July 30, 2012

"Voter ID laws could swing states."

An article at Politico:
"Swing states are always much more likely to have these kinds of laws restricting voting,” said Wendy Weiser, director of Brennan’s Democracy Program. “To the extent that it’s a political tactic to try and game the system, … it does make sense that that is where we see a lot of that because that is where it could make a difference to the outcome.”
Weiser's argument doesn't prove as much as she'd like, because it's also true that it's in swing states where there's the most reason to worry about fraud. It's a corollary to the old saying "if it's not close, they can't cheat."

189 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Of the many insane political arguments, this is near the top. Chrissake, you need an id for virtually everything.

traditionalguy said...

This issue is the fight about nothing meant to distract from the real voter fraud which is in the mailed in early absentee vote.

David said...

Weiser doesn't worry about fraud. Based on a quick sample of her writings, press releases and interviews, she is all about preventing "voter suppression." The notion that there is a legitimate interest in preventing fraud never enters her thinking. Or at least it never enters her pronouncements. What she really thinks about this is hidden.

Pedigree: Yale Law, Paul Weiss law firm, former senior counsel at NOW.

The Drill SGT said...

Here in Swing Virginia the current flap is over a national Democratic front group, doing mail solicting and gathering voter personal info including social security numbers, under the guise of being the Virginia State Board of Elections, then the data goes instead to a storefront box in a UPS store.

Sounds like mail fraud to me.

edutcher said...

This is how you know things are getting ready to go insane:

stopping vote fraud is now "gaming the system".

Matthew Sablan said...

I think if we could ever have a time to talk about voter ID laws when an election wasn't right around the corner, we'd never have these drag out fights. Everyone would just realize: "Huh. That makes sense. Let's just make sure people can actually get the IDs."

Then, we'd tune up DMVs and like locations so people could get to them easier/access them at all. Then, problem solved. The election every two-years thing is really what's hurting common sense things like this.

garage mahal said...

Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense.

Tim said...

""Swing states are always much more likely to have these kinds of laws restricting voting,” said Wendy Weiser, director of Brennan’s Democracy Program."

That's true only if an official I.D. keeps one from voting more than once, just as an official I.D. keeps one from driving more than one car at once, riding on more than one plane at once, drawing more than one welfare check at once.

I completely understand the voracious appetite of the Left for legalized theft of wealth, but must they be so blatant about their efforts to cheat at the ballot box?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense."

Completely non-existent

bagoh20 said...

Of all the issues where Dems look bad, this one is the most obvious. It's really indefensible.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Sablan

Thanks for linking to a case of fraud where a voter id law would not have stopped the fraud committed.

Here's something that might be more topical to the discussion.

Lem said...

Voter ID laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities..

These kids and minorities now days.. I tell you.

I remember, back when I was a kid (still a minority) I couldn't wait to get my drivers licence.

edutcher said...

Matthew Sablan said...

Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense.

Completely non-existent


Absofreakinglutely.

Winston Smith said...

garage mahal said...
Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense.

Sorry garage, but this comment goes way beyond your usual level of dishonesty. You're not even trying with this one.

bagoh20 said...

I'm sure there is no fraud. There is no incentive, it's pretty damned hard, and there is no way you can get away with it. Of course nobody would do it. I mean who would do a crime like that?

The only people who are against requiring ID to perform important functions are criminals or those who benefit from their crimes.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense.


Yes! "Non-existent" when you're silly, ignorant and live in a bubble.

Anyway, here is how you goons operate:

a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers is identified on an NAACP website as a member of the Tunica County NAACP
Executive Committee
.

Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts, but Circuit Court Judge Charles Webster permitted Sowers to serve those terms concurrently, according to the Tunica Times, the only media outlet to cover the sentencing.

“This crime cuts against the fabric of our free society,” Judge Webster said.

machine said...

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Cheating hacks....

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Here's something that might be more topical to the discussion.


Actually, it isn't, at all.

But you can pretend it is.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Numerous voters told Fox News that they were stunned that their signatures were faked on absentee ballot applications and ballots, which were cast as real votes in their names in the 2009 primary election."

-- ID Laws sure would have helped find that out. Unless you think that ID laws will also mean that we just randomly send out absentee ballots. Also, that Salon piece is interesting in that we're immediately assuming a guy under legal investigation is telling the truth. I find it interesting how quickly people are willing to believe him.

Jay said...

machine said...
The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”


Hilarious.

Um, and then what?

I love watching you leftists at work demanding "evidence" as if you could possibly care.

There is a multitude of real world evidence and facts running counter to your silly beliefs, yet you still cling to your silly beliefs.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?

Why not?

Matthew Sablan said...

I do think it odd though that we can all watch people walk in to a voting area, claim to be Eric Holder, get a ballot, then walk away and some will say: "There's no way any one would do that AND ACTUALLY VOTE." And some will say: "This is a problem we should solve."

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...
@ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?


Er, he's a former Republican party official.

Thanks for participting.

PS: let me know when you'd like me to start pasting quotes from Democrats saying silly shit that using your rule here tars the entire party.

Goof.

Matthew Sablan said...

"That is, every Republican except for Florida’s former Republican Party chairman Jim Greer, who, scorned by his party and in deep legal trouble, blew the lid off what he claims was a systemic effort to suppress the black vote. In a 630-page deposition recorded over two days in late May, Greer, who is on trial for corruption charges, unloaded a litany of charges against the “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote."

-- He is a former Republican official. Something about him funneling money or something caused him to get kicked out. Probably for committing crimes.

But hey, he's totally trustworthy. So, clearly, we should believe him when he tells the left exactly what they want to hear to cut a deal.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's good to know that his moral fortitude is so strong, he sat on this powder keg since 2009. Clearly, obvious racism was something he could tolerate until he needed to cut a deal.

Dose of Sanity said...

Okay, former. Discussing what happened when he was there.

Personally, I'm not sure I believe him, but I think it is at least topical to bring up.

And Jay, I'm NOT trying to tar the party - I'm trying to say that sometimes, some people, push those laws for completely unjustifible reasons.

Should we stop fraud? Hell yes. Should we disenfranchise voters? Hell no.

We can all agree to that - the issue of how to go about it is another story.

Jay said...

Dose of idiocy needs to read her own links a little more closely:

The comments, if true (he is facing felony corruption charges and has an interest in scorning his party)

Don't worry, we know you accept them as true.

garage mahal said...

“whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” in his party, including the effort to suppress the black vote."

No way!

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...


Should we stop fraud? Hell yes. Should we disenfranchise voters? Hell no.


That's great.

