The issue of denying citizens their constitutional right to vote by implementing voter ID laws is vastly different than the probable effects of those laws on this particular election. I'm sure you'll agree that Nate's article isn't arguing for or against voter ID laws, it is simply providing information as to how they will effect the election. By his analysis it seems like they are unlikely to swing the election for Romney.

What makes you assume everyone w/o an ID is on welfare?

My post was directed at the ID supporters ITT who seem to have no problem with suppressing 2% of the vote to stop 2 fraudulent votes. The impact of ID laws is measurable, and it has been measured. We know it suppresses 1-2% of the vote. Millions of people are getting disenfranchised.

It's also not like Presidential elections are the only elections. Hail to the Chief and all that ****, but when you disenfranchise a voter, they can't vote for local officials or ballot initiates either.

Well yeah, but why would we want poor minorities to have a say in those things?

All true, but to be brutally honest I could give a **** less what happens in Pennsylvania local elections. It is, however, nice to see a rational argument on the effects of these laws rather than the standard hysteria of

!!!!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1652469.html

These laws should be unconstitutional imo, but since they aren't I prefer to know whether or not they legitimately have a shot of effecting me. Since WA is never going to pass a voter ID law, the only legitimate chance they can effect me is if the laws in place will change a national election.

Oh, sure, when 538 says it, it must be true, but when Low Key says it, everyone just looks the other way!

Not only that but the math is this particular 538 article is very rough. Not that I have a better idea.

It's still better math than the limitless imagined fraud of from the right wingers.

Preventing 2% of the population that would like to vote in order to prevent 2 people from voting illegally makes perfect sense. See citydata/free republic for reference of why this is so important.

THOSE ARE ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO GOT CAUGHT. I SAW A BUS ONCE TAKING PEOPLE TO A POLLING STATION. CLEARLY FRAUD IS >2%.

Turnout in the United Statesin 2008 was 132,653,958. I hope it was just a typo, did you mean prevent 2% of people from voting illegally?

If it wasn't a typo you're saying you would disenfranchise 2.6 Million voters in order to prevent 2 illegal votes from being cast. Is that right?

your sarcasm detector isn't working. Is there any possible way a post which says

can be serious?

Goofball may not be savvy on what city-data is. I didn't see him in the Arizona thread much, IIRC.

Haven't heard of it. My sarcasm detector does need work though.

Maybe, but everyone knows the free republic.

Oh goofball, if you ever need entertainment go to the city data politard forum. You've literally never seen a bigger collection of outright neonazi style racists on a site not actually dedicated to neonazis

City-data has basically been co-opted by stormfront. A cadre of 2+2ers went over there to their dedicated illegal immigration forum, some to troll, and some to make bona fide arguments against the racists there. All were banned. You can call someone a ****** or a ******* or *****, and you can go full birther, but don't you dare call someone a racist or a redneck.

I wish I knew what those words were :-p

They're anything you can imagine other than "racist"

says it all

Just because we can't find rampant cases of voter fraud doesn't mean we should make it easy for the poor or minorities to vote. You do know what they tend to do when they vote....

From a purely political stance this is all absolute genius. For the past 5 years article after article has talked about changing demographics going to hurt the GOP. All of these articles talked about them softening hard line stances on gay marriage or immigration or drugs. None of them pointed out an easier strategy would just be to make it to where those people can't vote. F-ing brilliant.

isn't this law far more likely to affect seniors than minorities in absolute terms? Especially considering the likelihood of seniors voting compared to minorities? Do people who get on welfare not have to show IDs but rather other forms of identification will suffice (seems relevant since about 40% of the people on welfare are minorities as of five years ago anyway, not trying to be racist or anything) ? I really do not know, I know it varies by state. Of course I saw some Wisconsin study that said less than half of the blacks in Milwaukee County have a valid drivers license and in the 18-24 group only 22% have valid drivers licenses. Mind blown, kind of skeptical and wondering how thats even possible but I guess thats why I'm the middle class white person. Still the odds of that particular demographic voting seem pretty small anyway, but I guess it does seem like it will hurt democrats way more since even if there are more seniors who can't vote they will be only voting like 55% republican whereas blacks will be at 98% or whatever and hispanics at 60ish%


nevermind appears i way overestimated the percentage of seniors who don't have licenses...around 80% do

i am curious about the welfare thing though. I know in a lot of states you must have a photo ID

I am disenfranchised, but I don't vote anyway. I was looking at the voter registration page and I need a state driver's license or ID. I have an out of state ID.

Seniors have nothing but time on their hands, for the poor their life is measured by the hour.

UPDATE: Romney camp asks Va. to probe voter forms

Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky