Voter Id And Suppressing Votes

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

First off
Those less well off than me are at least able to get Welfare, food stamps, medicare (we save and decide what we can live without when it comes time see the doctor or to get meds and needles...$10 for a month's supply of needles...seems small enough...we don't have it..but we'll find it as there are severe consequences if we don't.), housing assistance (yeah they get their rent paid and keep the roof over their head...oddly enough this same assistance is not available to those that pay the bank to keep a roof over their head....bank...landlord why does it matter which exactly), and utility assistance.  

Care to guess what assistance we've had as our life's savings have vanished into just trying to survive and not lose the house.  Care to guess how much assistance we get now that there's almost nothing left?

Same as we are getting now....None....But if we lose our house, sell her car and live off of that (never mind she needs it to get to work), they said they MIGHT be able to help.

But yeah, we've got it good... student loans times three, a car payment, a mortgage, and escalating medical bills thanks to our failing health.  

 

 

 

Be glad you had jobs where you could take the time off, and especially when you only had 15 miles to walk.

  LOL! Not always. When I was driving I was told I could either be in my rig or I could look for another job. My last job I had to wait until we finally got a weekend off...wasn't too bad, my license was only six moths expired.

But to NEVER have the time or means  once in FOUR years to appear for a picture so you can get a photo ID....I'm sorry, but you're full of it.
 

 

 

And I can absolutely guarantee you that unless you live right next to the university that your daughter would want to go to in North Carolina that she would be prohibited from voting there no matter how many forms she had time to fill out.

????????????????????????

 

 Weirdly, the same libertarians who want to register every poor person in order to keep them from voting, rail against registering guns and are pouring their money into untraceable gold and Bitcoins. Imagine that. 

 

Libertarians?

[CraigD]

Does anyone buy the argument that the statistical results are irrelevant and only "fairness" and "legitimacy" matters?

As someone who self-identifies as being about as left as Karl Marx, I imagine I can score a surprise by answering this “yes”.

 

However, I think the “fairness and legitimacy” argument is being used about equally by both sides. On the right, we have argument’s like DD’s

And BTW...ANY voting fraud is too much, to claim that any is acceptable is to say that the process and results are meaningless.

On the left, folk argue that if even one voter who is legally entitled to vote cannot because they are unable to satisfy recently enacted ID requirements, the whole election is invalidated.

 

I’ve seen many good-looking studies that show that the right wing’s argument is, to borrow a science euphemism, “nonphysical”. I’ve not seen, and would like to see, a good-quality study of the expected impact of currently enacted and possible future voter ID laws.

 

I’d also like to see some basic statistics on how voters register. For the past 25 years, I’ve done so very conveniently when I renewed by driver’s license. We’re I poor and lazy – which I’ve been at various periods of my life – I wouldn’t have a car, nor bother renewing my license. I assume all of these voter ID laws require a non-expired photo ID, so their effect is to make people without current DLs who still register to vote – a population I’ll here name the politically active poor – unable to. I’ve no confident guess of the size of this population.

 

My gut feeling is that these laws are as likely to backfire against their proponents by offending more Democratic party supporters who would not have voted so much that they do than they prevent those who would but no longer can. Their primary value to the Republican party, I believe, is to raise the specter of massive voter fraud by the Democrat supporters so that Republican supporters who would not have voted, do. So the laws are rhetorical ammunition for both sides.

 

So, to answer your second question, Buffy,

What do you think will happen to these laws in the long term?

regardless of whether they are repealed legislatively or voided judicially, I think they or future, similar legislation will keep coming, as it is in effect a kind of political speech.

 

In fact, merely saying in a visible forum (ie: TV, billboards) that some class of people can’t vote, especially adding that something dire will or should be done to them if they try, can be as or more effective than actually passing laws to prevent them. The division between protected speech and deceptive or even threatening speech is so nebulous, I’m pretty sure these sets intersect largely.

 

To my thinking, which I think is supported by unbiased and well-controlled statistics, the kinds of voting fraud that we should be most concerned with and vigilant against are:

• Election officials or tech service providers altering electronic vote counts
• Large scale, systematic false registration and voting

All but the most egregious voter fraud pales in my view next to the effectiveness of gerrymandering (better known at present as redistricting). This is the vulnerability I think most needs to be fixed by legislation. I wish all districting were done by an independent federal agency, such as the GAO.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

 

 

We’re I poor and lazy – which I’ve been at various periods of my life – I wouldn’t have a car, nor bother renewing my license. 