And there is no evidence, anywhere at all, that voter ID "disenfranchses" anyone.

SGT Ted said...

Making sure that the voters can legally vote isn't a "restriction". It's a protection aganist fraud and criminal activity by political parties.

That only ONE particular political party has objections to voter verification shows that they have relied on such criminal activity and fraud to win elections in the past and they don't want the gravy train to end in giving up the advantage. You can also tell this is the case based on the moronic arguments they use to oppose such laws.

Matthew Sablan said...

There is no reason to bring this up, unless you're willing to also bring up all the nastiness, some of it very true, about ACORN.

It's unfounded allegations by a man desperate to save his skin. It's a distraction until we know more; bringing it up is pointless. Walking it back is good, pretending you're just asking questions expected. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending you only had good, honest and true intentions for bringing it up.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


No way!


Awwwww, isn't that cute?

The simpleton ignores actual convictions regarding voter fraud to believe allegations.

Such shocking behavior by the simpleton.

Michael K said...

Actually, the voters whose votes will be suppressed are a major force in Chicago politics. The dead.

Thanks for posting this, Ann. I quit reading Politico a long time ago.

Bruce Hayden said...

My view is that Garbage and inSanity here are what are termed "useful dupes", but that Eric Holder, et al. are just being cynical corrupt politicians when they try to equate Voter-ID with voter suppression. The left believes that power is everything and that the ends justify the means. Which is why they tend to abolish elections when they take control of a country though democratic means. In any case, I do not doubt, and most likely, most here also do not doubt, that the primary, and only practical, reason that they oppose Voter-ID laws is that they know that one of the reasons that they are in power is that fraudulent voting and fraudulent elections are sometimes the only thing that keeps them from losing elections.

jr565 said...

It's not hard to get an id. you need one to conduct the most basic business in life, and there is no epidemic of disenfranchized people who somehow can't get ID's.

And did I mention that you need one to conduct the most basic business in life? Maybe, if some dems are so disenfranchised it's because they never bothered getting the ID that would allow them to function in society, so dems, if they really cared about poor people, would try to make it easier for people to get said ID cards. So they can do stuff like provide ID if they have to pick up a package at the PO. Or go to a bar, or get a library card. etc etc etc.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Sablan

Sometimes, I find it concerning that people's beliefs about democrats or liberals cause them to assume things about me that aren't true.

This isn't the first voter ID thread on althouse I've commented on.

It's always about a balance. Yes, we should stop fraud - and YES, there is a level of restriction which will prevent some people from voting. You can imagine some extreme case easily to prove the line exists - and now we are just talking about where that line falls.

We don't have to bicker all the time people. Really. (except Jay, he cannot ever admit to any point I make, or actually say something nice about a liberal/dem/me)

BarryD said...

Who in hell doesn't have an ID?

Anyone who participates in society at all, if only to sponge off of it, has an ID.

I guess I have to commend the Democrats for caring so much that a few hundred radical libertarian/anarchist types who live in the mountains of Montana, and don't have ID, will be able to vote.

The only other reason that anyone of any political persuasion would oppose voter ID laws is that they might make fraud a bit less laughably easy. It wouldn't be nice of me to assume that Wendy Weiser might have a vested interest in promoting vote fraud.

Matthew Sablan said...

Instead of dismissing concerns about lack of availability of IDs, I want to meet it head on. How has the government failed such a basic service? If we don't have the funds and means to get citizens basics, like IDs, we need to serious curtail our extra-spending until we can deliver this to them. We have no need for things like cowboy poetry and NPR when the poor, minorities, the elderly and single mothers are being denied the ability to get IDs. What's more important? All things considered or ensuring that an old woman gets her ID so she can participate in civil life?

Matthew Sablan said...

If we didn't have to bicker, you would not have instantly thrown up easily dismissible accusations of racism against an entire political party. If you want to be treated with respect and not lumped in with people who accuse their political opponents of racism... it's best not to go around taking actions that accuse your political opponents of racism. Maybe you were just being lazy on thinking how your statement would sound, so I'll give you a pass.

EMD said...

@ Jay - A republican official, under oath, stating that the party is trying to suppress minority votes through voter ids laws isn't topical to a voter id discussion on whether it is vote suppression or fraud prevention?

I would say it is, but the article also says he's "disgraced" which would be a hint he's no longer in charge because of such behavior.

garage mahal said...

Voter ID laws have NOTHING to do with suppressing voters who don't vote for Republicans. NOTHING! Even when Republicans admit that is the intention.

Even when voter ID laws wouldn't even prevent the sort of voter fraud from happening that isn't happening. Huh?

La de da de dah. Holder, blah blah blah dead voters blah blah blah renting movies blah blah blah

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Sablan

That's a great point about IDs and the availability. Perhaps that's a route to a solution in this debate.

Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one. While getting an ID to vote is USUALLY free under voter ID laws, quite frankly they can't get to the DMV during operating hours to get one.

Yes - this seems dire for most people. Surely they've needed an id to get a bank account? Surely they've taken a day off of work? What about sick time?

Well, as a former resident of Milwaukee's east side, I can assure you that people like this do exist. They bust their ass working for less than what most of us make in a hour. It's not fair, but it is what it is.

Maybe we could have a weekend or nighttime staffed ID-issuing centers? I think that would go a long way.

machine said...

The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

So Pennsylvania is trying to put laws in place to prevent something that isn't even happening ( which you must admit because if they could show it they would)....

Why would they agree to this?

Matthew Sablan said...

Because it seems clear that just because something is not being investigated does not mean it is not happening. Frankly, we pass laws daily that have no bearing on things currently happening. Why, in this one case, does it matter that it doesn't appear to be happening?

Dose of Sanity said...

Why, in this one case, does it matter that it doesn't appear to be happening?

Because one of the effects is that less people might be able to vote?

Matthew Sablan said...

Every study people have shown me of fewer people being able to vote has not matched a few actual facts:

1. More people are voting
2. In higher percentages
3. Among almost every population
4. Even those that should be depressed by these actions

In the corner cases where it drops, it is within the margin of error, not statistically significant or in elections that are not particularly good indicators.

The actual disenfranchisement is not happening.

Jay said...

machine said...

So Pennsylvania is trying to put laws in place to prevent something that isn't even happening ( which you must admit because if they could show it they would)....


Hysterical.

I think it is touching that you are pretending to understand those words.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Because one of the effects is that less people might be able to vote?


You saying this has no connection to reality.

You do understand that states have passed Voter ID laws and held elections, right?

I mean, if what you're saying is true you should easily be able to whip up some evidence that these ID laws keep people from voting.

Why do you think you can't do that?

