Voter ID and claims of fraud - Page 9 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

There are a lot of factors that could result in lower minority turn out in some states than others. Blaming all or even a significant amount on voter ID laws is not right.

Quote:

These findings persist even when we take many other factors into account — including partisanship, demographic characteristics, election contexts and other state laws that encourage or discourage participation. Racial gaps persist even when we limit our analysis to Democrats or track shifts in turnout in the first election after strict rules are implemented. Definitively determining that the laws themselves are what lowers turnout is always difficult without an experiment, but however we look at it, strict voter ID laws suppress minority votes.

Quote:

I don't have time to read your sources tonight hit needless to say reported voter fraud does not equal instances of voter fraud in the same way reported rapes doesn't equal the actual number of rapes.

Quote:

Under the second Bush administration, the Justice Department, where Becker worked until 2005 in the voting section, “brought their resources to bear to investigate and prosecute voter fraud last decade and only found about a handful of cases nationwide out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast,” he said. According to a New York Times report from 2007, the effort turned up essentially zero evidence of an organized attempt to sway federal elections, and many of the people charged misunderstood rules or filled out the wrong forms. (This effort to pursue voter fraud apparently played into another, larger scandal, though: dismissals of U.S. attorneys.)

Other efforts are undertaken to assess voting after it takes place, including some efforts by the secretaries of state who act as the chief election officials overseeing the actual voting process. (The group representing these officials nationwide, most of whom are Republicans, said in a statement Tuesday that they were “not aware of any evidence that supports the voter fraud claims made by President Trump.”)

In Ohio, Secretary of State Jon Husted is already in the middle of a review of the 2016 election there, following a similar review in 2012 that found just 135 potential voter-fraud cases out of more than 5.6 million votes cast. “Easy to vote, hard to cheat,” he wrote on Twitter early Wednesday in response to Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.74f7ba927695

03-31-2017 , 10:38 AM

#202

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Can you just point me to one you find to be credible? I don't want to waste any time with reading some article, arguing against it, and then later finding out that isn't the one you wanted me to see.

If you google that and read an article you are either going to find a quote where a politician said they like the idea of MW because it hurts a race or you aren't. My point is that there have been politicians who support MW because it hurts a race - you are either going to find an article that says this or you aren't (and if you google what I said you will find plenty of articles that confirm it). There won't be anything to debate in here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Given logic you've espoused here before, I don't see how you can think "separate but equal" is a racist law; it does not favor one race over another. Same with anti-miscegenation laws.

Obviously we (liberals) think those laws are racist, but that's using logic that you've expressly rejected thus far in this thread. What criteria do you use to label those laws as racist, but not others?

How have I suggested laws like "separate but equal" aren't racist? The laws purpose is to deliberately hurt a race of people - that is very different than only a few politicians supporting a law because it hurts a race.

03-31-2017 , 11:00 AM

#203

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.74f7ba927695

Black turnout was down from when hillary ran compared to when hillary ran? If this isn't proof of voter ID laws holding the black man down I don't know what is.

Blaming any one factor for increased or decreased turn out for a race year over year is insane - I'd love to hear their methodology for trying to account for all the variables.

--------

"the effort turned up essentially zero evidence of an organized attempt to sway federal elections, and many of the people charged misunderstood rules or filled out the wrong forms."

This sentence is f-ing hilarious. We need more Washington post ITT!

Either there is evidence of an organized attempt to sway elections or there is no evidence - what do you mean there is essentially no evidence?

What is meant by organized? What if I got a group of 100 ppl and just told them to go out and rig the election and gave them a few pointers put there was no organization beyond that? That wouldn't count as organized would it?

So someone gets caught filling out a ballot for someone else and authorities find them and ask them, "Were you intentionally committing voter fraud or did you misunderstand the rules or accidentally say someone else's name when getting a ballot and then accidentally fill it out ?"...."Oh, okay you accidentally filled out your x-wife's? That is okay it happens all the time, but while I have you let me ask you: did you intentionally kill your x-wife or did you accidentally shoot her 6 times?" What voting rules are there that someone could possibly misunderstand?

03-31-2017 , 11:36 AM

#204

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

1. Voter ID is also to harm a race but you already said you don't care if a politician made the law to suppress black voters (lol)
2. How is the purpose of separate but equal to "deliberately hurt a race"? The law says facilities have to be equal, how does that hurt anyone?

03-31-2017 , 12:36 PM

#205

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

What % politicians that support voter ID laws do you think do so because they suppress the black vote? Same question, but with voters instead of politicians.

03-31-2017 , 12:40 PM

#206

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

My point is that there have been politicians who support MW because it hurts a race -

Cite?

03-31-2017 , 12:46 PM

#207

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

What % politicians that support voter ID laws do you think do so because they suppress the black vote? Same question, but with voters instead of politicians.