That makes no sense to me...is this to say that you would assume that you would never need to drive ever again because you couldn't afford to OWN a car at that particular time...not once even with a borrowed or rented vehicle? and that this lazy and poor period would exceed the remainder of the four year lifespan of a DL? or would be expected to last longer than the full four years of a new DL?

Edited May 11, 2014 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Labrat]

Let's take this discussion in a different direction. Every liberal I've met who decries the notion of requiring something as basic as a photo ID has relied on the statistic that shows that, why, voter fraud isn't even an issue! Yet, a deeper look into that oft-quoted research result provides some interesting context.

 

The government study that was done examined only cases in which charges had been brought and someone had been convicted of voter fraud. Indeed, these numbers are low. However, using other methods yeilds a pretty good estimation that voter fraud is far more rampant than convictions would suggest. There are many reasons why fraud may not even be prosecuted, including how difficult it is to prove in court.

 

As to the running argument that those calling for basic, commonsense measures are villans trying to deny targets groups their right to vote, I agree with DFINITLYDISTRUBD about the availability of this very needed resource. I have worked with the most disenfranchised in our society. If seniors who have spent 50 years institutionalized for mental illness can manage to have the necessary requirements for living, such as an ID, I can only conclude that those who don't have one, long term, have other priorities. The handful of people I encountered who did not have access to a photo ID were seniors who were too ill to be transported to the DMV. Frankly, voting wasn't their priority.

[Buffy]

No, several of the sources cited above have statistics for the number of indictments. 

 

Moreover, in recent attempts at voter purges there's been tons of data produced that has consistently found that the number of non-citizens registering is so small as to be completely insignificant:

 

Florida announced that it had identified 207 noncitizens registered to vote (.0018% of the electorate of nearly 11.5 million registered voters);[3] Colorado identified 141 noncitizens (.004% of the electorate of about 3.5 million registered voters).[4] The final numbers were far smaller than the initial lists identifying thousands or hundreds of thousands of potential noncitizens on the rolls.

 

Source: Stanford Law Review The Hunt for Non-Citizen Voters 10/12/12

 

 

 

Remember, the folks producing these statistics are *desperately* trying to find that "rampant voter fraud": Florida wasted millions on this under Rick Scott's witch hunt and ended up getting sued right and left because of all the legitimate voters who were purged.

 

Yes, a lot of the "logical" arguments on this are anecdotal "I've seen it myself and they're lazy no good jerks or they're mentally incapacitated so they don't deserve to vote anyway."

 

We can certainly open that can of worms, but you have to remember that what you end up with is that the most powerful people end up figuring out how to disenfranchise your vote (or at least spending enough to trick you into voting the "right" way).

 

It's also kind of dangerous to put all your argument eggs in the "Photo ID is so easy, why are you afraid of it?" basket: It keeps you from seeing the downsides of the other arguments against it. Not all solutions that are optimal look pure and beautiful and easy, because quite frankly reality can be pretty ugly.

 

 

We had to destroy the village in order to save it, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

If I can do it, anyone can. [A logical fallacy, Dicto Simpliciter, also called “Jumping to Conclusions,” "Converse Accident"] Implicit in the statement is the idea that "I" have no special ability. By this reasoning, anyone can fix their own car because "I" can fix my own car; anyone can get eighty percent on the test because "I" can get eighty percent on the test; yada yada yada bleh bleh bleh.

 

 

Mistaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. Example: "Susan failed Biology 101. Herman failed Biology 101. Egbert failed Biology 101. I therefore conclude that most students who take Biology 101 will fail it." In understanding and characterizing general situations, a logician cannot normally examine every single example. However, the examples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. Maybe Susan, Herman, and Egbert are exceptionally poor students. Maybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. ...

source: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

[Turtle]

I don't understand how "x" can be true, so "x" must be false. A logical fallacy; argument from personal incredulity.

 

Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person's inability to understand how they work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.

source: Logical Fallacies Handlist

[Labrat]

Yes, a lot of the "logical" arguments on this are anecdotal "I've seen it myself and they're lazy no good jerks or they're mentally incapacitated so they don't deserve to vote anyway."

 

 

I'll have to go back and read more carefully, because I missed this argument.