Dose of Sanity said...

Off topic, but still amusing:

Typical Jay Post:

"Hysterical"/"Hilarous"/"Too funny."

Vague accusation of inability to understand topic at hand.

Vague restatement of a somewhat related talking point.

"Go away" "Idiot" "Unbelievable"

/end post

elkh1 said...

"there is no evidence, anywhere at all, that voter ID "disenfranchses" anyone."

Wrong. Voter ID disenfranchises Chicagoans from voting in Wisconsin.

chickelit said...

Voter fraud and the public's suspicion that it is partisan (D) swells the ranks of voters who turn out to simply oppose such fraud. This was one lesson of Wisconsin recall.

Dose of Sanity said...

Voter fraud and the public's suspicion that it is partisan (D) swells the ranks of voters who turn out to simply oppose such fraud. This was one lesson of Wisconsin recall.


Ha, that's interesting to note. I don't understand though - the voter id law was stayed during the recall?

garage mahal said...

This was one lesson of Wisconsin recall.

Yes. Republicans lying about nonexistent voter fraud.

chickelit said...

The louder that Democrats whine that voter fraud doesn't exist (despite their long long history of flirting with it), just provokes an equal and opposite reaction from voters to oppose the whine.

chickelit said...

Yes. Republicans lying about nonexistent voter fraud.

No garage, I meant the turn out. Bagoh20 is right. Voter fraud is indefensible, so you resort to saying it doesn't exist which is a self-defeating strategy. because it riles the right.

Michael K said...

Yes. Republicans lying about nonexistent voter fraud.

Yes indeed.

BarryD said...

"Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one."

Bullshit.

I use a state-issued ID a few times a day. The last time anyone actually asked for my Driver's License, per se was when I made a lane change without signalling on the evening of New Year's Eve. State Police, after determining that I was sober, let me off with a friendly warning that the ramp where I made the lane change was a hazard for motorcyclists, and that I needed to be sure that they could anticipate my movements.

Driving is arguably the least-common reason we use our state-issued ID cards. Someone who doesn't drive will need one, too.

chickelit said...

@garage: Saying that voter fraud doesn't exist is like Obama spokesman saying "our position on that has not changed" when asked a simple question.

Your side is losing on clarity. Democrats should appear united with Republicans to oppose any and all fraud--and not giving the optics that it doesn't exist.

Roger J. said...

I am trying to understand the thesis that requiring some sort of ID disfranchises voters--Do I have that right?

Since the requirement for a photo ID is required for all but the most simple life events, I fail to understand the argument. As a 70 YO male, I have to show a picture ID to buy beer in Memphis; I have to show a picture ID to board an airplane; I have to show a photo ID to drive a car--so if a photo ID is so onerous, how do the ctizens survive in this environment?

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Vague restatement of a somewhat related talking point.


Right.

And you can provide all sorts of examples, I'm sure.

garage mahal said...

The louder that Democrats whine that voter fraud doesn't exist...

Regarding Racine County: It was investigated by a right wing sheriff and a right wing DA, and nothing was found. That's after various douchebags like Reince Priebus and others claiming in the media that there was. Some things never change.

BarryD said...

'stopping vote fraud is now "gaming the system".'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe_uSrrL-4Y

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...


Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That's right, moron!

You don't need an ID to:
-Cash a check
-Open a bank account
-Write a check at the grocery store
- Board a plane


None of which constitutes driving.

Idiot.

Jay said...

Why in the world would anyone who utters:

Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one.

Be taken seriously on this topic at all?

BarryD said...

"As a 70 YO male, I have to show a picture ID to buy beer in Memphis; I have to show a picture ID to board an airplane"

If you have a stuffy nose, you have to show a picture ID to get a decongestant that works. Where is the Democratic outrage? Where is the AARP outrage? (AARP claims that voter ID laws disenfranchise seniors)

ndspinelli said...

Garage has proved my point.

BarryD said...

What about if we were to accept a photo of your headstone, in lieu of ID? Would THAT satisfy Democrats that nobody is getting disenfranchised?

I mean, I do understand that dead people have a very difficult time getting a state ID card, and that one wants to be sure that they won't be kept from voting for Democrats, by some right-wing lunatics who want to deny the dead their basic rights.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
Stopping nonexistent voter fraud is just common sense.


Note that 3 seperate examples of voter fraud have been provided yet the dummy keeps using "nonexistent" as if he knows what it means.

Tom Hilton said...

"...it's also true that it's in swing states where there's the most reason to worry about fraud..."

Except that there's no evidence that there's any likelihood of individual voter fraud anywhere. None. Zero.

When people propose a law to correct a "problem" that doesn't exist, it's pretty clear that the "problem" is a pretext for some other agenda.

Jay said...

Tom Hilton said...

Except that there's no evidence that there's any likelihood of individual voter fraud anywhere. None. Zero.


Note that 3 seperate examples of voter fraud have been provided, leading one to wonder if your comment is parody.

Dose of Sanity said...

Yes, it's true you need an ID to do lots of things in today's society.

Yet, none of them are required. To you and I - of course we do those things and we can't IMAGINE not doing them.

Yet, many people don't have ids. It varies, but some have shown as much as 10% of the population don't have IDs. (the real number is probably around 2-5%)

chickelit said...

Saying that voter fraud doesn't exist seems as preposterous as saying that Medicaid fraud is non existent, corporate fraud is non existent, and well, that fraud itself is non existent. It's a bipartisan issue.

BarryD said...

"Except that there's no evidence that there's any likelihood of individual voter fraud anywhere. None. Zero."

Lying with the truth.

Of course there's no evidence of individual voter fraud. No one vote or one person is that significant, so there's no reason to vote fraudulently as an individual.

The point of requiring ID is to make organized vote fraud a little more difficult. And while you can claim that there's zero evidence of any organized vote fraud, but you'd be lying.

AJ Lynch said...

Over 65% of the population supports Voter ID laws while less than 45% support Obamacare. Some Dems are coming very close to encouraging people to dis-obey voter ID laws. Should Repubs do the same for Obamacare?

machine said...

Then why couldn't Pennsylvania show it? It's a big state....should be easy if it's as rampant as claimed...


But they couldn't....

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...
Yes, it's true you need an ID to do lots of things in today's society.

Yet, none of them are required


Notice the vacuity in this silliness.

Note: voting isn't required either.

dope.

BarryD said...

"Yet, none of them are required."

Neither is voting. Some people choose never to register, nor vote, for such trivial reasons as wanting to avoid getting a jury summons.

It's a free country. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to. On average, the majority of Americans choose not to, though sometimes we do manage to get a bit over half of eligible citizens to vote in Presidential elections.

