Block the Vote 2012

[Woodruff]

http://protectthepolls.com/Home_Page.html
This is not a joke, this is real.

Uh...wow. I don't know if that's some sort of a Democrat-sarcasm site or what. But if it's real, it's pretty disgusting. Actually, it's disgusting even if it's not real.

[Juan_Bottom]

I know right? I'm taken aback myself over that one.


obligatory something to go with comment -
Obama Warns Young Supporters About Republican Voter Suppression

[Phatscotty]

What you're talking about is that argument ad nazism or whatever it's called, and that's not my argument. I just find that it's easiest to dismiss the argument ad populum by reminding people that almost all the Germans consented to Hitler's takeover of Europe. It's the shortest route to tell people that just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make them right.

I thought I made this clear before but that's ok. It's easy to get the arguments mixed up online and in person.

And I would just remind you that you are comparing Hitler taking over Europe with showing your ID when you vote. It's completely dishonest, but that seems to be your thing lately. Not like any of the big dicks around here will give you any shit for it.....

Let me ask you honestly though...

1a) Do you think that people should need to register to vote? b) Is requiring people to register to vote also racist?
2a) Do you think that voters should have to tell the election judge their name and confirm the address so the judge can find their name and address in the voter rolls? 2b) Is the election judge asking for your name and verifying that you are a registered voter racist?
3) Are these people in the video racist? If no, why not?

[Woodruff]

What are you waiting for...yourself to answer the questions directed at you? Answer my questions as I have answered yours.

[Juan_Bottom]

WE'VE ALREADY BEEN OVER THAT


& that video is an argumentum ad populum yet again. You just keep repeating that type of argument when discussing voter ID.
And furthermore the video is no more proof that Voter ID isn't a racist program any more than it's proof that Black voters are the most informed of all demographics. The interviewer/producer are targeting a non-skeptical/non-inquisitive audience.

[thegreekdog]

Hey, don't bring me back into this. I already made my point by showing how Phatscotty is a hypocrit.

Let me refresh:

(1) Voter identification laws = more government spending; more government employees; more government waste; bigger government.
(2) Voter identification laws don't really do anything since, as was pointed out, there are probably 2 cases a year of voter fraud. As an aside, when 30% of the people in the country vote, voter fraud doesn't really matter.
(3) Phatscotty is for less government spending unless he agrees with whatever big government spending happens to be occurring (hey, just like Paul Ryan and Mittens).

/thread.

you don't sit and point at government spending when it's a legitimate function of government. I mean, that is about a stupid as saying we should not vote, because voting = more government spending, more government employees; more government waste; bigger government. Pretty stupid, huh?

Also, there are 200 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Minnesota since 2009 alone, more to follow. Why you are telling lies, idk, but if you just want to make me look bad, you should make sure to have a little factual information on what you speak about before you pull out your hypocrite schtick. Pretty stupid, huh?

Phatscotty is for less government, but that does not mean I think we should close all police offices, stop building all roads and bridges, or cease to spend money to hold elections. Pretty stupid, huh?

What data are you using?

In order to determine whether voter identification laws at a federal level are necessary, we need to do a few things:

(1) How many voter fraud convictions are there in a certain period of time?
(2) How many of these crimes could be stopped by voter identification laws?
(3) How much money would it cost to implement a voter identification system at the federal level?
(4) Is the cost of (3) worth the benefit of (2)? This (4) ignores, of course, whether voter identification laws are constitutional.

I've looked at the arguments on both sides (neither of which refer to (3) or (4) by the way). There seems to be conflicting data since both sides appear to have data that supports their arguments (witnesseth, for example, this thread - Phatbottom vs. Juanscotty). This makes me think that there is not a compelling state interest in voter identification (thus not constitutional) and that the price is more than the benefit.

[Juan_Bottom]

OMG GREEK
Phattscotty does not have any evidence to support his side. Witnesseth, when he posted it in this thread and it was immediately proven false. That's why he started using the argument ad populum. Get your shit together dude.

[BigBallinStalin]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

[thegreekdog]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

[BigBallinStalin]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

[Phatscotty]

Hey, don't bring me back into this. I already made my point by showing how Phatscotty is a hypocrit.

