Originally posted by normbenign
That is just a wild claim of those who prefer voter fraud in areas where it advantages them.

Actually it's a summary of numerous peer reviewed studies.

Originally posted by techsouth
Where did you get the idea that black folks like eating watermelon?

Why would black folks like watermelon more than anyone else?

I guess the same place norm knows that "black folks like getting their picture taken".

Did all right wingers miss Sarcasm Identification 101?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess the same place norm knows that "black folks like getting their picture taken".

Did all right wingers miss Sarcasm Identification 101?

That is the most racist gibberish I have ever heard in my life.

Speaking of racism, here is a story for ya!!

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/03/21/democratic-legislators-take-bribes-oppose-voter-id-gets-away/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Apparently the Attorney Generals Office in Pennsylvania caught at least 4 Philadelphia area legislators taking multiple bribes in exchange for votes to oppose voter ID laws. However, current Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, secretly dropped the case in 2013. When questioned about it, she said that the investigation was "poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted with racism", presumably because all the legislators in question were black.......this despite it all being captured on film.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess the same place norm knows that "black folks like getting their picture taken".

Did all right wingers miss Sarcasm Identification 101?

Perhaps you missed my sarcasm.

I just find it odd how many liberals seem to know all racial stereotypes, and more so frequently introduce them into the conversation.

Originally posted by techsouth
I don't suppose anyone would look that hard unless a state is very close and it is a swing state.

And tell me, how would you catch someone after the fact that didn't show an ID and left no personally identifiable marks on the ballot?

Apparently there are plenty of "red" states who have felt the need to "look that hard," or at least to give the impression of having done so, to justify their advocacy for voter ID restrictions. And yet, again, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the number of fraudulent votes cast is even within an order of magnitude of the number of voters who would be effectively disenfranchised were those restrictions to pass. How can a phenomenon be so rampant and yet so unnoticeable/unreported?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess the same place norm knows that "black folks like getting their picture taken".

Did all right wingers miss Sarcasm Identification 101?

Identifying known proclivities of racial groups is hardly racism. Every season, vendors in big trucks drive through black neighborhoods selling as many watermelons as they can carry. Why? Because experience over decades tells them black folks will buy more watermelons than whites will.

Other known proclivities aren't meant to identify any weakness just the tendency toward certain activities. Does anyone think that the large number of black men in the NBA and NFL and the few in the NHL doesn't indicate a cultural proclivity to certain sports? Knowing and acknowledging these things is hardly racist.

There is some reluctance to being photographed among both white and black folks from the south.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Apparently there are plenty of "red" states who have felt the need to "look that hard," or at least to give the impression of having done so, to justify their advocacy for voter ID restrictions. And yet, again, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the number of fraudulent votes cast is even within an order of magnitude of the number of voters who ...[text shortened]... ose restrictions to pass. How can a phenomenon be so rampant and yet so unnoticeable/unreported?

Stuffing the ballot box with a few extra votes in Utah for a presidential election would be like stealing Monopoly money.

But it sure would have been nice if Florida had better ballots designedbefore the 2000 election.

It's never as easy to argue about voting rules after the election. You need to get the rules right before your state becomes the next 2000 Florida.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Apparently there are plenty of "red" states who have felt the need to "look that hard," or at least to give the impression of having done so, to justify their advocacy for voter ID restrictions. And yet, again, I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the number of fraudulent votes cast is even within an order of magnitude of the number of voters who ...[text shortened]... ose restrictions to pass. How can a phenomenon be so rampant and yet so unnoticeable/unreported?

Really close elections such as Florida 2000, and Chicago 1960, illustrate how a single close State within the margin of error, or withing the margin of fraud can disenfranchise the rest of the voters for the opposite candidate.

It is interesting that in both Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004, won by GW Bush Democrats were screaming about vote fraud. Now, after winning a couple of Presidential elections they want their frauds protected and claim there are none.

http://www.votescam.org/
A book from the sixties started this movement, and one of the conclusions from this was that vote counting ought never be done from a programmable device, nor one attached to a phone line or network. Interestingly, the Ohio 2004 argument was about touchscreen devices that were networked and programmable.

