Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Political cartoon.

 

[jon_mx]

Political cartoon.

What is wrong with the picture is there is currently no way to catch the tens of thousands of illegal votes.

 

[pantagrapher]

Political cartoon.

What is wrong with the picture is there is currently no way to catch the tens of thousands of illegal votes.

I love it. "Where's your proof?"

"It's impossible to prove!"

 

[Rayderr]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

The cartoon is more powerful for those of us that actually want people to vote. You've already said you think it's desirable to have fewer people vote, so your reaction is unsurprising.

 

[The Commish]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

This is apparently an insurmountable task for millions of people.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

Of course we should show a photo id. This whole discussion is absurd.

 

[pantagrapher]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

This is absurd. I run an insurance agency in an area afflicted with poverty. I mean poverty. Down trodden, can't keep lights on, wearing dirty clothes, don't know where next meal is coming from, etc. Many of my clients pay cash for everything. Many don't have bank accounts. Yet they all seem to be able to come up with a government ID.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

This is absurd. I run an insurance agency in an area afflicted with poverty. I mean poverty. Down trodden, can't keep lights on, wearing dirty clothes, don't know where next meal is coming from, etc. Many of my clients pay cash for everything. Many don't have bank accounts. Yet they all seem to be able to come up with a government ID.

Are you saying the stats are wrong about people without IDs? Or are you just saying that people can get IDs if they really want them?

 

[Ursa M]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

This is absurd. I run an insurance agency in an area afflicted with poverty. I mean poverty. Down trodden, can't keep lights on, wearing dirty clothes, don't know where next meal is coming from, etc. Many of my clients pay cash for everything. Many don't have bank accounts. Yet they all seem to be able to come up with a government ID.

Are you saying the stats are wrong about people without IDs? Or are you just saying that people can get IDs if they really want them?

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good. Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

Just as an FYI, "get-the-government-out-of-our-lives" types aren't usually anarchists. They support having laws on the books about who gets to vote and how, the particular benefits accruing to marriage and who they apply to, laws concerning murder and infanticide, and legal procedures for handling immigration. None of these are necessarily off-limits to small government types.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

This is absurd. I run an insurance agency in an area afflicted with poverty. I mean poverty. Down trodden, can't keep lights on, wearing dirty clothes, don't know where next meal is coming from, etc. Many of my clients pay cash for everything. Many don't have bank accounts. Yet they all seem to be able to come up with a government ID.

Are you saying the stats are wrong about people without IDs? Or are you just saying that people can get IDs if they really want them?

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

All of us opposed to these laws agree that it is possible to get an ID. But lots of people still won't get them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

The cartoon is more powerful for those of us that actually want people to vote. You've already said you think it's desirable to have fewer people vote, so your reaction is unsurprising.

The particular problem with that cartoon is exactly what Rayderr said -- it assumes that people who don't currently have an ID won't get one if a law requiring IDs goes into effect. "Having an ID" is endogenous, not exogenous.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

The cartoon is more powerful for those of us that actually want people to vote. You've already said you think it's desirable to have fewer people vote, so your reaction is unsurprising.

The particular problem with that cartoon is exactly what Rayderr said -- it assumes that people who don't currently have an ID won't get one if a law requiring IDs goes into effect. "Having an ID" is endogenous, not exogenous.

That would be a good point if the numbers were in the same stratosphere.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

Guys with internet access and leisure time agree: everyone should have a current photo ID.

This is absurd. I run an insurance agency in an area afflicted with poverty. I mean poverty. Down trodden, can't keep lights on, wearing dirty clothes, don't know where next meal is coming from, etc. Many of my clients pay cash for everything. Many don't have bank accounts. Yet they all seem to be able to come up with a government ID.

Are you saying the stats are wrong about people without IDs? Or are you just saying that people can get IDs if they really want them?

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

All of us opposed to these laws agree that it is possible to get an ID. But lots of people still won't get them.

Right. But they don't get to vote. I don't see the problem.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good. Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

All of us opposed to these laws agree that it is possible to get an ID. But lots of people still won't get them.

Right. Buy they don't get to vote. I don't see the problem.

Yeah, this is IK's position too. I think it's a good thing when people vote. I also think it's problematic that if you happen to have an ID for some other reason you get to vote without taking any extra steps, but people without IDs have to get one just to vote.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

All of us opposed to these laws agree that it is possible to get an ID. But lots of people still won't get them.

Right. Buy they don't get to vote. I don't see the problem.

Yeah, this is IK's position too. I think it's a good thing when people vote. I also think it's problematic that if you happen to have an ID for some other reason you get to vote without taking any extra steps, but people without IDs have to get one just to vote.