Let me refresh:

(1) Voter identification laws = more government spending; more government employees; more government waste; bigger government.
(2) Voter identification laws don't really do anything since, as was pointed out, there are probably 2 cases a year of voter fraud. As an aside, when 30% of the people in the country vote, voter fraud doesn't really matter.
(3) Phatscotty is for less government spending unless he agrees with whatever big government spending happens to be occurring (hey, just like Paul Ryan and Mittens).

/thread.

you don't sit and point at government spending when it's a legitimate function of government. I mean, that is about a stupid as saying we should not vote, because voting = more government spending, more government employees; more government waste; bigger government. Pretty stupid, huh?

Also, there are 200 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Minnesota since 2009 alone, more to follow. Why you are telling lies, idk, but if you just want to make me look bad, you should make sure to have a little factual information on what you speak about before you pull out your hypocrite schtick. Pretty stupid, huh?

Phatscotty is for less government, but that does not mean I think we should close all police offices, stop building all roads and bridges, or cease to spend money to hold elections. Pretty stupid, huh?

What data are you using?

In order to determine whether voter identification laws at a federal level are necessary, we need to do a few things:

(1) How many voter fraud convictions are there in a certain period of time?
(2) How many of these crimes could be stopped by voter identification laws?
(3) How much money would it cost to implement a voter identification system at the federal level?
(4) Is the cost of (3) worth the benefit of (2)? This (4) ignores, of course, whether voter identification laws are constitutional.

I've looked at the arguments on both sides (neither of which refer to (3) or (4) by the way). There seems to be conflicting data since both sides appear to have data that supports their arguments (witnesseth, for example, this thread - Phatbottom vs. Juanscotty). This makes me think that there is not a compelling state interest in voter identification (thus not constitutional) and that the price is more than the benefit.

Pretty much just the local newspapers and news. It's been an ongoing thing in my state since the election. It does not make national news, but actually things were SO bad in Minnesota in 2008 and 2010, I will bet at sometime Minnesota will be recognized as ground zero for Voter-ID. (Al Franken, George Soros, Moveon.org cough cough). To be clear, I do not view this issue as strictly on a cost basis. There is also the law being broken, and that is great for you and your state if it's not a problem, but it's a big f'n deal here. The Supreme court just gave it the go ahead. Does that mean it's right? not necessarily, but it is a judgement by those we entrust to judge, and I think the vote was 7-2 or 8-1....

I have been trying to think of the cost, but I wouldn't guess or even try to get into anything at the federal level. Voter ID is state level, and we are putting it into our Constitution hopefully with an 80% yes vote. It's just common sense. For the state level, it would cost people 6.50 at the most, and people who make under a certain amount will get their ID free. That will probably cost, I could only guess, out of 5 million people.....85% who already have an ID......80% of those who do not have an ID but will not get one mostly because they are 5 years old or because they have no intention of voting, but that wouldn't be normal with someone who manages to get by their entire life without ever needing an ID for anything....anyways, to guess that would cost $500,000? Of course there will be some transport costs too, but the government will also receive an unknown amount from people who pay their own 6.50 for their ID, but that can all only be guessed. The more important issues are what kind of system are the majority of states going to implement, such as a brand new digital database, or will they just require you to show an ID to verify your name and address on the voters roll, which we already do anyways, so the only cost I can think of in our case is the 1.5 calories you might burn reaching into your wallet to hand your ID to an election judge.

Do you have to show ID to register to vote in your state?

What do you think about sanctuary cities, as related to voting. Does your state have a sanctuary city for illegal aliens? Here, Minneapolis is a sanctuary city. Population of 400,000

How about recounts? Does your state have many?

The 2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota took place on November 4, 2008. After a legal battle lasting over eight months, Al Franken from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in one of the closest elections in the history of the Senate. Al Franken took his oath of office on July 7, 2009, more than half a year after the beginning of his term on January 3, 2009.[3]

When the initial count was completed on November 18, Franken was trailing Coleman by 215 votes.[4][5] This close margin triggered a mandatory recount.[6][7] After reviewing ballots that had been challenged during the recount and counting 953 wrongly rejected absentee ballots, the State Canvassing Board officially certified the recount results with Franken holding a 225-vote lead.[8][9][2]

On January 6, 2009, Coleman's campaign filed an election contest and on April 13, a three-judge panel dismissed Coleman's Notice of Contest and ruled that Franken had won the election by 312 votes.[1][10] Coleman’s appeal of the panel's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unanimously rejected on June 30,[11] and he conceded the election.[12] Al Franken was sworn in as the junior Senator from Minnesota on July 7, 2009.[13]

Welcome Al Franken.....final vote needed to pass Obamacare in the Senate. Not having Voter ID has consequences as well.