How many people who are so cut off from society that they don't feel the need for an ID, actually choose to vote, when so many people who are so engaged, still don't?

Jay said...

machine said...
Then why couldn't Pennsylvania show it?


PA doesn't have to 'show it' in order to pass a law.

Colonel Angus said...

Currently, many people who don't drive don't necessarily have a state issued ID, because frankly, they don't need one. While getting an ID to vote is USUALLY free under voter ID laws, quite frankly they can't get to the DMV during operating hours to get one.

If they can't get to the DMV, how do they get to the polls?

I've yet to hear a compelling argument how showing a photo ID is an insurmountable hurdle.

BarryD said...

Followup: In order to show that there is any voter suppression, one would have to show that people who were unable to vote because they had no ID, would have voted if they had one.

That's even more dubious than the assertion that a lot of people are walking around with no ID.

BarryD said...

"I've yet to hear a compelling argument how showing a photo ID is an insurmountable hurdle."

It is when the voter is dead.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Barry/Jay

Fair point on "required".

I was trying to point out that none of them are rights granted within the Constitution - but the way I phrased it makes it seem like the Constitution would require you to vote.

Poorly phrased on my part, mea culpa.

While voting certainly isn't required, if someone feels even an inkling like they want to vote, we should help them. Even if they all want to vote against us - it's pretty much the basis of our whole society. (and, again, fraud is equally damaging)

Marshal said...

Dose of Sanity said...
Should we stop fraud? Hell yes. Should we disenfranchise voters? Hell no.

We can all agree to that - the issue of how to go about it is another story


We don't all agree about this. The left asserts that all attempts to stop fraud are attempts at voter disenfranchisement, see garage for an example. While you may accurately reply that garage is of the nutty left and is therefore of no consequence, Democratic Party policy is exactly the same as garage's.

If you think that policy is wrong you should make that argument to those you claim you disagree with. Instead you responded to the issue of voter ID by publicizing a discredited criminal's accusation of voter suppression. If you weren't making tha accusation that the goal of voter ID is voter suppression how is your link responsive to the issue at all? And you wonder why people "bicker" at your comments? It's you who first questioned the motives of those against voter fraud.

Dose of Sanity said...

If they can't get to the DMV, how do they get to the polls?


Well again, only speaking of my own experience - getting to the DMV in milwaukee is not impossible, but it also has regular business hours and requires a lengthy amount of time.

The wards in milwaukee are usually within walking distance, and are open from 7am - 8pm, beyond most people's shift times, so they don't have to take off work, etc.

Calypso Facto said...

some have shown as much as 10% of the population don't have IDs.(the real number is probably around 2-5%)

"The number of illegal immigrants in the United States was estimated at 11.5 million in 2011, according to the Pew Hispanic Center."

What a coincidence!

machine said...

"PA doesn't have to 'show it' in order to pass a law."


No one said they did...but since it would go a long in winning the argument it certainly be useful, wouldn't it?

But all the sudden in the summer President Obama is running for reelection we need voter ID laws, voter purges, voter caging....Without having to show why it's necessary.

Dose of Sanity said...

If you think that policy is wrong you should make that argument to those you claim you disagree with. Instead you responded to the issue of voter ID by publicizing a discredited criminal's accusation of voter suppression. If you weren't making tha accusation that the goal of voter ID is voter suppression how is your link responsive to the issue at all? And you wonder why people "bicker" at your comments? It's you who first questioned the motives of those against voter fraud.

The only "facts" being put forth at the time were voter fraud arguments - and accusations that if you thought voter id laws were being used to surpress votes, you too were a criminal.

The point of linking that is that if even an inkling of that is true, perhaps we should slow in our zeal to implement voter ID laws?

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Calypso

Of US Citizens. But, carry on.

Colonel Angus said...

The wards in milwaukee are usually within walking distance, and are open from 7am - 8pm, beyond most people's shift times, so they don't have to take off work, etc.

Point taken, however, its still not a compelling argument that its impossible to get to the DMV. I like many others find the time to go there during normal business hours.

As others have stated before, its hard to believe one can participate in even basic societal transactions without an ID. Do they work? If so, they must provide photo ID as part of completing a Form I-9.

Jay said...

machine said...

No one said they did...but since it would go a long in winning the argument it certainly be useful, wouldn't it?


Comical.
The left isn't interested in "arguments" or facts.


But all the sudden in the summer President Obama is running for reelection we need voter ID laws, voter purges, voter caging....Without having to show why it's necessary.


You do understand that states have passed Voter ID laws and held elections prior to 2008, right?

You aren't at all familiar with the definition of "purge" as it relates to voter rolls.

You ought to go look it up.

Marshal said...

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

So here again you're asserting that those for voter ID are attempting to disenfranchise rather than stop fraud. Back to the question, why does it surprise you that people trying to stop voter fraud disagree with you, or in your parlance, "bicker". You're impugning their motives. Let me guess, you're impugning their motives Sanely, right? So it shouldn't lead to "bickering".

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...
Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting?



You do understand that states have passed Voter ID laws and held elections, right?

Please point to evidenct that any voters were prevented from voting.

Thanks in advance.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting?


Note how bitterly our little troll clings to this meme.

Nothing, not one single thing, could change the troll's mind.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

The wards in milwaukee are usually within walking distance, and are open from 7am - 8pm, beyond most people's shift times, so they don't have to take off work, etc.


You have to show a driver's license to get a job.

Idiot.

Calypso Facto said...

Of US Citizens. But, carry on.

Well that's clearer. But here's the thing. I don't personally know ANYONE over 16 without an ID. So, "meh", limited sympathy from me, despite my sensitivity to the "Constitutional right" argument. I have to show an ID to buy a gun and exercise my Second Amendment Constitutional right. Are you suggesting we drop that ID requirement too?

Garage and I have been round and round on this issue and he's heard my story about the real tipping point for me before: I was staying in LaCrosse during the Kapanke recall election, when I was asked by a Democrat supporter in the hotel bar to accompany her to the polls and vote because she'd give me the name of someone she knew was out of town. And I thought, "there's nothing in place to prevent that". A real wake up call.

Jay said...

So now dose of stuidity is reduced to "arguing" that it is difficult to get an ID because the DMV is only open 9-5.

Every job I've ever had in my lifetime a copy of my DL was made on my first day.

Watching this little imbecile flop & flail is now passe

John Stodder said...

