You're looking at the wrong column. That's the percentage of people who are 18 or older, not the percentage of people who are legally allowed to vote. The first column is the relevant one- what percentage of people who are allowed to vote did vote.
Occam's razor? That doesn't have anything to do with this. You're arguing that, contrary to the scientific method itself, we shouldn't bother controlling for external variables...
5 million voters if photo ID laws were applied nationally, not just in the photo ID states.
You can't really draw any conclusions just based on this table. You have no idea what impact it had from this table. To know that you'd need to control for as many other variables as possible. For example, say that 99% of voters that make more than $100k/year have photo IDs, but only 80% of voters that make less than $20k/year do. A proper study would look to see how turnout changed for people making $100k/year or more vs how it changed for people making $20k/year or less. If turnout increased by more for people making more than $100k, it would also need to look at how turnout changed for those groups nationally. From that you could begin to make a reasonable guess about the impact it had. A study would compare changes in various groups in Indiana to changes in those groups' turnout nationally, compare all that to the percentage of the groups that have photo IDs issued by Indiana, look for correlations, etc. Just trying to skip over all that analysis doesn't work. You can't make any useful conclusions without thinking all that through.
Ummmmm how many people under the age of 18 can vote? It was 0 the last time I looked.
No. I am saying the simplest answer in this case is true. You don't need scientific data to tell you photo ID's have made no difference.
Oddly enough you appear to think that you have made a case for something. What would you say that is teamosil? Clearly not a case for not requiring ID to vote. Pulling the ridiculous "you can't make a judgement" because a bunch of variables must be "controlled" is not only ridiculous but likely to upset DP's own Boo Radley. Who employs the "you can't judge or decide or say that" canard several times a day and pretty much every time someone does not agree with his opinion on topics all across the forum. It is just dumb when he does it, copy catting that is not working for you either. You've argued that requiring ID was going to disenfranchise voters (despite the fact the actual meaning of the word alone destroys that argument) been shown it did not, you even inadvertently agreed that despite your and others claims, 2008 had "record" voter turn out. So your argument is getting kinda schizophrenic at this point, you are contradicting and refuting yourself.Right, but many people over 18 can't vote...
Well, I've explained to you like 10 times how there are a bunch of variables that need to be controlled for before you could possibly reach that conclusion. You don't seem to have any counter argument, so I will consider the point conceded. Whether you honestly don't understand or you are intentionally just ignoring it doesn't really matter to me.
Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.
"Concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing," concluded researchers at the universities of Delaware and Nebraska after examining election data from 2000 through 2006.
Seventy percent (70%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% oppose this kind of requirement.
Right, but many people over 18 can't vote...
Well, I've explained to you like 10 times how there are a bunch of variables that need to be controlled for before you could possibly reach that conclusion. You don't seem to have any counter argument, so I will consider the point conceded. Whether you honestly don't understand or you are intentionally just ignoring it doesn't really matter to me.
So what?
I will consider it closed because you have no counter better than "we need a bunch of variables" when the fact is we don't. It is obvious to anyone who has eyes and can add a few numbers. So I will accept your concession. :mrgreen:
You see 2 can play at that silly game. It is no better than your argument.
So you need to look at turnout amongst legal voters kiddo. It doesn't make sense to look at everybody over 18 and brag that Indiana had a higher percentage of them voting. Of course it did. They don't have a large non-citizen population...
lol. You're a silly one there aren't you buddy. Of course you need to control for external variables. Go take a science class or a math class or something. That isn't some controversial idea. That's ultra basic.
Again so what? Keep making excuses.
Not in this case you don't. Again no real argument. Are you going to ignore Gie's post as well as the actual numbers I presented?
It's just a fact that in any kind of scientific or statistical analysis you need to control for the variables other than the one you are trying to isolate.
I think you already know that, although you might not think about it in those terms. For example, if you were on a diet and you wanted to track your weight, would you let another person stand on the scale with you? Of course not, because if your combined weight went up one day you wouldn't know if you had gained weight or if they had. Right? So you do understand how an extraneous variable would prevent you from tracking the variable you want to track. By kicking the other person off the scale, what you would be doing is isolating the variable you want to track- your own weight.
Same deal with turnout numbers. There are many other factors (like the other person on the scale) that could explain higher or lower turnout, so you can't tell what effect the voter ID law had without figuring out how to control for those variables. It's a little trickier than just having the other person get off the scale because you can't go back and change who is voting. But you can measure how much those other variables would effect things and eliminate that variance. To use our example with the scale, it would be like instead of kicking the other person off the scale, you weigh them separately each day and subtract that amount from your combined weight to get your weight. That is what statisticians and scientists do all day- figure out ways to control external variables so that they can isolate the one somebody is interested in understanding.
Anyways, I hope that helps.
The answer is yes. Something else he is going to ignore is the fact he spent a lot of time claiming having photo ID laws would "disenfranchise" voters. Though by the definition of the word in King's English that is not so. And of course for the really brilliant finish, he is going to ignore he has directly admitted, even kinda crowed about it, that not only did voters not get "disenfranchised" in the states that adopted voter ID laws in 2008, but 2008 saw "record" voter turnout. Directly refuting the so called concerns and studies (suddenly the whole "control the variables" argument is jettisoned) that voter ID laws would have a chilling and dangerous effect on voter turnout. And it really is that simple and just that stupid.Again so what? Keep making excuses.
Not in this case you don't. Again no real argument. Are you going to ignore Gie's post as well as the actual numbers I presented?