What's being missed in most of this argument is that most of the people w/out ID's don't have the gumption to get up off their asses to vote anyway. If they won't get an ID, then it's likely they won't vote. Look, I'm faced with these people on a daily basis. The majority don't care enough to vote.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good. Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

I think they do but are afraid to admit that they are wrong.

 

[DrJ]

I'm saying they can get the ID's. Yes, that's what I'm saying.

All of us opposed to these laws agree that it is possible to get an ID. But lots of people still won't get them.

Right. Buy they don't get to vote. I don't see the problem.

Yeah, this is IK's position too. I think it's a good thing when people vote. I also think it's problematic that if you happen to have an ID for some other reason you get to vote without taking any extra steps, but people without IDs have to get one just to vote.

I think it's good when people vote. I also think it's good to be as certain as possible that the person showing up is who they claim to be.

 

[DrJ]

Why do Democrat supporters assume that the ones voting for their party are most likely to not be willing to go through the effort to get an ID?

 

[Ursa M]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

 

[DrJ]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

 

[Ursa M]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

It's simple. The people lacking photo ID right now are more likely to vote Democrat.

 

[DrJ]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

It's simple. The people lacking photo ID right now are more likely to vote Democrat.

Based on statistical analysis, or just your opinion?

 

[Ursa M]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

It's simple. The people lacking photo ID right now are more likely to vote Democrat.

Based on statistical analysis, or just your opinion?

Since the poor, disabled and young, especially students, may lack a photo ID for their current place of residence and since a majority of those same groups tend to vote Democrat, I'd say it's statistical analysis. I'd also posit that since every photo ID bill has been sponsored by Republicans, it's fair to middling unlikely that such bills will depress the Republican vote more.

As is patently obvious.

 

[DrJ]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

It's simple. The people lacking photo ID right now are more likely to vote Democrat.

Based on statistical analysis, or just your opinion?

Since the poor, disabled and young, especially students, may lack a photo ID for their current place of residence and since a majority of those same groups tend to vote Democrat, I'd say it's statistical analysis. I'd also posit that since every photo ID bill has been sponsored by Republicans, it's fair to middling unlikely that such bills will depress the Republican vote more.

As is patently obvious.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.htmlIt seems the results in the states that have passed these laws indicate the opposite. While those groups may be more likely to lack photo ID, laws put in place to require photo ID didn't suppress votes amongst these groups like you would posit.

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

In the cases to overturn these laws in the Supreme Court, the prosecutors were unable to provide a single witness saying they weren't capable of getting a photo ID.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Funny how the get-government-out-of-our-lives brigade think forcing a national ID requirement on everyone is just fine. I guess this is one of those occasions, along with banning gay marriage, banning abortion and clamping down on immigrants, where government is great. This government spending is really good.

Voter ID has one purpose and one purpose only - to try to suppress some of the Democrat vote. It has zero to do with fraud, nada, nothing, zilch.

It has everything to do with fraud. Why is that so hard for the lefties to understand?

Maybe earlier in this thread, maybe in another, someone came up with three examples of possible fraud in Wisconsin at, IIRC, the last election. Three. In Minnesota last time around, there were two, again IIRC. Both were felons and both voted Republican. The vast majority - all - illegal votes are by felons who likely don't even realize that they are voting illegally. Will photo ID stop that?

It's a total crock of poo. The only way this would be acceptable to me was if having a photo ID was mandatory for every citizen. The Republican calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. That is the attraction. The pious waffling about fraud is a smokescreen.

Sounds like the Democrat calculation is that it WILL reduce the Democrat vote. Why is that?

It's simple. The people lacking photo ID right now are more likely to vote Democrat.

Based on statistical analysis, or just your opinion?

Since the poor, disabled and young, especially students, may lack a photo ID for their current place of residence and since a majority of those same groups tend to vote Democrat, I'd say it's statistical analysis. I'd also posit that since every photo ID bill has been sponsored by Republicans, it's fair to middling unlikely that such bills will depress the Republican vote more.

As is patently obvious.

http://online.wsj.co...9569631609.htmlIt seems the results in the states that have passed these laws indicate the opposite. While those groups may be more likely to lack photo ID, laws put in place to require photo ID didn't suppress votes amongst these groups like you would posit.

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

In the cases to overturn these laws in the Supreme Court, the prosecutors were unable to provide a single witness saying they weren't capable of getting a photo ID.

can't wait to read the spin on this.

 

[parasaurolophus]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

 

[Ursa M]

http://online.wsj.co...9569631609.html

It seems the results in the states that have passed these laws indicate the opposite. While those groups may be more likely to lack photo ID, laws put in place to require photo ID didn't suppress votes amongst these groups like you would posit.