Are you going to answer my question?

03-31-2017 , 01:12 PM

#208

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

That's what regression analysis is for. Stick variables in and see the correlations. Over a large enough sample you'd get a good understanding of the effect of voter ID. It's be wierd if there were no effect though wouldn't it? After all there has to be some issue with people and IDs or you wouldn't need voter ID in the first place. You're free to pay the 10 dollars to get the full study from the University of Chicago, if you'd like.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...10.1086/688343

Quote:

"the effort turned up essentially zero evidence of an organized attempt to sway federal elections, and many of the people charged misunderstood rules or filled out the wrong forms."

This sentence is f-ing hilarious. We need more Washington post ITT!

Either there is evidence of an organized attempt to sway elections or there is no evidence - what do you mean there is essentially no evidence?

What is meant by organized? What if I got a group of 100 ppl and just told them to go out and rig the election and gave them a few pointers put there was no organization beyond that? That wouldn't count as organized would it?

So someone gets caught filling out a ballot for someone else and authorities find them and ask them, "Were you intentionally committing voter fraud or did you misunderstand the rules or accidentally say someone else's name when getting a ballot and then accidentally fill it out ?"...."Oh, okay you accidentally filled out your x-wife's? That is okay it happens all the time, but while I have you let me ask you: did you intentionally kill your x-wife or did you accidentally shoot her 6 times?" What voting rules are there that someone could possibly misunderstand?

Organized means there doesn't seem to be any organization or organizational planning behind the voter fraud cases they do find. They appear to be randomly distributed, essentially there's no organized effort to sway elections.

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 03-31-2017 at 01:25 PM.

04-01-2017 , 10:09 AM

#209

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,838

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

What % politicians that support voter ID laws do you think do so because they suppress the black vote? Same question, but with voters instead of politicians.

Another way to consider it is if any politicians/voters aren't put of voter ID because it suppresses the black vote but would be put off the same laws if it suppressed a group they identified with.

It's this more passive type of problem that makes up a lot of racism.

04-01-2017 , 11:11 AM

#210

Subterranean2

adept

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,173

people with 2+2 accounts that start with bahba should have to make a new password every day to increase account security

04-01-2017 , 11:51 AM

#211

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subterranean2

people with 2+2 accounts that start with bahba should have to make a new password every day to increase account security

In this thread I have learned the law that you just proposed would be considered racist since a slightly higher % of one race is made up of user who's name starts with bahba than that of the population of 2+2 users and it doesn't matter how few users are actually affected by this law.

04-01-2017 , 03:17 PM

#212

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

In this thread I have learned the law that you just proposed would be considered racist

That's false; you would have be capable of learning anything in order for this to be true, and you clearly aren't. Once posters start debating points that you don't want to respond to you simply ignore them and keep repeating the blatantly false things you've repeated since the start of the thread. It's pathetic and representative of the absolute bankruptcy of your ideas and beliefs.

04-01-2017 , 05:47 PM

#213

Subterranean2

adept

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,173

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

laws are writen in black ink so they cant be racist

04-02-2017 , 03:17 PM

#214

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

To be fair, Democrats are really good at voter fraud. Republicans have been looking for it ever since they started losing the popular vote and haven't found it.

Quote:

In the fall of 2002, just over a year after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft summoned a group of federal prosecutors to Washington. He had a new mission he wanted them to focus on: voter fraud. “Votes have been bought, voters intimidated and ballot boxes stuffed,” he told the attendees of the Justice Department’s inaugural Voting Integrity Symposium. “Voters have been duped into signing absentee ballots believing they were applications for public relief. And the residents of cemeteries have infamously shown up at the polls on Election Day.”

Quote:

Ashcroft commissioned the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys to make voting fraud a priority of their offices. Over the next four years, those prosecutors launched more than 300 investigations. But in the end, the government had little to show for it. On July 26, 2006, the day before Bush signed a renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department released a fact sheet summarizing the Voting Integrity Initiative’s accomplishments. Federal prosecutors had charged 119 people with election crimes and convicted just 86. The worst examples were vote-buying schemes in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia that helped keep local politicians in power. Cases that had fixated GOP officials—like the “major criminal enterprise” in St. Louis—were not substantiated. Instead, most of the cases involved individuals who had cast a single ballot that they shouldn’t have, or hadn’t even voted at all but simply had registered improperly. Some of them went to prison. At least one person was deported. The targets that ended up getting the most attention weren’t the alleged fraudsters but the handful of U.S. attorneys who didn’t push hard enough for prosecutions and were forced to resign.