 

I stated that I have worked directly with disenfranchised populations. While it may be true that an infinitesimal number of people literally cannot get an ID, having worked with people who lived under bridges and people who, as I said, were insitutionalized, and were still able to manage to have the documents necessary for daily life. In fact, at a few of my positions, it was part of my job to make sure my clients were able to obtain those documents.

 

If living on the streets does not preclude a great number of people from getting an iD, if being hospitalized long term does not preclude it, if having no job and no transportation still does not prevent those folks from gaining an ID, experience and reason tell me that very, very few are actually truly barred from the process.

 

No one said a word about the worthiness of such citizens' votes.

 

I also think people should have a pulse and brain waves to vote, but I understand that not everyone agrees with that idea. You have to be alive and you have to show proof that you are the registered voter. Pretty basic.

[Buffy]

I stated that I have worked directly with disenfranchised populations. While it may be true that an infinitesimal number of people literally cannot get an ID, having worked with people who lived under bridges and people who, as I said, were insitutionalized, and were still able to manage to have the documents necessary for daily life. In fact, at a few of my positions, it was part of my job to make sure my clients were able to obtain those documents.

 

I have no doubt that you have found such people who have.

 

When I was a student at Berkeley we occasionally housed a street person in my Co-op by the name of Pink Cloud, who would proudly show you his drivers license that verified that his name was indeed Pink Cloud.

 

Why do I mention this? Because that was half his motivation for getting a Photo ID: to prove that his actual name was really, legally, Pink Cloud.

 

People have all sorts of motivations for getting Photo IDs. People have many motivations for not doing so either.

 

That based on your own anecdotal experience that some have is hardly surprising. 

 

But you need to recognize that you are arguing "because I found some people in the target demographic that had no problem doing it, therefore it should be no problem for all of them."

 

I know a bunch of people who like anchovies on their pizzas. Yet surveys show that anchovies are the least favorite item to put on a pizza.

 

That's called statistics, and in this kind of an argument, you can't really ignore them 

 

 

But the far more important issue is that you want to use it to justify a PREREQUISITE TO VOTING (despite not having any real statistical foundation for your gut feeling), and this begs the question of why it is necessary to do so?

 

If it serves no legitimate purpose--no matter whether or not you think that poor people ought to get one since they "can"--why do you want to do this?

 

I can see you just wanting to argue the abstract point, but besides being trollish, it's really akin to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because the point is that some people do not have the motivation to otherwise do so, regardless of whether they "can" or not.

 

 

We live in an age when pizza gets to your home before the police, :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

...

 

I stated that I have worked directly with disenfranchised populations. ...

As I pointed out before, every conclusion you draw on this anecodte is a logical fallacy. You argue from personal incredulity. To spare you having to look up fallacy, allow me.

 

1. A false notion.

 

2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.

 

3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.

 

4. The quality of being deceptive.

fallacy

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

That's called statistics, and in this kind of an argument, you can't really ignore them 

 

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

— Benjamin Disraeli

 

[Like people] if you torture statistics long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear. 

— Anonymous

 

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions. 

— Evan Esar

 

The same set of statistics can produce opposite conclusions at different levels of aggregation. 

— Thomas Sowell

 

Given a large mass of data, we can by judicious selection construct perfectly plausible unassailable theories—all of which, some of which, or none of which may be right. — Paul Arnold Srere

 

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination. 

— Andrew Lang

 

Insight is not the same as scientific deduction, but even at that it may be more reliable than statistics. 

— Anthony Standen

 

[Turtle]

There are three

kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

— Benjamin Disraeli 

 

[Like people] if you torture statistics long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to hear. 

— Anonymous

 

 

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions. 

— Evan Esar 

 

The same set of statistics can produce opposite conclusions at different levels of aggregation. 

— Thomas Sowell

 

Given a large mass of data, we can by judicious selection construct perfectly plausible unassailable theories—all of which, some of which, or none of which may be right. — Paul Arnold Srere

 

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination. 

— Andrew Lang 

 

Insight is not the same as scientific deduction, but even at that it may be more reliable than statistics. 

— Anthony Standen

 

Not presuming to speak for Buffy, however your argument here is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

 

...

(3) Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

 

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. ...

source >> Logical Fallacies Handlist

 

The fact is that there are many ways to identify a voter and restricting that identity method to photo ID is an unnecessary restriction on voters. In the face of no evidence of wide-spread fraud, this restriction is antithetical to freedom in the American tradition. It's a dirty trick and we know who's behind it and fallacious arguments don't change that.