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

In the cases to overturn these laws in the Supreme Court, the prosecutors were unable to provide a single witness saying they weren't capable of getting a photo ID.

can't wait to read the spin on this.

Here's your chance. It seems we're back to lies, damned lies and statistics.

According to the GA Secretary of State,Georgia’s Hispanic turnout (calculated as a percentage of registered voters) was lower in 2010 than in 2006, and it was lower in 2008 than in 2004.

<see table>

The number of Hispanic voters was greater in the 2010 election than in the 2006 election, and in the 2008 election than in the 2004 election, as the total population of registered Hispanic voters increased by 73.9 percent and 144 percent, respectively. However, there was a slight reduction in the percentage of voter turnout for Hispanics between presidential election years 2004 and 2008 and non-presidential election years 2006 and 2010.

While simple turnout numbers from a single state cannot tell us exactly what impact new voter restrictions have on voter turnout, it’s clear that in Georgia, the percentage of minority voter turnout has not increased following enactment of its strict voter ID law.

 

[DrJ]

http://online.wsj.co...9569631609.html

It seems the results in the states that have passed these laws indicate the opposite. While those groups may be more likely to lack photo ID, laws put in place to require photo ID didn't suppress votes amongst these groups like you would posit.

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.

In the cases to overturn these laws in the Supreme Court, the prosecutors were unable to provide a single witness saying they weren't capable of getting a photo ID.

can't wait to read the spin on this.

Here's your chance. It seems we're back to lies, damned lies and statistics.

According to the GA Secretary of State,Georgia’s Hispanic turnout (calculated as a percentage of registered voters) was lower in 2010 than in 2006, and it was lower in 2008 than in 2004.

<see table>

The number of Hispanic voters was greater in the 2010 election than in the 2006 election, and in the 2008 election than in the 2004 election, as the total population of registered Hispanic voters increased by 73.9 percent and 144 percent, respectively. However, there was a slight reduction in the percentage of voter turnout for Hispanics between presidential election years 2004 and 2008 and non-presidential election years 2006 and 2010.

While simple turnout numbers from a single state cannot tell us exactly what impact new voter restrictions have on voter turnout, it’s clear that in Georgia, the percentage of minority voter turnout has not increased following enactment of its strict voter ID law.

First off, looking at just Hispanic voters doesn't give us any indication on minority voters as a whole. Secondly, your statement had to do with Democrat voters, so you're moving the goalposts. Go figure.

 

[DrJ]

Also, they left out Indiana entirely. One might wonder why they did stuff like this. Until you look at figures like the black vote in GA which they conveniently left out when discussing the "minority" vote. Black females were at 45% in 2006 and 55% in 2010. Black males, 39% in 2006 and 44% in 2010. With the number of registered voters for each of those groups jumping significantly greater than the Hispanics that they felt were representative of all minorities. Then you start to realize that they were probably partisan hacks looking to cherry pick certain subsets of numbers to fit their preconceived notions.

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/02-11-07_Race-gender.pdf

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/2010%20Stats/By%20Age,%20Race,%20&%20Gender_2010_General%20Election.pdf

 

[Mello]

Why do Democrat supporters assume that the ones voting for their party are most likely to not be willing to go through the effort to get an ID?

Why do you assume peoples' motives? If I were betting, I'd guess people on both sides are playing games here for their own benefit. Once again treating this like a ####### sport than something important. I'm not a Dem. I simply think that our voting system has worked just fine without adding more government bureaucracy. Especially when that additional bureaucracy is likely to keep entitled voters from voting and is also not likely to fix any problem.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

More black people voted in the 2008 election than in previous elections? I can't imagine why that might have been.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

For those saying this wont prevent any fraud and use the numbers regarding arrests for voter impersonation as being nil, how would somebody get caught now impersonating a voter?

Here is one way:"Hi I'm Joe Blow""Umm, no, I know Joe Blow and you are not him."

 

[DrJ]

Why do Democrat supporters assume that the ones voting for their party are most likely to not be willing to go through the effort to get an ID?

Why do you assume peoples' motives? If I were betting, I'd guess people on both sides are playing games here for their own benefit. Once again treating this like a ####### sport than something important. I'm not a Dem. I simply think that our voting system has worked just fine without adding more government bureaucracy. Especially when that additional bureaucracy is likely to keep entitled voters from voting and is also not likely to fix any problem.

I didn't assume anything, I asked a question of other posters that are assuming people's motives.

 

[DrJ]

More black people voted in the 2008 election than in previous elections? I can't imagine why that might have been.