[thegreekdog]

I read your post and did not see any data or an explanation of how voter identification laws would assist.

[Symmetry]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

Well it was false anyway. You do know he's trolling you, right?

The article from the WSJ is here.

The 2000 number relates to allegations of voter fraud, and not fraudlent votes (not that BBS would tell you that).



The study indicates that virtually none of those allegations were examples of voter fraud.

[Woodruff]

To be clear, I do not view this issue as strictly on a cost basis.

Of course you don't. You NEVER do when it's something you like. You ALWAYS do when it's something you don't like.

The really serious problem with voter ID, as has been pointed out to you several times, is that it doesn't really do anything that isn't already being done, as far as background-check-wise.

[BigBallinStalin]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

Well it was false anyway. You do know he's trolling you, right?

The article from the WSJ is here.

The 2000 number relates to allegations of voter fraud, and not fraudlent votes (not that BBS would tell you that).



The study indicates that virtually none of those allegations were examples of voter fraud.

What's my position ITT, Symmetry?

[Phatscotty]

I read your post and did not see any data or an explanation of how voter identification laws would assist.

showing your ID can prove that you are who you say you are when you give your name to the election judge.

[thegreekdog]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

Well it was false anyway. You do know he's trolling you, right?

The article from the WSJ is here.

The 2000 number relates to allegations of voter fraud, and not fraudlent votes (not that BBS would tell you that).



The study indicates that virtually none of those allegations were examples of voter fraud.

I'm questioning whether you have any concept of what we are discussing. It appears you've taken the last several weeks and devoted them to following BBS around, nipping at his heels. So I'm going to pretend you didn't read my post and didn't respond.

[thegreekdog]

I read your post and did not see any data or an explanation of how voter identification laws would assist.

showing your ID can prove that you are who you say you are when you give your name to the election judge.

What is an election judge? Never heard of that.

One of the items in Minnesota (per your post above) is with respect to counting absentee ballots. How does voter identification fix that problem?

[Woodruff]

I read your post and did not see any data or an explanation of how voter identification laws would assist.

showing your ID can prove that you are who you say you are when you give your name to the election judge.

Not really - do you have any idea how many teens get access to fake IDs? If your common teen can do it, certainly those with more nefarious purposes can.

[Symmetry]

According to a WSJ article... a few days ago(?), there were about 2000 fraudulent votes for the past decade. Based on its conclusion, the author stated that most of those votes wouldn't even be prevented with the current voter ID policy.

Wall Street Journal? That's a liberal rag!

Seriously though, that's what I was basing my argument on.

Well it was false anyway. You do know he's trolling you, right?

The article from the WSJ is here.

The 2000 number relates to allegations of voter fraud, and not fraudlent votes (not that BBS would tell you that).



The study indicates that virtually none of those allegations were examples of voter fraud.

I'm questioning whether you have any concept of what we are discussing. It appears you've taken the last several weeks and devoted them to following BBS around, nipping at his heels. So I'm going to pretend you didn't read my post and didn't respond.

I do, provided the missing source, and read your post. Where's the beef? The article didn't say what he told you it said. It wasn't even hard to find.

[thegreekdog]

I read the article before I responded to Phatscotty. I didn't care what BBS said in his post. Both BBS and I are arguing against Phatscotty's premise that voter identification laws are necessary.

[Victor Sullivan]

So I'd like to know where you got the notion...
Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion...

To block the vote, don't block the vote baby,
Block the vote, don't tip the vote over,
Block the vote, don't block the vote baby,
Block the voooooooote...

-Sully

[BigBallinStalin]

I read the article before I responded to Phatscotty. I didn't care what BBS said in his post. Both BBS and I are arguing against Phatscotty's premise that voter identification laws are necessary.

Necessary?

[Phatscotty]

I think he says 200 convictions in Minnesota, what I referred to a couple pages eariler


Got a couple hours? Let's watch this one together

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't have a couple of hours. You've had a couple of pages and have only proved that you haven't even fact-checked your sources. The bulk of the cases involved same day registration.
Voter ID would be useless, as is shortening the length of time that polling stations are open in Black communities.