Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[carpedm9587]

Those are largely the cases where we actually know something happened. There is reason to believe more is going on, like when more people vote democratic in a county than there are registered voters.

But feel free to "do the math" on what little info you have.

(It's like estimating the number of red light runners based on the number of citations written by police. )

CP - that's an argument by "maybe." And see Guacamole's response, which further tore apart this argument by database.

The bottom line is there is SOME known voter fraud, a lot of speculated voter fraud, and very little of it would be solved with a VoterID law. There is significant and disproportional documented impact on voter access, and a simple strategy for avoiding that while achieving voter ID goals, so there is simply no justification for disenfranchising so many - unless the entire point IS to disenfranchise them and give the right a political edge at the polls.

In light of the data - and the distribution of where these laws are being enacted - there is a pretty strong argument for that being the actual purpose of these VoterID laws.

[Cow Poke]

CP - that's an argument by "maybe." And see Guacamole's response, which further tore apart this argument by database.

The bottom line is there is SOME known voter fraud, a lot of speculated voter fraud, and very little of it would be solved with a VoterID law. There is significant and disproportional documented impact on voter access, and a simple strategy for avoiding that while achieving voter ID goals, so there is simply no justification for disenfranchising so many - unless the entire point IS to disenfranchise them and give the right a political edge at the polls.

In light of the data - and the distribution of where these laws are being enacted - there is a pretty strong argument for that being the actual purpose of these VoterID laws.

Meh - this is one of those "it is what it is" things, and not a passion of mine. I think Voter ID laws make perfect sense, and liberals will always find a way to argue against them. When I go to vote, I am required to show a photo ID, and I'm good with that.

[carpedm9587]

Those are the ones that were Caught Carpedm anything else you have to say below should be read with that in mind.

See my response to CP. But I will edit this to add two observations.

First, Kansas was home to the person currently co-heading (with Pence) Trump's so-called election fraud commission. He was (and is) a voter fraud zealot. Kansas has 12 documented convictions over a 12 year period, below the miniscule national average of about 1.3 incidents per state per year. If such a hound for voter fraud was only able to show and convict 12 cases, the argument that there is a "lot more out there" is specious at best.

Second, this is a marvelous example of people ignoring the data because it contradicts their existing perception/worldview. Even the data provided to make the voter fraud case is not enough to make the case, and the data clearly shows that the level of disenfranchisement is going to impact thousands of times more voters than it is going to protect from mis-cast votes. But even in the face of that documented, researched, data, the opinion is held and defended.

When people reject the data in order to cling to their existing perception - I suggest rational discourse has basically come to an end.

[Sparko]

I absolutely agree!



Sounds like a good system. So here's the problem: that's NOT the system we have here. And the "VoterID" initiatives mandate the need for the ID without providing the infrastructure to ensure that everyone who needs one has one. The result: voter disenfranchisement up to a 2% level with a 1.2% net negative shift for Democratic voters (see the previous link). All of that in the absence of a proven problem that needs to be solved.

Hence my suggestion - if the right is TRULY not looking to disenfranchise voters - then START by implementing a universal ID system that will provide everyone who needs an ID with one at a cost that can be afforded or waived. Once that has been done, and everyone either has one or has had a reasonable opportunity to GET one, THEN make it a mandatory requirement for voter registration and voting. Win-win. Everyone has an ID, no one is disenfranchised, and any worries about "voter fraud" can be allayed.

I see no reason for resisting this suggestion, UNLESS, the real intent of voter registration really has nothing to do with voter fraud - and really is all about minimizing Democrat votes and maximizing Republican votes. I have no problem with "get out the vote" initiatives - and I have no problem with each party working hard to get out its OWN votes. I don't even have a problem with initiatives to try to encourage people of the other party NOT to vote. I view it as unethical, unamerican, and unpatriotic to engage in initiatives that explicitly deny U.S. citizens of access to the polling place (e.g., slashing tires, closing polling locations, requiring specific tests, creating hostile environments, or placing legal obstacles that disproprotionately impact the electorate).

OK show me one place where a person cannot get a photoID for a small charge or no charge.

[Cerebrum123]

See my response to CP. But I will edit this to add two observations.

First, Kansas was home to the person currently co-heading (with Pence) Trump's so-called election fraud commission. He was (and is) a voter fraud zealot. Kansas has 12 documented convictions over a 12 year period, below the miniscule national average of about 1.3 incidents per state per year. If such a hound for voter fraud was only able to show and convict 12 cases, the argument that there is a "lot more out there" is specious at best.

Second, this is a marvelous example of people ignoring the data because it contradicts their existing perception/worldview. Even the data provided to make the voter fraud case is not enough to make the case, and the data clearly shows that the level of disenfranchisement is going to impact thousands of times more voters than it is going to protect from mis-cast votes. But even in the face of that documented, researched, data, the opinion is held and defended.

When people reject the data in order to cling to their existing perception - I suggest rational discourse has basically come to an end.

When had it actually started?

[carpedm9587]

When had it actually started?

I bow to your wisdom....

[carpedm9587]

OK show me one place where a person cannot get a photoID for a small charge or no charge.

Umm... I'll let CP's observation that it cost $45 to help someone get the ID.