Without granting that voter fraud is "non-existent" (anyone remember 1960? Or "Landslide Lyndon?"), why does it matter if it's non-existent. We have lots of laws against things that rarely happen, the point of which is to protect the thing we're protecting from fraud that COULD happen. Without voter ID, COULD there be more voter fraud? COULD some voters vote twice? Of course. Should we assume, however, that NO ONE would stoop this low, that we are in a world of angels? No, of course not.

The point of voter ID requirements is to protect the franchise, which all Americans have an interest in seeing done.

If voter ID laws only asked a certain class of voters to show IDs, yes that would be discriminatory. But they ask everyone.

For new states getting into it, like Pennsylvania, will it be a hardship on those voters who, while caring enough about their state and country to vote, don't care to have any ID that would allow them to cash a check, drive a car or fly. Yes, those unusual people will face a hardship. However, that's why we have the League of Women Voters, political parties, and the state election boards -- to help those who want to vote to get an ID so they can. The election is 100 days away. Plenty of time for a committed voter to deal with their problem, and plenty of time for the various parties, NGOs and government agencies involved in this to help them.

If you fall into the left's framing trap of proving that fraud is rampant before having a law against it, you're sunk. But it's a false assumption that such must be the case before a law is passed.

Skookum John said...

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting?

Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote.

BarryD said...

"I was trying to point out that none of them are rights granted within the Constitution"

So is the right to keep and bear arms. Try to buy a gun without a valid, state-issued picture ID. It can be required for an ammunition purchase, too (handled like cigarettes or beer, depending on the type).

Dose of Sanity said...

Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote.

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

damikesc said...

I'm just curious as to why something so "incredibly important" is handled so flippantly. What other thing in life with ANY value is controlled by a "Trust me" mentality to this level?

Is it acceptable that because voters aren't TECHNICALLY disenfranchised, a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting? A question worth answering before we accuse the dead of voting.

If somebody is too lazy/disengaged to get an ID, them not voting is not that big of a concern. We seriously expect somebody who cannot pull off getting an ID to have a clue about any issues in any election...ever?

While voting certainly isn't required, if someone feels even an inkling like they want to vote, we should help them.

Getting an ID would be several times more helpful than voting. Then they might be able to get jobs, cash checks, open accounts, etc.

Oh, and they could vote ALSO.

But all the sudden in the summer President Obama is running for reelection we need voter ID laws, voter purges, voter caging....Without having to show why it's necessary.

It was shown that somebody can walk into a DC precinct and simply ask for AG Eric Holder's ballot and get it. Not even saying they were Eric Holder, just asking for it.

Then why couldn't Pennsylvania show it? It's a big state....should be easy if it's as rampant as claimed...

Can you explain why so many precincts --- primarily in Democratic strongholds --- tend to have more ballots than registered voters?

damikesc said...

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

Yes, expecting somebody to have an ID that is required to do almost anything...exact same thing as a poll tax. Really.

If you're too lazy/stupid to get an ID --- then, please, don't vote. Lazy idiots voting isn't a positive.

If you oppose efforts to stop fraud, the only logical conclusion is that one supports fraud.

Dose of Sanity said...

If you oppose efforts to stop fraud, the only logical conclusion is that one supports fraud.

I love logical fallacies.

p.s. Your arbitration of who is intelligent enough to vote thankfully isn't a requirement listed in that Constitution of ours.

damikesc said...

I love logical fallacies.

It's simple reality. You claim to want to do "something" to deal with it --- but oppose the only actual way to deal with it.

Your arbitration of who is intelligent enough to vote thankfully isn't a requirement listed in that Constitution of ours

I didn't say they were necessarily stupid.

They could also be unbelievably lazy.

Either way, if you can't be bothered to get an ID, then tough. Don't vote.

Dose of Sanity said...

the only actual way to deal with it.


Hey look, another fallacy! They are popping up like crazy!

Colonel Angus said...

If one can manage to function in our society without using an ID for the most basic transactions its probably safe to say those individuals aren't the voting type.

ALP said...

I think it is telling that politicians would rather throw up their hands and cry "civil rights violation" instead of actually SOLVE the problem - that a group of marginal people in their jurisdiction have issues securing photo ID.

If a politician/bureaucrat can't come up with a solution to the problem of obtaining photo ID, why in the world should they be trusted to solve BIGGER issues? I can't think of another issue that screams "we are incompetent" like this one.

Dose of Sanity said...

its probably safe to say those individuals aren't the voting type.

Everywhere! Look at all this false logic!

p.s. I'm being flippant right now, but come the hell on. You guys have decent arguments: these are not them.

garage mahal said...

If you can't get an ID, you aren't allowed to vote.

That's from the small government, less regulation, constitution loving liberty party.

Hardy fucking har har har.

Colonel Angus said...

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

Quite frankly that's not a bad idea. Unless of course you believe allowing idiots to vote and effect our political process is good for the nation.

Dose of Sanity said...



Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

Quite frankly that's not a bad idea. Unless of course you believe allowing idiots to vote and effect our political process is good for the nation.


That, by the way, was a historical reference to the south purposely preventing black people from voting. Thanks for playing on into that.

Rusty said...

Dose of Sanity said...
Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote.

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?


A ballot IS kind of a literacy exam.

How hard is it to get a state ID in Wisconsin?

You need a State ID and a social security number to open a bank account. You need some form of ID to cash a check even at a currency exchange. You need an ID with proof of your age to buy liquor.I had to prove who I was for jury duty. When I registered to vote I had to have an ID with my address. In Illinois you get a voter registration card.I've been asked to produce that card only once since I've been 21, but I've had to show my drivers licence every election.

Somebody please tell me why showing an ID to vote is a burden on the voter.

Paco Wové said...

So I guess you've decided playing "Gotcha!" is more fun than trying to have an honest debate, DoS. Oh well.

Back to the original topic - Democrats never seem to have much of an answer as to why they are willing to put such STRENUOUS effort into defeating attempts to safeguard voting. It seems like a reasonable compromise is to try to make sure everybody can get an ID, and yet that never seems to interest the D.'s.

Colonel Angus said...

That, by the way, was a historical reference to the south purposely preventing black people from voting. Thanks for playing on into that.

No kidding. I suppose literacy rates have gone up since those days but I could be wrong. After all, you seem to believe black people are unable to obtain a simple photo ID.

Marshal said...

"Skookum John said...
Certainly. If someone is too stupid or lazy to get a free state issued ID, they are unworthy of being allowed to vote."

Unworthy does not describe the best priciple. A better principle would be that responsible citizenship allows for minimal sacrifices. The right to vote entails the ridiculously easily accomplished requirement of getting a picture ID. People who don't get one because they have no reason to now have a reason. Of course we should make it fairly easy to obtain, although we should resist the inevitable erosion of standards the left will immediately embark on if enacted. If eligible voters choose not to get one that's their business.

