The results are in: Voter ID Fraud a myth - but we knew that

Oh, I'm not engaging in an argument with his persona, just sniping off wronghoods as I see fit. It's not worth anyone's time to actually engage TJ in debate.

 

Who has reams of evidence about future voting integrity and security?

According to this report 13 Million Illegal Immigrants costing some $113 Billion dollars annually. Those numbers kind of seem "out of control." What numbers would you put up?

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921;security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1761

And according to this summary, Illegal Immigrants (~13 Million) would comprise the fifth largest state in the US ahead of states like Illlinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/

 

The most obvious is that I expressed that some kind of voter ID law might be prudent to consider yet you converted that into my clamoring for an amendment to the constitution.

Love how you try to control the discussion. Sorry but you are nobody's boss and your constant demeaning of my position reeks of some kind of sad desperation for attention.

 

Every issue. The only perfect thing about the constitution might be its intent.

 

Again, who in the **** doesn't have to go to a DMV? That's like saying that paying taxes is a hassle, so I guess voters shouldn't do it.

This whole argument is so asinine. We are talking about a ****ing ID card. We all have them. In order to operate in even the most minimal of society, you need one. Even illegals know this, which is why there are so many fake ID places at flea markets.

 

You haven't even begun to back up your assertion with anything, and you turn down evidence of the negative impacts of voter ID laws, the judicial implications, and the low or non-existent benefit for the cost.

You want to have a discussion? There it is.

My constant demaning of your position is based on your absolute refusal to consider the evidence before you, and your half-hearted attempts at discussion. Normally, I would let it slide, but you're the one who's been flitting their position after the evidence was stacked against them. "Oh, how does the Constitution proscribe this law?!"..."Wait, it does? Oh this debate is not about evidence anymore, Ivory Tower lawyer."

It will continue so long as you continue to do this. If you don't like it, deal with it, because as much as I'm not your boss, you're sure as hell not mine, and if there's one thing I dislike, it's people who flit in and out of topics of substance with vague ideological statements that they cannot back with any strand of reason.

 

In the intrest of civility, I'd say we're better off agreeing to disagree giddy on this issue. I don't mean to cast any aspersions on you. But your unwillingness to look at this issue with a bit more depth frustrates me, to be perfectly frank.

If you're willing to reexamine the evidence, or are willing to provide evidence of your own, I'd be glad to continue the discussion. If it's going to continue with passive-agressive ad hominum attacks, then it's frankly pointless, and we can both spend our time doing slightly more productive things (in my case, shirking work by frequent bathroom trips rather than frequent typing).

 

I'm sure you know the story of Thomas Edison: 10,000 ways a light bulb doesn't work.

As others have suggested, from glynch to rasputin, this should not be a problem to find a cost-effective solution for (if that's what's stopping you).

The law is constantly capable of change and it will remain so and indeed occasionally change as the circumstances of life change.

I've not tried to re-frame your argument or even tell you how to argue so I am in no way attempting to control this discussion. Be in love with over-complicating things if that makes you happy. I prefer to cut to the chase.

Did you know that illegal immigrants approximately represent the fifth largest state in the US? No comment, huh! Oh that's right... no problemo.

"You haven't even begun to back up your assertion with anything, and you turn down evidence of the negative impacts of voter ID laws, the judicial implications, and the low or non-existent benefit for the cost. "

In sum:

1. We are required to show ID virtually every day-- no big deal.
2. Damn the judicial implications-- show who you say you are on Election Day.
3. The cost cannot be that much-- and a worthy price it is to assure that Americans are voting in American elections.

 

You can rationalize it any way you want giddy, but we all know that this is a purely politically driven case of voter suppression by the GOP.

 

Any idiot who cannot produce a legitimately accepted photo ID is a) not worthy of voting or b) not likely to vote anyway.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way...

Excerpted from a lengthy, but informative policy brief:

As many as 10% of eligible voters do not have, and will not get, the documents required by strict voter ID laws. Approximately ten percent of voting-age Americans today do not have driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. Based on Americans’ moving patterns, many more do not have photo ID showing their current address. And getting ID costs substantial time and money. A would-be voter must pay substantial fees both for ID cards and the backup documents needed to get them-up to $100 for a driver’s license, up to $45 for a birth certificate, $97 for a passport, and over $200 for naturalization papers. The voter may also have to take several hours off of work and travel significant distances to visit government offices open only during select daytime hours. Finally, many identifying documents cannot be issued immediately, so potential voters must allow for processing and shipping, which may take from several weeks to an entire year.

ID requirements fall hardest on people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls. The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls. For example, in New York City, which has no ID requirement, a study showed that poll workers illegally asked one in six Asian Americans for ID at the polls, while white voters were permitted to vote without showing ID.

More at the link.

 

You fail to address how a voter ID law would actually surpress "illegal immigration voting", insofar as voter IDs are only a tiny check on a fraction of the system.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010...-despite-scant-evidence-of-effectiveness.html

Your two last points are, insofar as I can see, first of all a repudiation of what America is built on (a nation founded on the principle of rule of law), and a repudiation of all the evidence.

I will repost it again.

http://www.brennancenter.org/conten...estrictions_may_affect_more_than_five_million

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

 

this is the same guy who thinks Zimmerman is not guilty of Trayvon's death simply because Zimmerman said so

 

This is a weird issue to me because I never realized the percentage of people who don't have a valid id. The student one makes sense.

What's weird though is when I first turned 18 and went to vote for the first time all those centuries ago at Love Elementary in the Heights (or the little park next to it or something) they made me show id. Was it illegal for them to do it then?

 

Do you like going to the DMV? Is it a valuable usage of your time?

I am curious but do you support the Health insurance mandate?

 

I am going to keep your view of the evolving nature of the Constitution in mind.

 

Will not get the documents? Then who cares how they feel about it.

The people who have traditionally faced barriers at the polls were likely not voting anyway. If you can't or won't go to the "trouble" to get some kind of necessary and as yet undefined voter ID that you will use every few years then I'm not going to worry about it.

 

Wrong again, v. Undoubtedly Zimmerman is guilty of Trayvon's death; it's the charge of Murder II that we have a difference of opinon about.

BTW, thanks for mis-representing my position. Everything pretty much lines up with GZ's account of how things went down: the evidence, the polygraph et al.
That's why I think he is innocent of Murder II.

 

This is what I quoted:

I'm neither convinced or unconvinced that there is a problem right now

"Right now" indicates you were talking about right now, not the future. The fact that you have no opinion despite mountains of evidence suggests that you just don't want to believe the truth.

It's only out of control if it's a growing problem. It's not. It's exactly the opposite - a shrinking problem. That suggests it's under control.

Besides, we're talking about voting. You stated you don't really know if there's a problem now (nevermind the fact that we know that it's not). And given that the illegal immigration population is on the decline, if it's not a big issue for you now, what on earth makes you think it would be a growing issue in the future?

Relevance to, well, anything?

For your argument to even have any relevance to the world of voter ID, you're suggesting that illegal immigrants are going to start going to polling places and pretending to be other citizens and voting under their name - never mind the immense risk they face in doing so (deportation) and the immense risk of being caught (if the other person had already voted that day, for example). Given that there is zero evidence that this is occurring now, do you actually believe this to be a big upcoming concern in the future that needs to be stopped, at the cost of disenfranchising or making it far more difficult to vote for millions of actual legitimate voters?

 

I'm not being revolutionary. You try to squelch discussion because some court somewhere has "already ruled on it." This is the same crap you pulled in the Abortion discussion. Laws can change and sometimes do.