[Turtle]

Dare I introduce facts here? Ay; I do. Mind you I am quoting just a portion of the facts and readers should at least claim to have read the full article before declaring their fallacious dismissal of it based on personal incredulity or the snob approach.

 

 

CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF:

A SURVEY OF AMERICANS’ POSSESSION OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

...Survey results: proof of citizenship

As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready

access to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed

responded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates.2 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.3

 

Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess documentation

proving their citizenship. Citizens earning less than $25,000 per year are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship as those earning more than $25,000.4 Indeed, the survey indicates that at least 12 percent of voting-age American citizens earning less than $25,000 per year do not have a readily available U.S. passport, naturalization document, or birth certificate.5

Documentation proving citizenship often does not reflect the citizen’s current name. Many of those who possess ready documentation of their citizenship do not have documentation that reflects their current name. For example, survey results show that only 48% of voting-age women with ready access to their U.S. birth certificates have a birth certificate with current legal name6 – and only 66% of voting-age women with ready access to any proof of citizenship have a document with current legal name.7 Using 2000 census citizen voting-age population data, this means that as many as 32 million voting-age women may have available only proof of citizenship documents that do not reflect their current name.

2

 

Survey results: photo identification

As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification. Eleven percent of the American citizens surveyed responded that they do not have current, unexpired government-issued identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license or military ID.8 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID. ...

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Edited May 14, 2014 by Turtle

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

 

 

As many as 7% of United States citizens – 13 million individuals – do not have ready

access to citizenship documents. Seven percent of the American citizens surveyed

responded that they do not have ready access to U.S. passports, naturalization papers, or birth certificates.2 Using 2000 census calculations of the citizen voting-age population, this translates to more than 13 million American adult citizens nationwide who cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship.3

And where exactly does it say they tried to get it, but were denied for any reason.

 

How many of them actually have tried to get ID documentation? Show me specifically the statistics for those that have actually tried to obtain documentation but were unable too.

Also show me the statistics for those that tried but were denied or were unable to come up with the fees once every four years to remain valid.

 

Folks in the less than $25K a year group...Hey! that's me!

 

They used 2000 data,hey, guess what I was supporting a wife and four kids on less than $10K back then ( and with no assistance from the govt I might add).

Edited May 14, 2014 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Buffy]

The first time Viviette Applewhite went to the polls, she cast her vote for John F. Kennedy. But this year, a strict new voter identification law will likely prevent the now-93-year old woman and many others in Pennsylvania from participating in their country’s democratic process. And Applewhite won’t stand for it.

 

She will be the plaintiff in the voter identification lawsuit being filed by the ACLU and the NAACP in the state, which claims that “the state’s voter photo ID law violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by depriving citizens of their most fundamental constitutional right – the right to vote.”

 

Applewhite no longer has a copy of her birth certificate, and she does not have a drivers’ license. Without either of these things, the new Pennsylvania restrictions say that she is ineligible to vote. But her circumstances are not at all uncommon. African Americans, especially elderly African Americans, are disproportionately less likely to have a birth certificate. 

 

Source: "This 93-Year-Old Grandmother Is Suing Pennsylvania Over Voter ID Laws" Think Progress 5/7/2012

 

 

 

The outcry over the state's new voter-ID bill ... escalated last week when Det Ansinn, the Borough Council president in Doylestown, told of taking his wife's 91-year-old grandmother to a PennDot office, looking for a photo ID so she could keep her 70-year voting record intact.

 

Joyce Block of Doylestown Township is such a dedicated voter that Ansinn took her from the hospital in a wheelchair to vote in 2010 because she couldn't get an absentee ballot.

 

She has an old voter registration card with her married name, but she has never had a driver's license.

 

Block had all the documents on the Department of State checklist - birth certificate and Social Security card, both with her maiden name; her marriage certificate; deed to her house; Peco bills; plus her IRS refund check.

 

That wasn't enough to satisfy PennDot, Ansinn said.

 

Her Hebrew marriage license was rejected because the PennDot worker couldn't read Hebrew.

 

And the deed and Peco bill were rejected because they had her married name, not her maiden name.

 

The state worker suggested she take legal action to switch the ownership of her home to her maiden name, which she hasn't used in 60 years. Then, maybe, she will be allowed to vote in the November election.

 

Source: "In Bucks County, a tale of ID frustration"The Philadelphia Inquirer 4/23/2012

 

 

 

Ruthelle Frank was born on Aug. 21, 1927, in her home in Brokaw. It was a hard birth; there were complications. A doctor had to come up from Wausau to see that she and her mother made it through.

 

Frank ended up paralyzed on the left side of her body. To this day, she walks with a shuffle and doesn't have much use of one arm.

 

Her mother recorded her birth in the family Bible. Frank still has it. A few months later, when Ruthelle was baptized, her mother got a notarized certificate of baptism. She still has that document, too.

 

What she never had -- and in 84 years, never needed -- was a birth certificate.

 

But without a birth certificate, Frank cannot get a state ID card. And without a state ID card, according to Wisconsin's new voter ID law, she won't be able to vote next year.

 

 

Source: "Voter ID becomes law of unintended consequences" Wausau Daily Herald 12/4/2011

 

 

 

Dorothy Cooper is a 96-year old African-American woman from Tennessee. Born before women even had the right to vote, she's now been voting religiously for some 70 years without a problem, even before the Voting Rights of 1965 during the the Jim Crow-era in the South. At least until now.

 

The newly-elected GOP legislature in her state has rammed through a disenfranchising polling-place Photo ID restriction law which has now made it incredibly difficult for Cooper to cast her legal vote, just like some 500,000 legal and largely Democratic-leaning voters in Tennessee.

 

As Rachel Maddow details below, Cooper has never had a driver's license. So, at 96 years old, she worked to make her way to the DMV in advance of next year's election and presented her birth certificate and all sorts of other identifying documents in order to receive the supposedly "free" state ID she is legally entitled to receive under the new law so that she can once again cast a vote next year.

 

However, as Cooper has gotten married since birth and her name has thus changed in the bargain, she was denied the ID, as she was unable to find and produce her marriage certificate to prove that she was who she said she was.

 

Source: "96-Year Old Dorothy Cooper Fighting to Vote Under TN's New GOP Voter-Suppression Law" BradBlog 10/9/2011

 

 

These stories just go on and on and on.

 

The statistics are valid. You're insisting that everyone has all the same reasons to get an ID as you, is just as capable as you, has no other obstacles than what you've experienced (something you continue to avoid addressing), and therefore has no excuse.

 

Sorry, the facts don't support that.

 

And while you threw question marks at my point about students in North Carolina, the fact still stands that the Voter ID law specifically prohibits students who do not have "full time residency" (over 1 year in a single location) from registering to vote no matter how much documentation they have about their citizenship. That would disenfranchise your daughter, who obviously did expend great effort in getting registered, but would find under the caprice of these laws she was unable to vote no matter what she did. It's not just old people.

 

So again, I ask, regardless of whether or not it actually is "easy" to get an ID, why you would want to do this in the face of the fact that there is basically no significant voter fraud? 

 

I'm sorry if I sound insensitive to your poverty, but you really actually do have it better than a lot of other people. I'm sure Mitt Romney would agree (and his ilk are the ones who are trying to suppress probably your vote too, because you're in a demographic that votes liberal).

 

 

Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes exactly the right measure of himself, and holds a just balance between what he can acquire and what he can use, :phones:

Buffy

[arissa]

I really don't see this as a way to get around voter fraud, there will always be some type of voter fraud because there will always be a party or someone working for a party that wants to win the easy way. I don't know about the rest of you but when I am randomly asked to produce my information I automatically think 'Show me your papers'.

[Turtle]

And where exactly does it say they tried to get it, but were denied for any reason.

 

How many of them actually have tried to get ID documentation? Show me specifically the statistics for those that have actually tried to obtain documentation but were unable too.

Also show me the statistics for those that tried but were denied or were unable to come up with the fees once every four years to remain valid.

First you decry statistics, then you ask for them. Do you not see the contradiction here?

 

Folks in the less than $25K a year group...Hey! that's me!

 

They used 2000 data,hey, guess what I was supporting a wife and four kids on less than $10K back then ( and with no assistance from the govt I might add).

This strikes me as odd and contradictory as well. You say you are deserving of help, but then refuse to accept it. I guess that's OK if it's just you, but how fair is it to your family? What purpose does your refusal serve? Is the purpose/reason to justify looking down on those who accept help? To justify the position that no one deserves help? To justify a position that you shouldn't be expected to help people in need? Again, it is a logical fallacy to assert that if I can do it anyone can, let alone that I did it so everyone should be expected to.