Voter ID

Voter ID, Suppression Fail

If voter ID laws were created to suppress minority voting, they're actually not doing that.

|

VoterFraudSign
ClearChannel

"This was a racist attack on our sacred right to vote," North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber declared earlier this week. Barber was denouncing some recent changes to North Carolina's election laws, which are being challenged in the federal court case NAACP vs. McCrory. The changes, Barber said, are "the worst voter suppression law we've seen since the 1960s."

Among other things, the new North Carolina law eliminated same-day voter registration, cut back early voting, and ended pre-registration of eligible high school students. But the main objection to the changes involves the requirement that voters show photo identification at polling places. In its brief, the NAACP argues that African Americans are "disproportionately" affected by this requirement. The brief also claims that the new laws were "enacted with the intention of suppressing the number of votes cast by African-Americans."

My general view is that voting should be made easier, although as we'll see, there is precious little evidence that it makes any significant difference in electoral results. I also don't have much regard for the idea that we need tighter voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

But if the intent of the new laws really is to suppress minority group voting, it's not likely to work. There has been a lot of academic research recently on the effects of stricter voter ID requirements, and—contrary to Barber's apocalyptic statements—they don't seem to have much of an impact on minority turnout at all.

Take "The Politics of Race and Voter ID Laws in the States: The Return of Jim Crow?," a 2013 study published in the Political Research Quarterly. In it, political scientists Rene Rocha and Tetsuya Matsubayashi find that states in which Republicans hold a majority in the legislature and the governorship are more likely to adopt strict voter ID laws. (And so it was in North Carolina when the new laws were adopted.) Then they look at how changes in electoral rules may have affected voter turnout by comparing election results before and after voter ID law changes in 49 states between 1980 and 2010.

"Our primary explanatory variables, photo ID and nonphoto ID laws, have no statistically discernible relationship with the probability that whites, blacks, and Latinos voted in the general elections between 1980 and 2010 except that the nonphoto ID law has a positive and significant relationship with Latino turnout," they find. "In short, more stringent ID requirements for voting have no deterring effect on individual turnout across different racial and ethnic groups."

Rocha and Matsubayashi speculate that any suppression effects the new laws may induce are being more than counteracted by get-out-the-vote efforts by partisan organizations that aim to mobilize minorities. The two also find that "universal mail voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and early in-person voting, have no systematic effect on turnout when racial and ethnic groups are analyzed separately."

In another recent paper, three political scientists from Berkeley and Columbia report the results of a field experiment involving voters in Appalachian Tennessee and Virginia matched for income, age, and minority-status in the 2012 general election. They also targeted voters in predominately black neighborhoods in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Roanoke, Virginia. Tennessee requires a photo ID to vote whereas Virginia requires a nonphoto ID, e.g., utility bills and bank statements showing the voter's address. The researchers mailed three different postcards to selected voters. One reminded them to vote; the second warned that voter ID requirements had changed ("warning"); the third warned that the ID requirements had changed but also explained how to get the appropriate IDs ("help"). A control group received no postcards.

The researchers reported that both white and black voters sent the reminder postcard voted at essentially no greater rate than the controls who did not receive postcards. On the other hand, both the warning and help postcards apparently boosted turnout by both white and black voters by around one percent. The researchers conclude. "We find no evidence that [stricter voter ID requirements] have a net demobilizing effect."

In a 2015 study that is currently under review, Lindsay Nielson—a political scientist at the University of San Diego—parses the effects of stricter voter ID laws on the voting patterns of the young, the elderly, the poor, and racial minorities. Using data on 100,000 respondents in Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, Nielson examines how voter ID laws affected turnout in both primary and general elections in 2010 and 2012.

Nielson finds that stricter voter ID laws do change the probability that someone will vote in primary elections, but not in general elections. In primaries, she reports, whites and minorities vote at approximately similar rates; turnout declines for people of all races from 43 to 31 percent, as ID requirements become stricter. Turnout among voters over age 65 declines from 57 to 48 percent in primary elections; among those ages 35 to 64, it drops from 42 to 34 percent; the young vote decreases from 30 to 22 percent. Income makes no difference; turnout declines about 10 percent both for people who make more than $40,000 per year and those who make less. She found similar results when the income cutoff was set at $20,000 per year.