Government requires sacrifices far more onerous than this, such as jury duty, without a second thought. So it's hard to believe people crying that the sacrifice is too great aren't genuine, and calling such sacrifices racist seals the deal.

Dose of Sanity said...

So I guess you've decided playing "Gotcha!" is more fun than trying to have an honest debate, DoS. Oh well.


Okay, okay, sorry.

I just think its a fair point to show how close today's arguments are to the exact same arguments that were absolutely used to disenfranchise voters in the past, no?

Marshal said...

Dose of Sanity said...
I'm being flippant right now, but come the hell on. You guys have decent arguments: these are not them.


Then again, you haven't advanced a decent argument for your side yet.

Matthew Sablan said...

Because they don't have an ID, and because they are black are different sounding arguments to pretty much everyone but you.

garage mahal said...

It seems like a reasonable compromise is to try to make sure everybody can get an ID, and yet that never seems to interest the D.'s.

D's are the ONLY group remotely interested in helping people get ID's to vote.

And R's are NEVER interested in auditing voting machines. I wonder why that is? E-vote machines can't be hacked very easily, in minutes.

Dose of Sanity said...

Because they don't have an ID, and because they are black are different sounding arguments to pretty much everyone but you.

What?

I think they are being targetted for voting (D) and not (R), but that's just me. I don't think it is racist motivations, despite the obvious racial implications.

Colonel Angus said...

I just think its a fair point to show how close today's arguments are to the exact same arguments that were absolutely used to disenfranchise voters in the past, no?

No. Proving you are the person on the voter roll is hardly disenfranchisement.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I think they are being targetted for voting (D) and not (R), but that's just me. I don't think it is racist motivations, despite the obvious racial implications."

-- Likening it to Jim Crow laws in the south and poll taxes has everything to do with racist motivations. See, this is why everyone assumes you're calling people racist. Because you have such a weak grasp on history you don't even know what you're accusing people of.

But let's not bicker.

Matthew Sablan said...

"That, by the way, was a historical reference to the south purposely preventing black people from voting. Thanks for playing on into that."

-- Not that you know you're accusing people of racist motivations or anything.

damikesc said...

Garage, Dens demanded those machines after 2000. Republicans always preferred paper ballots...though Democrats were gifted at cheating with those also.

Dose of Sanity said...

Wow - sorry, I actually wasn't trying to accuse anyone of being racist.

I was trying to use that these same tactics were used to prevent groups of people from voting in the past.

Really. Relax.

Paco Wové said...

"D's are the ONLY group remotely interested in helping people get ID's to vote."

...and with their shiny new ID's, they'll have no trouble voting! Win-win!

Matthew Sablan said...

Sanity, if you don't want to sound like you are accusing people of racism... maybe stop saying, essentially: "Gee. What you guys are doing is really racist, isn't it?" It tends to come across as, well, saying that we're racist.

Dose of Sanity said...

Sanity, if you don't want to sound like you are accusing people of racism... maybe stop saying, essentially: "Gee. What you guys are doing is really racist, isn't it?" It tends to come across as, well, saying that we're racist.

I was trying to say that, I was trying to say "Gee, what you guys are doing is exactly like what was done the in past to stop people from voting".

The targeted group might be different, but the tactics aren't. I think it's a pretty good answer to a "gosh golly, we're just trying to stop fraud. there can't POSSIBLY be another motivation here".

See?

Ralph L said...

Here in Swing Virginia
Virginia is for bored lovers.

My brother's mother in law didn't get a DL until her 50's, when her lawyer husband got cancer and died, but that was a different era.

Colonel Angus said...

Wow - sorry, I actually wasn't trying to accuse anyone of being racist.

I was trying to use that these same tactics were used to prevent groups of people from voting in the past.


If that is indeed the case then its an epic fail on your part. The simple act of obtaining an ID isn't any more burdensome than registering to vote in the first place. Several commenters have listed some of the most basic transactions that require an ID so its simply a stretch on your part to claim any significant portion of the electorate doesn't have an ID or that obtaining one is an insurmountable hurdle.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

I was trying to use that these same tactics were used to prevent groups of people from voting in the past.


Actually, no they were not and your historical illiteracy isn't an argument.

Do you enjoy making an utter fool of yourself every time you enter these comment sections?

Marshal said...

DOS summary:

Posts: 21

Evidence requiring Photo ID disenfranchises anyone: zero.

Accusations impugning motives: at least five.

Whines that others are "bickering": priceless.

Matthew Sablan said...

Sanity, except the problem is, the argument being moved forward -isn't- that the targets or motivation have changed. That's why people use explicit comparisons to Jim Crow. It is not an innocent analogy; it is designed to poison the idea of voter ID laws by tainting them with racist accusations. It's intellectually dishonest, and you should not fall into the trap of using it, especially since people have been more than forthcoming with completely non-racial reasons for it.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

The targeted group might be different, but the tactics aren't


Yes!!!

Because giving people a free ID is like the exact same thing as a poll tax!!

It totally is!!!

Idiot.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...
I don't think it is racist motivations, despite the obvious racial implications.


You do realize that states have passed voter ID laws and there have been elections in those states, right?

Given that fact, dipshit, please provide evidence of these "racial implications" you speak of?

PS: nothing warms my heart more than watching a silly, ignorant lilly white liberal assume blacks can't get ID's.

Racist.

Idiot.

garage mahal said...

When you have to keep people from voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

I just think its a fair point to show how close today's arguments are to the exact same arguments that were absolutely used to disenfranchise voters in the past, no?


Except you're not "showing" anything, imbecile.

You're making baseless assertions over & over.

In your mind that is "showing" something.

In reality it reveals you're a moron.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
When you have to keep people from voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.


You do realize that states have passed voter ID laws and there have been elections in those states, right?

So given that fact, why don't you produce some evidence that a voter ID requirement has kept a single person from voting?

How do you know your ideas suck?

You keep making the same idiotic assertion over & over.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Sablan

Sorry if it came off otherwise then - truly not my objective.

Paco Wové said...

"these same tactics were used to prevent groups of people from voting in the past."

The next time you have to show your drivers' license anywhere, be sure to tell them that they're being just like the KKK!

Matthew Sablan said...

Understood, water under the bridge.

Colonel Angus said...

When you have to keep people from voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.

That's true. Except requiring an ID doesn't prevent people from voting anymore than requiring people to register to vote prevents them from voting.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
If you can't get an ID, you aren't allowed to vote.

That's from the small government, less regulation, constitution loving liberty party.

