That seems like a dumb rule. That unsupported claim is what highlighted where the problem is. In a world where only 1-5k voters would be affected by voter ID laws and there is some substantially higher levels of fraud, these laws could actually make sense.

Clearly, most people who think voter ID laws are bad would think those assumptions are wrong and so the conversation should shift towards data/confidence intervals and that sort of fun stuff.

It's not quite the rule. Now the figure has been challenged it has to be backed up or moved on from. That's a good way for the discussion to progress isn't it?

The alternative is constant repetition of unsupported claims.

Yeah, that certainly sounds more reasonable. I'd hope that this progression would happen organically but I'm not enough of an optimist to think that it actually would.

chez, the first 100 posts ITT are mainly a discussion about how many people would be/are prevented from voting because of voter ID laws and how much voter fraud there is in the US. In general conservatives ITT have said there aren't that many ppl prevented from voting and there is significant voter fraud while liberals have said the opposite. If we searched the internet for guesses for how prevalent these 2 things are we would come up with huge ranges that wouldn't prove anything beyond the fact that nobody has a clue about either of these numbers.

It has been cited ITT that hundreds of thousands of people in a single state in this country don't have the ID that their state says they need in order to vote. That isn't in dispute, you just handwave it away because you think it means they must not want to vote.

I have never denied there are more than 100k people in the US that don't have a required ID to vote. I never hand waved this fact - I directly talked about it more than once. However, not having an ID is very different from the people who can't get an ID and if they could get it would vote.

I suppose you could start by trying to get a figure on how many who don't have the sort of ID that would be required to vote under new voter ID laws currently vote where such ID isn't required. That would give a plausible upper bound.

A far bigger concern imo is whether those without suitable ID are skewed towards particular groups.

As a federal court found:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...2016/05/got-id

The number cited was 600k in Texas. Extrapolating from there but rounding down on each step that would be ~4mil+ people affected nationwide.

Per the article, Texas has the strictest laws in the country and so we can expect the actual number to be smaller than 4mil so let's cut it in half to account for this and in half again to account for voters who are registered but unlikely to vote, does it seem likely that 995,000 of the remaining million will all go out and get the ID that they need?

Well I don't think they'll even want to vote, so let's make sure they can't. What harm does it do? As long as that one fraudulent vote that no one has ever shown me proof of ever even occurring doesn't get cast, I'm happy with the collateral damage.

Yeah, you could guess at the number of people w/o the needed ID. Then guess how many of those people actually can't get the ID (to exclude those who haven't tried). Lastly, then you could guess as to how many of those that can't get the ID would vote if they had it.

Cliffs: nobody knows the real number and anyone throwing out numbers is guessing

Thank you for your guess of 995k people. Cutting 4M in half twice seems like some very simple math even when compared to how you came up with the original 4M number.

me: IF there are 4M* people w/o the required ID how many of them have tried to get the ID but can't
you: 2M because those people have either tried or haven't tried to get it

me: IF there are 2M* people w/o the required ID who have tried to get it but can't how many of them would vote if they got it
you: 1M because they would either vote or they wouldn't

There are thousands and thousands of laws in the US. Please name 10 that aren't considered racist using this same logic.

You think every law in this country targets black people with surgical precision?

Chez, how does one argue against this level of stupidity? Help me out, please, I don't know how a "content" thread has any hope of remaining about "content" when this is what we have to deal with.

I never said a huge majority of laws were racist against black people. I said they were racist - you just forgot other races face racism as well.

Chez, how does one argue against this level of stupidity? Help me out, please, I don't know how a "content" thread has any hope of remaining about "content" when this is what we have to deal with.