Quote:

If anything, the results of Pence’s commission might be even less spectacular than before. Elections experts say that’s because voter rolls are cleaner now than they were then, voting systems have been updated in many jurisdictions and stricter voter ID laws are in force. Yet, despite skepticism from high-ranking Republicans in Congress, some conservatives who were involved in the original investigation and who are pushing hardest for the new inquiry insist that the failure to prove widespread fraud is not evidence it doesn’t exist, only that the pursuit wasn’t aggressive enough. It’s a fixation that makes voting experts shake their heads.

“This has been done over and over again,” Becker says. “You don’t waste taxpayer resources without some evidence that an investigation is worthwhile. That’s called a fishing expedition.”

A good article on the over a decade long war Republicans have been waging to supress the vote, based on a lie that gets repeated over and over again, as cover

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...spiracy-214972

04-02-2017 , 03:39 PM

#215

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

I asked what makes a law racist 8ish times before someone even addressed it and somehow I'm the one ignoring posts. Okay.

04-02-2017 , 05:04 PM

#216

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

I asked what makes a law racist 8ish times before someone even addressed it and somehow I'm the one ignoring posts.

Yes, you are. No honest reading of this thread could possibly allow you assign this belief to any other poster here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subterranean2

people with 2+2 accounts that start with bahba should have to make a new password every day to increase account security

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

In this thread I have learned the law that you just proposed would be considered racist

It's just straight idiocy you make up in your head because you have nothing else. This is it.

04-03-2017 , 05:05 PM

#217

juan valdez

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,686

this discussion is just magical

if you want to make a claim, any claim, you are responsible for providing a definition

if something is large, small, big, tall, obese, loud, bright, etc etc etc and someone argues that it isn't, you need to start by defining your claim and the words you use. if someone asks you to define your claim, it is absurd ignore this and even more absurd to refuse. how can you possibly call someone tall and then when you get challenged refuse to give your definition of tall to support your claim? these are basic skills people learn in junior high

this all comes after it has been pointed out there is a repeated failure to articulate any ideals and just spam labels (and headlines)

once you have defined what makes a law racist, then you can go ahead and apply that definition to a situation. this of course has not been done. it may be a case where people have different definitions of what a racist law is. if thats not the case then you could argue the details of the situation and how they fit in the definition. so far the people claiming racism have provided fake quotes and comments on a vague narrative. none of this leads to any sort of productive dialogue. its just shouting labels

of course i could go in to greater detail about the clear pattern of behavior and demonstrate why its not a coincidence, but thats actually against the rules

04-03-2017 , 05:54 PM

#218

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Maybe we should check with a nonpartisan arbiter of justice, you know, like a judge or something.

Court Rules NC Voter ID Law 'Intentionally Discriminatory'
'With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...discriminatory

Quote:

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down North Carolina's controversial voter ID law, ruling that the 2013 law was created "with discriminatory intent."

Civil rights groups hailed the decision as a major victory.

"With surgical precision, North Carolina tried to eliminate voting practices disproportionately used by African-Americans. This ruling is a stinging rebuke of the state's attempt to undermine African-American voter participation, which had surged over the last decade," said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. "It is a major victory for North Carolina voters and for voting rights."

"We are happy today that the 4th Circuit's Court of Appeals' decision exposed the racist intent of the extremist element of our government in North Carolina," said Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, president of the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

"In 2013, this government took our voting system—which was a model for the nation in encouraging people to vote, not discouraging them—and they made it into the worst voter suppression act in the country," Barber added. "Today the 4th Circuit’s decision gives North Carolinians back an electoral system that allows the people of North Carolina to vote freely this fall."

After the law was enacted in 2013, the "U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP, League of Women Voters and others sued the state, saying the restrictions violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the Constitution," AP notes.

As Common Dreams reported, the legal fight in North Carolina was "watched closely by activists and legal experts nationwide, as it is one of the first tests to a restrictive election reform law passed by a conservative legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court's dismantling of key portions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013."

The decision (pdf) argued that a prior ruling by a federal judge "missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facets bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina." The ruling continued:

[…] on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an ‘omnibus’ election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting an registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assuredly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.

04-03-2017 , 07:23 PM

#219

bahbahmickey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 15,246

Bert, I think you have already posted that link. Nothing has changed so the logical response is still: Yes, we all realize that voter ID laws disproportionately hurt African-African Americans. However, nearly ever law ever written disproportionately hurts one (or more) race(s). That doesn't mean voter ID laws are racist or ever law is racist.

04-03-2017 , 07:24 PM

#220

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladesman87

A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on little hats, no big deal.

Seriously though. All kinds of people wear hats. But some need to pay.

04-03-2017 , 07:30 PM

#221

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

you simply ignore them and keep repeating the blatantly false things you've repeated since the start of the thread. It's pathetic and representative of the absolute bankruptcy of your ideas and beliefs.