Hardy fucking har har har.


Extending this "logic" the mere act of registering to vote is some national outrage.

Of course the imbecile doesn't do logic.

So there's that.

Dose of Sanity said...


So given that fact, why don't you produce some evidence that a voter ID requirement has kept a single person from voting?


Yawn - because we both know you can't produce that sort of what-if evidence.

Produce SOME evidence that a single instance of fraud has been prevented by voter ID laws already enacted?

(see? stupid request. It's meaningless and proves nothing, which is why I've ignored it until you repeated in 5 times in the last 15 posts)

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
When you have to keep people from voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.

Garage has probably unwittingly encouraged more fence sitters to vote against his party than he has saved from disenfranchisement.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ Sablan

Thanks. Look, we took the first step to having a reasoned debate, haha.

I've always been enamored with setting up the voting system like Norway - everyone gets mailed a ballot, everyone has to mail it back, by law.

I suppose that's a pipe dream, but hey, a guy can dream that people might actually be forced to participate.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...


Yawn - because we both know you can't produce that sort of what-if evidence.


Huh?

I'm not looking for "what if evidence" idiot.

States have voter ID laws.

You keep asserting requiring an ID to vote will keep people from voting.

Why don't you demonstrate your assertion to be true with data?

Dose of Sanity said...

Garage has probably unwittingly encouraged more fence sitters to vote against his party than he has saved from disenfranchisement.

If I could save one person from being disenfranchied at the cost of 100 people voting against my ideas, I would do it every time. But then again, I'm okay with losing elections as long as we build that more perfect union one day.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Produce SOME evidence that a single instance of fraud has been prevented by voter ID laws already enacted?


So in other words, you stick to your silly meme's because they can never be proven.

What does that say about you?

garage mahal said...

So given that fact, why don't you produce some evidence that a voter ID requirement has kept a single person from voting?

If the people pushing these voter ID laws didn't think it would keep people from voting they would have never went through the trouble of enacting them in the first place. All but the most deluded idiot knows why these laws were passed, but you'll go on and put on a show that it's for some good moral reason. It's not, and everyone knows it.

Dose of Sanity said...

Why don't you demonstrate your assertion to be true with data?

Great - how do you suggest I find these people? Contact everyone who didn't vote and ask why?

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Yawn - because we both know you can't produce that sort of what-if evidence.


Except it isn't "what if" when sily, ignorant dipshits like you keep saying:

Dose of Sanity said...
a party can push the laws because they know the practical effect will be to prevent some voters from voting?


Funny how that works, isn't it?

damikesc said...

What if you need the dead to vote or people to vote more than once? Does that speak well of your ideas?

Dose of Sanity said...

So in other words, you stick to your silly meme's because they can never be proven.



Ah! Look out! Irony incoming! DUCK EVERYONE. DUCK!

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...


Great - how do you suggest I find these people? Contact everyone who didn't vote and ask why?


I'm not suggesting you find these people, idiot.

Fail.

Epic fail.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

If the people pushing these voter ID laws didn't think it would keep people from voting they would have never went through the trouble of enacting them in the first place.


Hysterical.

Keep projecting, you pathetic imbeicile.

All but the most deluded idiot knows why these laws were passed

Hang on to that meme, bitter loser.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Ah! Look out! Irony incoming! DUCK EVERYONE. DUCK!


It is a pretty clear demonstration of your intellectual level that you simply can not understand why if what you were saying is true there would be actual data on this.

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...


Great - how do you suggest I find these people? Contact everyone who didn't vote and ask why?


Note the utter simpleton level of thinking.

I would feel sorry for you if you weren't such a smug asshole.

Dose of Sanity said...

2garage mahal said...

If the people pushing these voter ID laws didn't think it would keep people from voting they would have never went through the trouble of enacting them in the first place.

Hysterical.

Keep projecting, you pathetic imbeicile.

All but the most deluded idiot knows why these laws were passed

Hang on to that meme, bitter loser.

2
Off topic, but still amusing:

Typical Jay Post:

"Hysterical"/"Hilarous"/"Too funny."

Vague accusation of inability to understand topic at hand.

Vague restatement of a somewhat related talking point.

"Go away" "Idiot" "Unbelievable"

/end post

hahahahha

garage mahal said...

Garage has probably unwittingly encouraged more fence sitters to vote against his party than he has saved from disenfranchisement.

Yah so many impressionable fence sitters here at Atlhouse!

Jay said...

don't think it is racist motivations, despite the obvious racial implications.



But yet this dummy can't point to a decline in black (or any minority) turnout in a state where a voter ID law has been enacted.

Why, it is almost as if the dummy is lying or something.

Marshal said...

"Dose of Sanity said...
Thanks. Look, we took the first step to having a reasoned debate, haha."

DOS makes zero posts of substance, impugned the motives of everyone disagreeing with him, and somehow concluded his contribution was reasoned. An epic contribution to the power of delusion.

Marshal said...

Jay, you're coming off like Andy.

Dose of Sanity said...

DOS makes zero posts of substance, impugned the motives of everyone disagreeing with him,

That's really what you think? That's too bad.

Ignore what I say about Jay. He's an asshole who flames every post I make. Aside from him, I try and be reasonable.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

If the people pushing these voter ID laws didn't think it would keep people from voting they would have never went through the trouble of enacting them in the first place.


Well given that you can't point to a state that has seen a decline in voter turnout since enacting a voter ID law, I guess "the people" enacting these laws have failed.

So why are you all excited about this again?

Jay said...

Dose of Sanity said...

Ignore what I say about Jay. He's an asshole who flames every post I make. Aside from him, I try and be reasonable.


Yes, because repeating meme's, assuming bad faith among those who disagree with you, and lying are all like so reasonable.

Really.

Dose of Sanity said...

@ jay

I, at least, got you to change your posting format.

Small wins.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Dose of Sanity said...
If I could save one person from being disenfranchied at the cost of 100 people voting against my ideas, I would do it every time. But then again, I'm okay with losing elections as long as we build that more perfect union one day.


I would prefer to keep that one individual from voting 100 times myself, even at the cost of disenfranching myself, no matter who's ideas he was voting for or against.

Michael in ArchDen said...

When you have to keep people from stopping illegal voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.

John Stodder said...

When you have to keep people from voting multiple times, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck at preserving the power of machine politicians.

There. Fixed.

John Stodder said...

The opponents of Voter ID laws claim that incidences of voter fraud are rare, but to fully believe that, you have to believe that the winners of elections proceed to launch objective and aggressive investigations of circumstances that put them in power.