General elections are another matter. Nielson finds that "there is little evidence that racial minorities are less likely than whites to vote when states institute voter identification requirements." The elderly vote drops a few percentage points when IDs are required, but the turnout of middle-aged and young voters does not change. There is also "no statistically significant gap in estimated turnout [between high-income and low-income voters] when the identification law becomes stricter."

Ultimately Lindsey reckons that her "findings demonstrate that the evidence that voter identification laws demobilize potential voters is not as strong as opponents of the laws might wish and that the controversy over these laws may be exaggerated." Whatever lawmakers' intentions may be when imposing more stringent voter ID requirements—to honorably prevent fraud or to dishonorably suppress votes—the data suggest that the requirements are a big waste of time and money.

NEXT: Lefties Bash Lefty PAC for Bashing Kochs on Criminal Justice

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing suppresses voting more than a shitty slate of candidates.

    1. You would think…

    2. NYC agrees with you.

    3. Approval Voting solves that problem.

    4. But if we could suppress shitty voters from ever being allowed to vote…

  2. So… I was a teller at a Credit Union for 5 years. Not once did I ever have someone come in try to have me pull up an account that wasn’t theirs. That’s gotta be really rare, so under prog logic, I shouldn’t have bothered checking ID.

    1. If you routinely ask for ID, it suppresses the events that cause you to ask for ID thus proving you don’t need to ask for ID.

    2. If you routinely ask for ID, it suppresses the events that cause you to ask for ID thus proving you don’t need to ask for ID.

    3. My bank routinely requires ID when I want to deposit money into my account. I have yet to figure out why anyone is harmed if someone wants to give me money by pretending to be me.

      1. Maybe it’s never happened in real life, but I’ve read multiple books where somebody was framed for taking bribes by somebody else depositing to his account.

  3. But voter ID laws will always be most valuable as a distraction from real issues for partisan morons.

    1. That would be fine, if the rest of us didn’t have to hear about it nonstop.

  4. My support of strickter voting laws is based largely on who screams when they are proposed. If Al,Sharpton is against something, for example, my instinct is that it deserves at least serious consideration…..

    1. Given what-all ID is required for these days, I want Al to esplain why he isn’t campaigning to make government issue every black person a free photo ID.

      1. Because government will already issue every black person a free (or so low-cost as to be negligible) photo ID. That still requires them to go to the effort to show up and get their photo taken.

    2. Ditto for Barber, who sees EVERYTHING through a ‘we’re black and we’re hurt by that’ filter.

      Is he losing weight, though? I thought I detected some vestigial neck appearing between his head and his torso…

  5. “But the main objection to the changes involves the requirement that voters show photo identification at polling places. In its brief, the NAACP argues that African Americans are “disproportionately” affected by this requirement.”

    Why is the NAACP so racist against black people?

    1. They call them “colored” right in their own title. 1950’s much, NAACP?

      1. NAAAAP just looks weird, though.

        1. I need a naaaap.

          1. So there you have it: Waffles wants to bring back slavery.

    2. ^^My thoughts exactly. Why is it that the NAACP believes that the African American community as a group is so much more incapable of obtaining photo ID than other races?

      1. I would almost guarantee there is quote out there by some liberal somewhere comparing asking for photo id to slavery. Progs think minoritys are all children, even the minority progs.

      2. I thought it was cause only their eyes and toofies…NO, I AM NOT GOING “LITTLE RASCALS*” ON THIS THREAD.

        * when they had the play in the basement and turned off the lights, all you could see was eyes and teeth FOR SOME PEOPLE….if ya know what I’m sayin’…… /30’s racism

      3. You’ve heard of those gangs of skinhead Nazis hanging out in front of the DMV driving away the black people. What? You haven’t heard of that?

    3. Mustn’t that also mean that African Americans are disproportionately affected by gun laws that require valid ID, background checks, etc.?

