I dont do it because I am not willing to commit voter fraud. Just because I can, doesnt mean I will. Nothing prevents me from doing it is the point. You really are reaching now.
Nothing to prove either of those two things. I can say the same thing but backward. May eliminate millions of fradulent votes, while they would eliminate dozens of legit votes. I think the real problem here is you dont think that your elected officials of choice could win in a fair election.
A few things to note.Interesting read. Seems to state voter id actually helped voting turnout with no impact on minorities.
A study by the University of Missouri concluded that voter turnout increased by almost 2% in Indiana in the first election after the introduction of a voter ID law (2006) [3] Counties with higher than average minority, poor or elderly populations displayed no detectable reduction in voter participation. According to the study, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase the voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.” [3]
A Rasmussen poll of likely voters (2010) demonstrated massive support (82%) for enhanced photo ID laws, a support that included all racial and ethnic categories. Rasmussen concluded that it was “a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree.” [4]
Likewise, a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska scrutinized election returns for the years 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This study concluded that when viewed as either groups or as individuals, there was no reduction in voter turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly or anyone else as a consequence of the implementation of voter photo-ID laws. It was their informed opinion that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” [5]
The Liberal Fear of Voter Identification
According to muci, they do.So you think the law actually stops people that want to commit crimes from commiting those crimes?
Interesting read. Seems to state voter id actually helped voting turnout with no impact on minorities.
A study by the University of Missouri concluded that voter turnout increased by almost 2% in Indiana in the first election after the introduction of a voter ID law (2006) [3] Counties with higher than average minority, poor or elderly populations displayed no detectable reduction in voter participation. According to the study, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase the voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.” [3]
A Rasmussen poll of likely voters (2010) demonstrated massive support (82%) for enhanced photo ID laws, a support that included all racial and ethnic categories. Rasmussen concluded that it was “a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree.” [4]
Likewise, a study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska scrutinized election returns for the years 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This study concluded that when viewed as either groups or as individuals, there was no reduction in voter turnout among blacks, Hispanics, women, the elderly or anyone else as a consequence of the implementation of voter photo-ID laws. It was their informed opinion that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” [5]
The Liberal Fear of Voter Identification
Yeah, except I've posted three studies, packed with statistical data that support my argument. You've posted jack **** to support yours.
According to muci, they do.
Your comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
When exactly did I say laws stop people from committing voter fraud?
More irony! You TOTALLY skipped over the point THAT WAS MADE.
You just said:
"I dont do it because I am not willing to commit voter fraud"
followed by:
"Nothing prevents me from doing it is the point."
I suppose if you don't know the meaning of irony (obviously), it would seem "cryptic".
Thanks again.
Yes, it is an interesting read. Unfortunately, it means nothing. The studies are biased. They don't "prove" anything. /sarcasm
NO you have not. i have explained to you, as have others how easy voter fraud is to commit. And since noone is trying to stop it, they arent getting caught.
"Milyo is the University of Missouri professor featured in a BRAD BLOG article by Howard Beale earlier this month. The blog featured an enlightening exchange between Milyo and Senator Chuck Schumer during Milyo’s testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration at a hearing to discuss whether photo ID voting laws lead to voter disenfranchisement. As Beale noted, Milyo’s study purported to show that restrictive photo ID voting laws had no adverse effect on voter turnout in 2006 elections in Indiana. Schumer apparently thought it might be instructive to know who commissioned and paid for the study. Milyo said he had received a grant, but hemmed and hawed and couldn’t seem to remember from whom it came.
As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state."
The BRAD BLOG : Jeffrey Milyo, Academic for Sale?
Why did I know that AT would attack the source? So no matter what study or info, guess the dems are always right. or is it left.?
Truth hurts.:lol:
Actually no you have not posted three studies packed with statistics that support your argument. You posted one link to a PDF that contains the results of multiple studies and that is a bit of a mixed bag as far as results go. Given that you dismiss out of hand everything shown to you, you really are just interested in stating your obstinate opinion and basically doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting nannananabobobo, I can't hear you. Over and over again, and you have been doing this across several threads for over a month. :roll:Yeah, except I've posted three studies, packed with statistical data that support my argument. You've posted jack **** to support yours.
Correction: I attacked the source AND the content.
I stand correct. but the fact remains voter id hurts voting is a myth spoken by the dems/left.
That would be a lie.
Worse than blind....
Dude, guess what? Murder is also really easy to commit. I could walk outside my house and murder someone inside of five minutes. But I don't, and in fact hardly anyone does, because the laws against it are an effective deterrent. The same goes for voter fraud. The risk does not justify the reward.
Actually no you have not posted three studies packed with statistics that support your argument. You posted one link to a PDF that contains the results of multiple studies and that is a bit of a mixed bag as far as results go. Given that you dismiss out of hand everything shown to you, you really are just interested in stating your obstinate opinion and basically doing the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting nannananabobobo, I can't hear you. Over and over again, and you have been doing this across several threads for over a month. :roll:
Posting links to articles and pieces from the NY Times does not three linked studies packed with stats that support your ever shifting and changing "argument" make.
Uh. Poor argument. Murders happen. We actively pursue murderers moreso than any other crime. You odds of being caught for murder are much higher than committing voter fraud. Furthermore, are you aware of the number of crimes committed in the United States every year that laws fail to prevent?
I never claimed that there is no voter fraud. But your example doesn't support your argument as it involved absentee ballots, and like almost all voter fraud it is not something that would have been prevented by these photo ID laws.
See, that's another way that you can tell that Republican politicians don't really give a **** about voter fraud. It happens, but almost all of it is the result of manipulation of ballots by poll workers and fraudulent absentee ballots. So why aren't those issues being addressed? Why is all this effort being expended on a type of fraud that is virtually nonexistent? Pretty simple, really. Photo ID laws reduce Democratic participation.
There are fewer than five homicides per 100,000 people per year. Often the motives for homicide are FAR stronger than any possible motive to commit voter fraud.
The point is that just because something may be easy to do doesn't mean that people will do it. The laws against voter fraud are a strong deterrent, and there is very little to gain by violating the law. It is extremely rare for federal elections to be decided by fewer than a few thousand votes. Who in his right mind is going to risk a felony conviction to do something that will probably have absolutely no impact?
Ay yay yay. I posted this study: http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...tent/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf and this study: http://brennan.3cdn.net/92635ddafbc09e8d88_i3m6bjdeh.pdf (or it may have been a related Brennan Center study), and another one dealing with voter attitude about the effectiveness of voter ID laws.
I could add these:
The Disproportionate Impact of Photo-ID Laws on the Minority Electorate « Latino Decisions
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5782740e4185414a8_snm6bhfwg.pdf
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf
http://brennan.3cdn.net/0340ec86d18adb4a18_vqm6bne7f.pdf
etc., etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?