Old fashioned liberals like me used to laugh at obvious conflicts of interest like that. It's like the scene in "Guys and Dolls" where the gangster rolls blank dice, but says he remembers where the spots were.

leslyn said...

First: Prove fraud.

Then: Prove that restrictive voter ID laws eliminate fraud.

Anything else is a logical fallacy.

Matthew Sablan said...

"First: Prove fraud.

Then: Prove that restrictive voter ID laws eliminate fraud.

Anything else is a logical fallacy"

-- We don't need to prove fraud; we simply have to show it is a reasonable concern. People walked into a polling place, asked for a famous person's ballot and were given it. There is a clear opportunity for fraud.

Voter ID laws exist in many places. Voter turn out has not been suppressed.

We've done both the things you want (prove the possibility of fraud, shown that there is no harm). So, you're on board, right?

Chip Ahoy said...

I cannot believe what I'm reading.

Wow. Should we include a literacy exam too?

Yes.

Do that. Please. Just like driving. Fine with me if a bunch of dumb fuckers don't vote.

In my area the driving exam is so dumbed down it isn't even funny. No wait, it is funny. It's a ridiculously hilariously stupid reading exam designed to allow the most idiotic driver. It is deeply offensive to anyone who studied for it.

It made me feel kind of good though being in that huge room with all those other dumb asses. It was a happy fun day, actually, like, "Helloooooooo, everybody."

Matthew Sablan said...

I should be more clear; we don't need to prove that the law stops fraud. We merely have to show that it does no harm. It being on the books is meant to punish those who break it; law is not solely a deterrent. See how easily weaselly arguments like that sneak by when you're not 100% vigilant?

garage mahal said...

When you have to keep people from voting multiple times, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck at preserving the power of machine politicians.

Photo ID wouldn't even prevent the type of voter fraud that you say exists. The only thing photo ID prevents is people voting. Which, of course, is the goal.

Marshal said...

leslyn said...
First: Prove fraud.

Then: Prove that restrictive voter ID laws eliminate fraud.

Anything else is a logical fallacy.
_______________________________

This exact rationale delayed efforts like The Innocence Project for decades. Did you accept that innocent people were not on death row since public proof innocent people were on death row wasn't available?

And then to describe any other belief as a logical fallacy??? When you get your talking points do you even think about them?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
The only thing photo ID prevents is people voting.


Really?

Please point to a state that has seen a decline in voter turnout since enacting a voter ID law.

Thanks.

Matthew Sablan said...

Let's look at Leslyn's post. Because it is an example of -why- people on the right are so frustrated arguing with the left. Packed into just those three lines are a heap of assertions and assumptions that you need to be ever-vigilant to find.

For example, the assumption that law is solely useful as a deterrent. No thought is even given that we should have laws on the books to punish people for criminal behavior (to throw the book at them.)

We are told only one reason is a valid reason for doing something, when in fact, other reasons could be valid.

We expend so much energy dragging out each hidden assumption, exposing it, and showing why it is false, that we will, undoubtedly, miss one, which will then be sprung like a trap.

If you can't be rigorous in attacking the opponent's ideology in a clear way, don't be surprised when even I get tired of going through the effort to suss out the hidden parts of your arguments to deconstruct what is wrong with them. Have some intellectual integrity and save us all the trouble of knocking down bad arguments so we can focus on the good ones.

leslyn said...

@Matthew Sablan, et al

I'm not bringing up the legal standard for voter ID laws. Nor am I bringing up an argument that it would be a deterrent for fraud.

I'm proposing the primary argument that vote fraud is the reason for more restrictive voter ID laws, and asking to have that argument justified, with facts and not beliefs.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I'm not bringing up the legal standard for voter ID laws. Nor am I bringing up an argument that it would be a deterrent for fraud.

I'm proposing the primary argument that vote fraud is the reason for more restrictive voter ID laws, and asking to have that argument justified, with facts and not beliefs."

-- You are bringing up the legal standard, else you wouldn't be talking about the legal standards. Your entire statement hinges on it deterring fraud: "Then: Prove that restrictive voter ID laws eliminate fraud." Laws don't stop behaviors except through deterrence (murder laws do not stop murder, just some potential repeat offenders.)

You are not proposing the primary argument; you are proposing what you think is the primary argument. In fact, I even unpackaged that assumption to show you that there was another perfectly valid reason. If you actually debated what people put forward, instead of assuming everyone else to only be able to argue vague caricatures of the opposition's argument, you might understand what I'm trying to explain.

Also, you have had facts provided for you, but ignore them. Repeatedly. More people (total, percentage, etc.) are voting; where the rate of increase has not kept up, it is not in a large enough difference to have statistical meaning.

ndspinelli said...

Wait a minute Garage, I'm impressionable.

And Garage, I've submitted your last 10 comment to the blablameter. They suggested you take up pottery.

leslyn said...

@Matthew Sablan--

You brought up the legal standard, etc. I'm just trying to limit the argument. You want to extend what I'm saying to what I'm not saying--then we are at cross purposes.

Joe Schmoe said...

When you have to keep people from voting, that's a pretty good indicator that your ideas suck.

So that explains the Black Panthers at the Philly polls.

John Stodder said...

Photo ID wouldn't even prevent the type of voter fraud that you say exists. The only thing photo ID prevents is people voting. Which, of course, is the goal.

It would prevent many forms of organized fraud, such as sending people to the polls to vote in the name of dead or relocated former voters, both of which are time-honored machine tactics.

Tina Trent said...

"“Swing states are always much more likely to have these kinds of laws restricting voting,” said Wendy Weiser, director of Brennan’s Democracy Program."

Depends on what she means by "much more likely." I don't think this assertion is at all accurate. Did the reporter not bother to ask for a tally, and the operative definitions?

Of course not.

Roger J. said...

No need to pile on Leslyn's hypothesis--the only way to prove fraud as near as i can see is ask voters in the polling place to prove their identity--shouldnt be hard as citizens have to prove their identity every day. There is a strong presumption that voters who cannot prove their identity are quite likely fradulent. So if Leslyn is OK with that approach to provind fraud we can move on to her next thesis. That thesis is equally flawed--we have laws on the books that proscribe murder, rape, armed robbery etc--except those laws to not eliminate those acts.

I do not expect a rejoiner from Leslyn, but her "logic" leaves much to be desired.

chickelit said...

The unproven use of sock puppets by the left in the Althouse comments is analogous to voter fraud. Multiple voice (votes) by the same individual is entertaining at best and utterly disingenuous at worst.

Is there a problem? Is there a remedy?

Joe Schmoe said...

You can't prove voter disenfranchisement if the DOJ won't prosecute anyone for it.