      1. Enough with your whitesplaining, already.

      2. Hmmm…gun registration is racist. You might be on to something.

      3. “It’s politically correct to discriminate against people who think they want to buy guns ’cause guns are icky and everyone should have the equal right not to have one.”

  6. “Confound you, Ron Bailey, your bourgeois ‘facts’ about voter turnout are suppressing my hate-boner against those Racist Republicans!”

    1. You pressed your what against who, now?

    2. That’s gotta be at least 3 Hail Mary’s and an Our Father.

    3. “hate-boner”

      A great band name guaranteed in each and every thread!

  7. I should be able to walk into the Oval Office and start signing or vetoing (which I would, in most cases, prefer to do) laws anytime I want. Why should I have to prove I am President of the United States?

    1. POTUS fraud is so rare that there’s no point in protecting against it!

      1. Unless of course, the SCOTUS is involved, and then things get all apoplectic over in DNC-ville

        1. actually its POS-TUS AND SCROT TUS

      2. “POTUS fraud is so rare that there’s no point in protecting against it!”

        POTUS *fraud* happens every day – successful POTUS impersonation, not so much.

        1. Obama’s been trying to impersonate an actual president for years now. Granted, he hasn’t been very successful.

  8. Chicago ’60

    Damned Teathuglihadists!11!! Even 50 years ago they were trying to suppress the….wait….

  9. Speaking of voter suppression, if you live in Seattle, it’s very likely that by this time next year, you will have monies forcibly removed from your kids’ mouths so you can fund some douchebags campaign.

    They’re calling it “democracy vouchers”:

    An initiative that would raise property taxes in order to create publicly financed election campaigns for Seattle city offices has qualified for the Emerald City’s November ballot.

    The so-called “Honest Elections Seattle” measure would impose a 10-year, $30 million property tax levy, puny by such standards as the gargantuan $930 million Move Seattle levy. The money would pay for a system in which citizens would be given “democracy vouchers” to invest in their candidates of choice.

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat…..ll-ballot/

    1. The big one can’t come soon enough.

      1. The big one can’t come soon enough.

        Yeah and if they could pair it with a simultaneous meteor strike to eliminate the survivors…well that would just be the cherry on the sundae!

    2. I am starting to think this can’t come soon enough. Seattle has become too retarded to live. We must destroy the city to save it.

      http://www.weather.com/science…..e-cascadia

      1. In before John.

        1. kinky

          1. It is the 21st Century you know.

      2. Everyone in Seattle is like that. /goes and hides from Episiarch

        1. It is not like Episiarch has done anything but confirm that stereotype.

          1. True. But he does seem to think that it has other characteristics that justify its existence.

            1. He just says that because he’s completely adapted to it as his hunting ground. He doesn’t want to have to move and learn all new set of skills.

            2. He lives in a giant hamster ball and is, thus, immune from quakes and tsunamis. Once he lava-proofs it, he’ll also be immune from Rainier.

              1. Just watch, though. He’ll open it up for his weed and coke delivery guy just in time to see the pyroclastic flow bearing down on them.

                1. That’s like his kryptonite, yes.

              2. What, the beer? No one is immune to Rainer, it will destroy you next morning.

          2. It’s actually quite scary. A major earthquake there would unleash destruction like nowhere else in North America. The resulting tsunami would be worse than the quake, and, on top of that, Rainier may destroy much of what’s left with a grand finale mudslide.

            While I deplore the general politics in Seattle, I have friends there and used to work for a Seattle-based company. There are worse people in the world.

            1. The great things about natural disasters is that they don’t care what you think, so you don’t have to feel guilty. Or at least that was how it worked before we had to ponder whether every hurricane was caused by global warming.

              That said, it will be absolutely awful when it does inevitably happen some day and I’d be happy not to see it in my lifetime..

              1. There’s always Yellowstone. If it blows, we all go down.

              2. Everybody knows that Katrina was caused by Dick Cheney’s racist HAARP machine…

            2. It’s a Sodom and Gomorrah thing.

            3. There are worse people in the world.

              I live here. You wanna rethink that statement?

