Court Reinstates Texas Voter ID Requirement, Allowing State to Enforce Law This Election

Great -- glad you agree with me that we need voter ID. FYI the Texas proposal also accepts a wide variety of IDs -- certainly not all, but a wide variety.

I'd love to see how many people in Canada go with the "sworn statement" or homeless procedures -- probably incredibly tiny and not relevant to your silly point. You're just trying to be argumentative because your liberal media sources have told you that this is bad. The Supreme Court has spoken, bud. Your position was shot down.

 

FIFY.

In other words, Voter ID only effects a fraction of a fraction of people.

 

Your reading comprehension needs a great deal of work. I guess they don't teach reading at Rice.

I did not agree that there is a "need" for voter ID. There isn't. I did say that I wouldn't be opposed to ID laws if the requirements were the same as they have in Canada, because they wouldn't be obtrusive and wouldn't serve as tools to suppress voters who lean Democrat.

The ID laws as passed here in the US are specifically designed to make it more difficult for people who lean Democrat to vote. They are absolutely not necessary and I suspect that the courts will eventually strike them down and they will go the way of poll taxes and literacy tests, both of which were previous methods used to suppress the vote of the people who wouldn't vote for those in power. By the way, since you apparently didn't understand, the SCOTUS has not actually ruled on the subject except to stay the lower court's decision with regards to Texas' law. With the conflicting rulings in the appellate courts over the last year, they will eventually be forced to rule and the outcome is likely to be the opposite of your preference.

I don't listen to "liberal media sources," I listen to the scientific studies that have come out, all of which have found that there is no significant amount of voter fraud, but that tens or hundreds of thousands of people could be disenfranchised by these laws.

Learn to read, this skill is one of the fundamental needs when discussing politics and your ability is severely lacking.

Try again, rook.

 

Population of Texas: 26.4 million residents
Population of Canada: 33,476,688

120,171/18 = ratio of 6676.16

So if sworn statements are "incredibly tiny, and not relevant to your silly point", what are allegations of voter fraud in Texas?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this argument persists 30 years from now. This is a mindset that transcends race, and the root of these problems is really class and the cultures that perpetuate them.

OTOH, voter fraud 30 years from now will become increasingly strategic over tampering voting boxes and machines rather than individual end-user cases of fraud which is far more expensive and far far easier to incriminate (both intent and execution) rather than pass it off as a glitch, malfunction or an aw-shucks coincidental mistake.

Thinking about it more, the political roots of this debate stems from both the voter suppression laws against minorities (Dem perspective) and the union ballot stuffing rackets that drove out the vote in buses, which may or may not have had some invalid votes (Repub perspective). The latter is far less likely nowadays than the former, as
1) Unions are on the deathbed
2) billionaire "activists" can drive out voter manipulation in far less incriminating and blatant ways.

What about "grassroot" minority movements demonized and popularized when Obama was first elected? In hindsight, it was mostly bull**** and was disproportionately spotlighted for the amount of real fraud it was accused of.

No one talks about how easy it is to tamper electronic voting machines though...

 

not conclusive analysis. You need to be able to establish that voter fraud is investigated at the same rate that it is in Canada. And of course that there's not a POTENTIAL for future voter fraud.

 

I hardly call 400k people a fraction of a fraction

They say it could make 4.5% swing in the vote of an election. That's HUGE.

 

The electronic machines - it's funny how people put their faith in technology but not science in this country. They will believe the machines but not the fundamental science behind it all.

Anyway, this debate isn't about fraud. It's about winning elections. And it's pointless to talk about fraud when the reality is about winning. Republicans will win at any means. Even if it means preventing people to vote. They will vote to require an ID to vote, but will then oppose a law requiring everyone get an ID in order to receive welfare or food stamps as unconstitutional since such a law would hurt them in elections.

I say if you support voter id law, why not just support id's for everyone? Make it universal that everyone in this country has to carry an ID to not only vote, but just to show up at the supermarket and buy groceries. Funny, that law would devastate Republicans in elections and thus would never get passed.

 

In other words, about 10,000 times the number of votes cast by fraudulent identification.

 

what is that even based on? In the other thread someone said hundreds of miles for 200K people, that was BS. Then someone posted over 10 miles for 500K people. Now it is 3 hours for 400K people. All three can't be true, and anyone who has ever been to Texas knows 3 hours is ridiculous. I know Ruth grew up in NYC and thinks Texas is a desert but is she out of her mind or did they add traffic and changing a tire and waiting at the DPS to get to three hours?

Isn't that how all enforcement works? Everyone gets f'ed over for the actions of the few.

 

400k is about 1.5% of the population. On a non presidential year, about 40% of registered voters end up voting. That leaves you with less than .75%. 3/4 of 1% is a fraction of a fraction.

That is not even disputing your 400k number.

 

Why dont you chase down the numbers of voters that get screwed out of voting because the state screwed up their registration.

Also, chase down the numbers for those who can't vote because its done at an inconvenient time, such as not having them open on the weekends.

 

What is the fraction of voter fraud? Do tell.

 

You support a law that affects 400,000 people against a problem that affects no one. Now you're throwing out red herrings about problems that Republicans are causing in the first place by cutting early voting. Pfft

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/greg-abbott-bogus-voter-fraud-crusade

Are you proposing Texas spend a bit more on this crusade? $1.5 million is the tip of the iceberg: at god knows how many millions for 2 confirmed cases, return on investment is looking quite high.

Are those 2 confirmed cases "tiny and not relevant to your point?"

Is trying the same thing twice and spending inordinate amounts of taxpayer money the definition of insanity?

Oh sure, there's potential for voter fraud. But like you said, the Supreme Court spoke. And if you actually saw how they ruled, you'd clearly determine that they ignored the potential for irrational voter laws in favor for a data-based approach. And look at where Texas is now: millions of dollars, and a crusade---for two data points.

Good luck with that.

 

And for anyone who still hasn't gotten it: favorably citing the inherent inefficacy of a law to prove its value = you're doing it wrong.

Frankly posting this at all is grounds for disenfranchisement on cause of stupidity.

 

Your math is grossly off.

600-800k registered voters don't have an id in the state of Texas. Texas has 13MM registered voters. So if you take the lower range that's about 5%, not 1.5% of the population.

Not sure why you further divide it. Because that shouldn't affect the overall proportion. In any case even an impact of 0.75% is huge in a close election.


5% is game changing.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/17697...peaker-house-candidates-governor-state-judge#

 

Please quote me on where I support Voter ID laws?

 

Hey now! You're the one throwing around the numbers, not me. I used your "400k". Now its doubled to 800k. Additionally, you're assuming most of the 800k will vote democrat. You're cherry picking the argument such as assuming most of them are poor and minority. Plenty will be the "old white folk in rural texas", the shining glory of the Republican party.

Anyways, pushing aside BS statistics and deceptive numbers, if .75% is "huge" in a close election, then I would think that would be a valid argument for the pro Voter ID crowd.

However I do agree having a official/valid form of Texas ID is over the top. There are plenty of forms of ID's that should be perfectly acceptable.

 

.75% would lose their vote - the amount of fraud is close to 0. I think you are misunderstanding the numbers here.

Most of those voters are poor and minority and will vote democratic. That's kinda the point. Do you really not realize this or are you being coy?

The numbers are not deceptive. Elections will shift because of this law. Not because it eliminates fraud, but because it will eliminate Democratic votes in margins that will decide elections. I'd put the time to show you how but my sense is you won't buy into it anyway and it would be a waste of time. If you were willing to be persuaded I'd make the case, but it would take some precious time to go through and show step by step how it works.