right ahead, produce the evidence to back up your assertion. I'm guess I'll be waiting a long time since none seems to have surfaced yet.

And so, the post mortems showed that to the extent that Republican efforts to suppress Democratic votes changed anything, they backfired and boosted Democratic turnout. The INTENT to suppress didn't translate into actual suppression.

In other words, it didn't work is just MORE evidence for your case. The obvious answer is pretty easy for even your limited intelligence to figure out; if the republicans truly wanted Democrats not to vote, they shouldn't have done anything since they wouldn't have voted anyway and the fact they did vote, is evidence that the Republicans were trying to keep them from voting, even when they normally don't vote anyway. Yeah, that makes perfect sense perhaps in Fantasy land, but not in reality.

[JimL]

Here is a quote from Paul Weyrich, a right wing strategist in the 1980's:

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people.
They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now.
As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the
voting populace goes down".

This is something that Republican strategists know and have known for some time now and so the only way forward for them is to try and win by unethical means with unethical groups like A.L.E.C. leading the way for them. It isn't only the ID requirement, they also have reduced early voting, which btw is the only time that many poor working people can get to the polls. They've disenfranchised ex-felons, they've purged voter rolls, They've made it illegal for students to vote where they live, i.e. where they go to college, they've imposed unequal voting day resources in democratic districts making voters stand in line for hours on end. But you people aren't stupid, I know that you aready know whats going on, but you don't care, because all you want is to win also.

[Cow Poke]

This is something that Republican strategists know and have known for some time now and so the only way forward for them is to try and win by unethical means with unethical groups like A.L.E.C. leading the way for them.

Yes, Democrats ALWAYS have highly ethical voting strategies.

It isn't only the ID requirement, they also have reduced early voting, which btw is the only time that many poor working people can get to the polls.

WHY can many poor working people only get to the polls in early voting?

[seer]

ID's, and for people without means they are doing their all to make it extremely difficult to get these ID's, are only one of the tactics being used to suppress the vote seer. Are you not aware of that?

That is just silly Jim. In every state I know of that requires voter ID makes it very easy to get said ID. If you know of an exception please post it.

[seer]

Here is a quote from Paul Weyrich, a right wing strategist in the 1980's:

And this is how the Dems do it:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ing-six-times/

Did Obama supporter vote 6 times in 2012? Ohio poll worker target of investigation


This is just one that got caught! So Jim, how would you prevent voter fraud?

[Cow Poke]

That is just silly Jim. In every state I know of that requires voter ID makes it very easy to get said ID. If you know of an exception please post it.

I doubt he'll be able to do that.
A) Rachel Maddow hasn't covered that
2) It's not on the liberal talking points
C) It's not covered by the liberal echo chamber

And I'd still love to see his rationale for why many poor working people can only get to the polls in early voting.

[seer]

And I'd still love to see his rationale for why many poor working people can only get to the polls in early voting.

That's the Dems' mantra - vote early and vote often!

[Cow Poke]

That's the Dems' mantra - vote early and vote often!

Maybe that's it --- a shorter early voting window decreases the number of times a liberal can vote! (I try to say liberal instead of democrat, because I know quite a few older conservative democrats who simply can't face the fact that their party has deserted them)

[Zymologist]

OK, I'm going to treat this as a serious question. After all, why NOT have a picture ID to vote? Isn't that one more indication that you are a qualified voter?

1) First, it makes sense to wonder why EVERY state requiring such ID is goverened by a Republican majority. Could it be that only Republicans care about good ID?

2) Second, it makes sense to wonder who might not have suitable ID. It doesn't take much research to learn that the overwelming majority of those lacking such ID (minorities and students) tend to vote for Democrats. Could it be possible that Republicans are trying to place hurdles in front of Democratic voters?

3) One might note that a Pennsylvania state senator crowed that their voter ID law "delivered the state for Romney". The implication is that placing hurdles in front of potential Democratic voters benefits the Republicans, and THAT is why ONLY Republican states passed voter ID laws.

4) It's also interesting to note that cases of voter impersonation (the only kind of fraud these laws would prevent) are rare as hen's teeth. In court, the State of Pennsylvania was unable to produce a SINGLE CASE of such fraud.

5) Not one single case of potential voter fraud has been verified in North Carolina. Previous investigations along these lines have also come up empty. These 765 voters have the same first and last names and last 4 digits of their social security numbers the same as someone in some other state. How many people have the same last 4 digits? Many tens of thousands. How many of those tens of thousands have the same first and last names? By golly, it's about 800. What an AMAZING coincidence!

Now, requiring a picture ID to vote isn't at all unreasonable, and nearly all citizens have such an ID (though picture ID's from universitites on student ID cards carefully doesn't count in Republican states. They might be forgeries, don't you know?) Given enough time, and making the photo IDs "free" (except for the cost of taking time off from work and the cost of transportation to get the ID), presents few physical hurdles, and Republicans know this. They ALSO know that most of the target population (poor minorities and students) will consider ANY hurdle to be "not worth the bother".

What the Republicans failed to factor in was that very very few of these people ever voted anyway, and most of them had never bothered to register. So they were repressing non-votes anyway. If anything, Republican efforts to suppress votes backfired, and motivate a few people to actually get up, get registered, and vote.

And of course, Republicans pointed to this and claimed that they didn't suppress anything. In fact, they didn't, so this is true. They TRIED to, they INTENDED to, they THOUGHT they did, but who cares?

Because if the Republicans are the only ones who support something, that of course must mean that the Republicans are the cheating partisans. The Democrats could never support something for their own ends, oh no.