Justice Dept. Cites Race in Halting Law Over Voter ID
"The Justice Department on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that would require voters to present photo identification, saying the law would disproportionately suppress turnout among eligible minority voters."
"He cited data supplied by the state as showing that there were “81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack” such identification, and that these voters are nearly 20 percent more likely be “disenfranchised” by the change than white voters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/justice-department-rejects-voter-id-law-in-south-carolina.html
I agree with their reasons for halting it until a review can be done.
And so goes the "internet argument" these two have made and then botched. They can't follow your argument or their own, need things pointed out, bolded highlighted, repeated and boldly highlighted again, repeated and highlighted in bold red and pointed out to them again. Of course it does not affect their opinion one iota, check back the next time the topic comes up and they will be making the exact same argument again and demonstrating that facts don't trump their ideology. One of them just slithers off to the next idiotic internet argument while the other cherry picks your last repeated debunking of his "worst case" argument to offer the closest thing his internet pride will allow him to say. "Great, me too." Dittoheads regurgitating fallacious arguments and unable to respond like honest grown ups and even admit they have no command of the facts that surround their now debunked hand wringing. They can though, use a search engine to see what others were trying to argue against the ID laws were saying and they came back here and laid some internet vomit on us. Too bad they did not bother to check to see that the arguments they were cribbing from were not very informed or current ones. It would probably help if they could read a little better, but slowing down and *thinking* instead of knee jerking out a fast reply is the MO in a "internet argument".Post #781 and #784: #3 The worst case scenarios's have all been found unconstitutional or had the courts stop the law during litigation. So the system IS working.
I agree with their reasons for halting it until a review can be done. The system appears to be working AS I HAVE SAID to many times.
Thanks for proving my point.
And so goes the "internet argument" these two have made and then botched. They can't follow your argument or their own, need things pointed out, bolded highlighted, repeated and boldly highlighted again, repeated and highlighted in bold red and pointed out to them again. Of course it does not affect their opinion one iota, check back the next time the topic comes up and they will be making the exact same argument again and demonstrating that facts don't trump their ideology. One of them just slithers off to the next idiotic internet argument while the other cherry picks your last repeated debunking of his "worst case" argument to offer the closest thing his internet pride will allow him to say. "Great, me too." Dittoheads regurgitating fallacious arguments and unable to respond like honest grown ups and even admit they have no command of the facts that surround their now debunked hand wringing. They can though, use a search engine to see what others were trying to argue against the ID laws were saying and they came back here and laid some internet vomit on us. Too bad they did not bother to check to see that the arguments they were cribbing from were not very informed or current ones. It would probably help if they could read a little better, but slowing down and *thinking* instead of knee jerking out a fast reply is the MO in a "internet argument".
Ha ha. I sure don't fit "conservative" or "liberal" either, there really could be more choices for that in the profile when you set it up. Oh well, so far I've had some dust ups with a little bit of of all political leans here so far. It is not my fault that the posters pushing this hackery are two of the more prominent self identified liberals that post all over the forum. And yes, I have noticed that a lot of their post are idiotic internet arguments just like these in this thread. In fact most of what I see at DP are idiotic internet arguments IMO and I call 'em like I see 'em.Seems like you have a pretty good handle on things... for a centrist, lol.
This is an example of the "Department-to-Re-elect-the-one-term-Marxist-president-Barack-Hussein-Obama's" meddling in one state's affairs. We have got to get the federal government off of our backs.Justice Dept. Cites Race in Halting Law Over Voter ID
"The Justice Department on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that would require voters to present photo identification, saying the law would disproportionately suppress turnout among eligible minority voters."
"He cited data supplied by the state as showing that there were “81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack” such identification, and that these voters are nearly 20 percent more likely be “disenfranchised” by the change than white voters."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/justice-department-rejects-voter-id-law-in-south-carolina.html
This is an example of the "Department-to-Re-elect-the-one-term-Marxist-president-Barack-Hussein-Obama's" meddling in one state's affairs. We have got to get the federal government off of our backs.
He cannot win without the opportunity to cheat.
How goofy of you to think anything this regime does is for the benefit of anybody other than the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.The audacity of an administration that seeks to protect the rights of minorities!!!! How horrible that must be for you!!! :lamo
IMO, a photo ID should be required in order to reduce fraud. It's not hard to get a photo ID, even if you don't need/have a driver's license or passport. In many states, you can get a photo ID card (not a DL) simply by getting a photo taken and filling out some paperwork. If that's too much work for someone, I doubt they're diligent enough in their homework to make an informed decision on a candidate anyway... If they are physically/mentally unable to do this, surely there are people that would help them?
So tell me, how do these minorities get their cell phones without an ID. I see racism on the part of the anti-voter ID people, who don't want to hold everyone to the same standards, and in the view that only minorities are affected by these issues.The audacity of an administration that seeks to protect the rights of minorities!!!! How horrible that must be for you!!! :lamo
How would it disenfranchise voters? We're used to showing photo ID for stuff.
So tell me, how do these minorities get their cell phones without an ID. I see racism on the part of the anti-voter ID people, who don't want to hold everyone to the same standards, and in the view that only minorities are affected by these issues.
I'd say anything that could even potentially disenfranchise voting should be looked upon with suspicion. Think about literacy tests... anything that could possibly be exclusionary should not be allowed.
In this case, it is certainly possible that some people aren't used to showing ID (such as a poorer person without a driver's license). Yes, most people would be completely unaffected, but if we are to remain true to the principle of giving everyone the right to vote, then it simply is not worth risking any disenfranchisement.
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?