But even this is merely an example, Sparko, not an argument. The studies show a 2% level of disenfranchisement. I provided the link to the research. This is the statistically relevant information. For every "example" I give you of a cost, you'll be able to find another example of a free ID card. Examples are not arguments. They are just examples. It is the over-arching data and trend that is relevant.

[Sparko]

Umm... I'll let CP's observation that it cost $45 to help someone get the ID.

But even this is merely an example, Sparko, not an argument. The studies show a 2% level of disenfranchisement. I provided the link to the research. This is the statistically relevant information. For every "example" I give you of a cost, you'll be able to find another example of a free ID card. Examples are not arguments. They are just examples. It is the over-arching data and trend that is relevant.

That wasn't the cost of the card, it was the cost of replacing the birth certificate and other documents needed to prove citizenship.

Here is a pdf that has some statistics. Most states normal price is under $25. And most have some short of hardship fee reduction. I think each state should have such a fee reduction (or make it free) for anyone who is unemployed or on welfare or retired.

So I agree with you that we should be working to make sure everyone has an ID rather than arguing that people should be able to vote with no ID. That is the way to solve the problem, you get voter checks to make sure only eligible people are voting and everyone has a photo ID to use for all of the things they are needed for in today's society.

http://sharedprosperityphila.org/doc...es-5.15.15.pdf (from 2015 so it might not be accurate any longer)

[Mountain Man]

See my response to CP. But I will edit this to add two observations.

First, Kansas was home to the person currently co-heading (with Pence) Trump's so-called election fraud commission. He was (and is) a voter fraud zealot. Kansas has 12 documented convictions over a 12 year period, below the miniscule national average of about 1.3 incidents per state per year. If such a hound for voter fraud was only able to show and convict 12 cases, the argument that there is a "lot more out there" is specious at best.

Second, this is a marvelous example of people ignoring the data because it contradicts their existing perception/worldview. Even the data provided to make the voter fraud case is not enough to make the case, and the data clearly shows that the level of disenfranchisement is going to impact thousands of times more voters than it is going to protect from mis-cast votes. But even in the face of that documented, researched, data, the opinion is held and defended.

When people reject the data in order to cling to their existing perception - I suggest rational discourse has basically come to an end.

One of the biggest problems at the moment is that it is almost impossible to detect voter fraud and other "irregularities". We simply don't have sufficient measures in place to meaningfully gather the evidence, so nobody really knows to what extent it is or isn't happening.

[Cow Poke]

Umm... I'll let CP's observation that it cost $45 to help someone get the ID.

That was a birth certificate, a driver's license AND a social security card - three forms of ID - at retail cost.

[carpedm9587]

That was a birth certificate, a driver's license AND a social security card - three forms of ID - at retail cost.

Thanks for the clarification - but an example is STILL not an argument. I frankly should not have provided it. I bought into the false narrative that examples make a case.

I stand by the data in the study I linked to.

[Sparko]

Thanks for the clarification - but an example is STILL not an argument. I frankly should not have provided it. I bought into the false narrative that examples make a case.

I stand by the data in the study I linked to.

You keep using that line. You were the one who made the claim about how expensive it is and I and CP told you WHY and how in all it was pretty cheap. So you say that isn't an argument? It was answering YOUR argument.

did you read the PDF I linked to?

[carpedm9587]

You keep using that line. You were the one who made the claim about how expensive it is and I and CP told you WHY and how in all it was pretty cheap. So you say that isn't an argument? It was answering YOUR argument.

did you read the PDF I linked to?

Yes. And an example is NOT an argument. It's just an example. Cost is only one of the many factors the report cites as contributing to disenfranchisement. Lack of source papers or paper trails is another. Lack in Internet access is another. Lack of transpportation to GET the paper is another. There is no one thing, AFAICT, that is the sole basis.

The key point is the findings of the various studies about disenfranchisement.

[Leonhard]

For that reason above all, there shouldn't be voter ID laws without also making absolutely sure all Americans have voter IDs. It must be ensured. Even if it requires a guy driving out to people with it. Everyone has it, or it can't be a requirement.

If all people have ID cards. Then there's no problem. Since this is not the reality. Then it is a problem.

[Sparko]

Yes. And an example is NOT an argument. It's just an example. Cost is only one of the many factors the report cites as contributing to disenfranchisement. Lack of source papers or paper trails is another. Lack in Internet access is another. Lack of transpportation to GET the paper is another. There is no one thing, AFAICT, that is the sole basis.

The key point is the findings of the various studies about disenfranchisement.

If people can't be bothered to get their act together enough to get the proof they are a citizen then they probably wouldn't be the type to vote anyway. If someone WANTS to vote, they can find a way to get a photo ID. There will always be a small number that can't and there is nothing you can do about it. Even if you gave them a photo ID or said they didn't need one, they would sill have a lack of the internet or transportation, or are too drunk, or can't show they are even a resident of the area, or something. These are just excuses.

And you seen to be shifting goal posts again - earlier you said that the solution was to get people photo IDs so they had no excuse. Now you are complaining about internet access and lack of transportation to get the very evidence they would need to get a photo ID. You can't manufacture papers. They either have to have documentation showing they are citizens and residents of the area or they dont get a photo ID or vote. There have to be some standards.