And in the 2010 elections compared to 2006. Despite the fact that voters ID laws were implemented in these states. And it appears both Democrat and overall voter turnout was up more in these states that passed these voter ID laws than ones that didn't.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

More black people voted in the 2008 election than in previous elections? I can't imagine why that might have been.

And in the 2010 elections compared to 2006. Despite the fact that voters ID laws were implemented in these states. And it appears both Democrat and overall voter turnout was up more in these states that passed these voter ID laws than ones that didn't.

The WSJ article you posted was from 2009.For the 2006-2010 comparison, are you relying on those two Georgia links? I couldn't make sense of those.

 

[DrJ]

More black people voted in the 2008 election than in previous elections? I can't imagine why that might have been.

And in the 2010 elections compared to 2006. Despite the fact that voters ID laws were implemented in these states. And it appears both Democrat and overall voter turnout was up more in these states that passed these voter ID laws than ones that didn't.

The WSJ article you posted was from 2009.For the 2006-2010 comparison, are you relying on those two Georgia links? I couldn't make sense of those.

Correct - I expanded with some actual numbers when Ursa tried to refute with his partisan link. But regardless, Democrat and black voting was up MORE in the states that passed voter ID laws than the ones that didn't. Of course more black people voted in the 2008 elections - but even moreso in the states with these laws.I used 2006 and 2010 in particular because of the "Obama factor" that you're basically referencing. But the 2004 and 2008 numbers will be about the same and can be retrieved through a link in the article Ursa referenced.You can't make sense of a simple table?

 

[DrJ]

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/02-11-07_Race-gender.pdfhttp://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/2010%20Stats/By%20Age,%20Race,%20&%20Gender_2010_General%20Election.pdf

What do you think these links prove?

That the article Ursa provided was created by a partisan hack looking to cherry pick certain subsets of numbers. I explained it in the post above the links. Why do you guys have such problems with relatively simple arguments?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

 

[DrJ]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

Last page in the first link, first page in the 2nd link.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

Last page in the first link, first page in the 2nd link.

Got it, thanks. Couldn't you also be accused of cherrypicking data?

 

[DrJ]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

Last page in the first link, first page in the 2nd link.

Got it, thanks. Couldn't you also be accused of cherrypicking data?

No, because the article I originally posted referenced overall numbers, and pointed out that voter turnout among overall voters, Democrats, and blacks was up MORE in these states in comparison to ones that didn't have these laws. Across both states that had these laws. Ursa posted a link that referenced just Hispanic votes in Georgia only, which as you can see is a small subset of these numbers, and then tried to act like they were representative of all minorities. Which is obviously ridiculous cherry picking. Furthermore, minorities wasn't even the point that was being debated - we were originally talking about Democrat voters.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

Last page in the first link, first page in the 2nd link.

These are %age of registered voters who voted in one particular state in one particular year.This is meaningful because?

He's showing that a greater percentage of black Georgia registered voters actually voted in 2010 than in 2006 (before the voter ID law was implemented). I don't know enough about who was on the Georgia ballot in 2006 versus 2010 to judge whether those numbers are meaningful or not.

 

[DrJ]

You can't make sense of a simple table?

Apparently. What part am I supposed to be looking at?

Last page in the first link, first page in the 2nd link.

These are %age of registered voters who voted in one particular state in one particular year.This is meaningful because?

The original article I posted referenced 2 states - Indiana and Georgia. And it pointed out that these states were amongst the highest in terms of increase in votes among: Overall Voters, Democrat Voters, and Black Voters. This is quite contrary to what you'd expect if this was supressing votes amongst these groups.I've already gone over this several times now. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

 

[DrJ]

Here's the article and pertinent quotes once again, for the people that have problems with reading and going back to the last page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327839569631609.html

According to figures released by Curtis Gans at American University, Georgia had the largest turnout in its history, with nearly four million voters. The Republican turnout was up only 0.22 percentage points; the Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points, rising from 22.66% of the eligible voting population to 28.74% of the eligible population.

The overall turnout in Georgia increased 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election -- the second highest increase in turnout of any state in the country. According to the JCPES, the black share of the statewide vote increased in Georgia from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect.

By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the neighboring state of Mississippi -- which has no voter ID requirement but also has a large black population similar to Georgia's -- increased by only 2.35 percentage points.

In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said had the strictest voter ID law in the country, the turnout of Democratic voters in the November election increased by 8.32 percentage points. That was the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. The increase in overall turnout in Indiana was the fifth highest in the country, but only because the turnout of Republican voters actually went down 3.57 percentage points. The nearby state of Illinois (no photo ID requirement) had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points -- nearly half Indiana's increase.