Both sides want to defend their devious methods claiming they don't exist. Elimination of cheating by any method, is the only way to avoid the disenfranchisement of voters on the other side.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually it's a summary of numerous peer reviewed studies.

" peer reviewed studies"

That means something in medicine or scientific areas where there isn't partisan agreement. In politics, your peers are people on your side who already agree with you.

Originally posted by normbenign
Really close elections such as Florida 2000, and Chicago 1960, illustrate how a single close State within the margin of error, or withing the margin of fraud can disenfranchise the rest of the voters for the opposite candidate.

It is interesting that in both Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004, won by GW Bush Democrats were screaming about vote fraud. Now, af ...[text shortened]... ting by any method, is the only way to avoid the disenfranchisement of voters on the other side.

I was just thinking, if an election is decided by 100,000 votes, who cares if a few thousand people choose not to get a picture ID to vote? And I imagine election scrutiny need not be extensive.

But if the election hinges on a few thousand votes a couple of things happen.

1. The incentive to cheat increases.
2. The incentive to vote increases.

All these hypothetical people who would be "disenfranchised" might actually have a little more incentive to get an ID in the weeks preceding the election as it starts to dawn on them that the election is going to be close.

If a couple of dozen people living in remote parts of Texas don't vote because it's too much trouble to get an ID, WHO CARES!!!??? Texas is going to be a red state anyway and perhaps these people are making a rational decision to not waste resources on a vote that won't matter.

But election laws need to be designed as if the expectation is a close race. If they're not designed to handle the close race, what the heck are they doing?

In California, Obama beat Romney by more than 3,000,000 votes in 2012. Democrats act like it's a crime against humanity if a few thousand people in California who barely care to vote (and rightfully so) have to endure a slight inconvenience to vote. Somehow Obama might be deprived of winning by 3,003,000 votes rather than 3,000,000.

The right way to plan an election is to assume you're going to be the Florida of 2000. You need to prepare to prevent cheating. The only reason you'd be against that is if you plan on being one of the ones doing the cheating.

Originally posted by techsouth
I was just thinking, if an election is decided by 100,000 votes, who cares if a few thousand people choose not to get a picture ID to vote? And I imagine election scrutiny need not be extensive.

But if the election hinges on a few thousand votes a couple of things happen.

1. The incentive to cheat increases.
2. The incentive to vote increases.

A ...[text shortened]... he only reason you'd be against that is if you plan on being one of the ones doing the cheating.

I care that someone's fundamental rights are being violated.

I know you don't because in these cases it helps the chance that people who's political ideology you support will be elected.

The idea that particular States are frozen in their voting patterns is absurd. Vermont used to be a reliable conservative state, now it is one of the most liberal. The opposite is true of a place like West Virginia. Election results are nowhere near as predictable as you seem to think esp. in the long run.

That's its OK to make it more difficult for people to vote just because you can and that if the election isn't close it's no harm, no foul is about as cynical and destructive of an idea towards democracy that I can think of.

Originally posted by normbenign
" peer reviewed studies"

That means something in medicine or scientific areas where there isn't partisan agreement. In politics, your peers are people on your side who already agree with you.

This is just more "holding your breath until you turn blue". The facts don't support my arguments, so let's ignore them.

It's common sense that if you make something more difficult, fewer people will do it. That social science research confirms that in the case of voter ID laws is hardly surprising. And it's hardly surprising that when reality clashes with your preconceived ideological biases, you are perfectly willing to jettison reality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I care that someone's fundamental rights are being violated.

I know you don't.

When someone cheats, the fundamental rights of all others are violated.

Originally posted by normbenign
When someone cheats, the fundamental rights of all others are violated.

This has nothing to do with cheating and you right wingers know it. The amount of voter fraud that requiring people to show certain types of ID would prevent is below infinitesimal. And the laughable way that they are so blatantly framed - as in the example I gave in Texas where a pistol permit is acceptable, but a college ID is not - really gives away the game.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The person the article is referring to was prosecuted. But 5 years in prison is an absurd sentence for the crime of voting in place of your sister in a coma. It's illegal, but doesn't deserve a prison sentence usually reserved for violent felons.

Snowden broke the law; what sentence do you think he should get?

I guess voter fraud should not be prosecuted according to you.