This is no less stupid than what you said before

the voter suppression argument is just feeble. its a dirty political tactic to sway votes in their favor, or so they believe. they don't give a rats ass as to the color of the votes and the policy itself is color blind. both parties try to disguise dirty tactics to tilt the game in their favor. eliminating voter fraud is a valid pursuit but obviously they are motivated by their belief that it will favor them in turnout. the left does this with all the issues surrounding immigration and citizenship. if you don't think the dem's are fully aware of the voting demographics and how their policies are importing votes, your just ignorant or delusional. its politics and its dirty. both sides do it

the funny thing about the claims of racism here is the racism of low expectations from those crying racism. oh the evil rep's trying to make people get ID, do you know how much that is to ask of someone of color? those rep's are so racist! cough cough, um yeah ok



of course a judge ruling it as racist is going to claim a completely color blind policy with the grand injustice of requiring people to obtain ID is going to describe it as surgical. its just like the drug laws penalizing crack more harshly than coke are surgical because they harm the black community most, right? its true the harm does fall more heavily in the black community but a few minutes of actual research will help you understand this ******ed myth

another comical fallacy is the trump racist votes. the actual numbers don't tell you that story. he got more votes from minorities than romney. both in total and as a %. romney did better than cain iirc. just looking at the numbers in the swing states tells you that people voting for obama both once and twice voted were voting for trump

on top of all this, we have the evidence of random people screaming extremely offside things at trump rallies. zomg the kkk supports trump and now this!!!!!!.... um, they are definitely the fringe. this isn't mainstream. to try to conflate the two is absurd. whats mainstream is openly racist and divisive beliefs on the left. its not extremists, its mainstream. its mainstream to see both obama and hilary perpetuating the wage gap myth. that is a myth that your average junior high student could dismantle. they proudly perpetuate it and it is intentionally divisive. it perpetuates anger, resentment, and division. the poster child for arrogantly obnoxious far left morons johnn oliver demonstrates this perfectly and he and his staff are just far to ignorant to realize it. but of course part of what oliver is saying is true.

go to 5:05 for the first piece of truth oliver delivers. he unknowingly owns obama


here is what mainstream left looks like... and its actually racist


If you don't think perpetuating lies and resentment is a bad thing, you're a total moron. thats mainstream on the left. the rebuttal to this isn't omg look at trump and look at "trumpkins", have a look in the mirror and stop participating and supporting it. if you have the inclination to say "lol utoobz" and pretend you read books, go read about class based guilt and resentment in the soviet union and check the body count. oliver is right, its in monkeys, its in human history, and its still a problem. thats why the left uses this tactic, it works. if you would like some more utoobz, i can gladly help you find obama stirring up resentment with a compelling presentation perpetuating the wage gap myth. he did it with surgical precision. or perhaps you prefer to hear obama lecture cops on how they are racist at the funeral of a murdered white cop

racists exist. moron trump supporters are abundant. but pay attention to whats mainstream. the mainstream left is a disaster and full of blatant bigotry in the name of moral superiority. the deomocrats have done an amazing job to make everyone forget about their legacy of racism and sexism but unfortunately for them, this SJW era will just be another black mark on their legacy of bigotry and division. anyone participating in identity politics is going to be on the wrong side of history

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-r...er-suppression
https://www.aclu.org/map/battle-prot...es-passed-2013
https://www.aclu.org/facts-about-voter-suppression
https://www.aclu.org/map/voter-suppr...ntial-election

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

Federal Court Rules Texas’ ID Law Violates Voting Rights Act
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/u...ights-act.html

Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory Efforts to Disenfranchise, Courts Rule
http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-law...anchise-485708

How Voter ID Laws Discriminate
A new comprehensive study finds evidence that strict voting laws do suppress the ballot along racial lines.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-study/517218/

there is absolutely no chance that valdez will read any of that einbert.

and I mean, ya so what if a bunch of high courts in america claimed the laws were discriminatory, we got some guy from fox news interviewing ppl on the street. I mean, how can you argue with that?

einbert, posting 8 links isn't going to get a response from me unless you include some of your own original work in there. Maybe write what you think the author means by some of it or how it pertains to what we are talking about.

Better yet, just directly answer my question. It should go something like: I think requiring an ID to vote is racist because there is a higher % of AA who don't have IDs.

I'm not gonna do work that's already been done. The court rulings are there, the research is all there, done by experts that know this stuff better than me. If you're not willing to read it you're not willing to engage in an honest conversation.