          3. Even if it wasn’t Seattle he’d go off on my “regionism”.

    3. I toyed around with the idea of public financing for campaigns for about two seconds in my head a long time back before I realized how the two parties would abuse it, and it would squeeze out competition.

      The height of naivety is thinking politicians want money out of politics.

      1. It’s an ipso facto violation of free speech.

        Forcing me to support a candidate against my will— I can’t even find the words to describe how massive a violation of my free speech rights that is.

        1. Yes, that, too. It’s as dumb as mandatory voting.

        2. That’s why you get a voucher. Vouchers, great for school choice, great for politician choice.

          /sarc

    4. Honest Elections? Hey, that sounds like a good idea. I mean, there is no way that anything could go wrong, no way that it would fuel corruption. I am confident there will not be any theft from that fund. They did name it ‘honest’ didn’t they?

      1. “Sorry, you must choose from either Team A or Team B.”

    5. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck yoooooooooouuuuuuuuu is my response

    6. So… how long do think that’ll last once someone sues to try to obtain money for their campaign or to defund someone else’s?

    7. That’s actually not bad, as long as I can give it to any candidate of my choice.

      If you’re not an anarchist, elections are a credible use of taxpayer money.

      1. Can I give it to myself? I’m a write-in candidate, clearly.

      2. Publicly financed elections are a circle jerk amonf the politically well connected. Who do you think politicians and government employees funnel public election funds to?

    8. Move Seattle? Where are they going to move it? Hopefully far away.

  10. I also don’t have much regard for the idea that we need tighter voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

    Even before I go read their methodology, I find it dubious that they’ll be able to prove the rarity of something that can’t be documented because we’re not recording the actual identity of anyone who votes.

    1. The paper linked is preaching before it even lays out the methodology they plan to use to gather data. My bias alarms are all going off.

      1. And now that I’ve read the methodology, I’m laughing. An opt-in Internet survey of of 1000 people who claim to be US voters 18+. Well, for one, votes by someone ineligable to vote (felon, illegal immigrant, etc) would not be noticed using that method, even if you assume your population is actually what it claims to be, and that’s minor league vote fraud. One ballot stuffer can cast a few hundred or thousand votes, so talking to a thousand honest people would easily miss that.

        1. “Extra, extra! Opt-in survey of criminal behavior fails to uncover criminal behavior!”

    2. , I find it dubious that they’ll be able to prove the rarity of something that can’t be documented because we’re not recording the actual identity of anyone who votes.

      This.

      1. I’m not so sure about this. In PA, we register to vote as we get our driver’s licenses. Our driver’s licenses not only have our photos, but a bunch of demographic information tied to them.

        When I go to my polling place, I have to give them my name, they look me up in “the book” and have me sign next to my name, signifying I am voting.

        Seems to me it wouldn’t be too difficult to cross-reference those that have signed the books with the state DMV records.

        1. Seems to me it wouldn’t be too difficult to cross-reference those that have signed the books with the state DMV records.

          I sign my neighbor’s name.

          1. The name you sign is immaterial, it’s the printed name the signature appears next to that notifies the poll worker and presumably the state who voted. It’s not whose name you sign, but where that signature is placed.

        2. Does anyone actual cross-reference?

          Plus, a similar setup was used in New York, and I turned out to be registered in two counties for the same election (I only voted once).

          Last time, despite the books not changing, the pollsters seemed downright angry when I had my ID out.

        3. Why is voter registration not racist?

          1. Or mandatory voting? Your ID must be verified to pull that off.

            1. Mandatory voting is such a terrible idea. Our votes are diluted enough. Do you really want to further dilute your vote with a horde of simian mouthbreathers who couldn’t even be bothered to vote without being forced there? It’s the way to guarantee that the electorate’s voting decisions have all the reasoned depth of an “American Idol’ competition (not that I’m saying we’re doing much better than that, but still).

        4. Two problems, Chevy:

          That’s not the only way to register. If there are other ways to register that don’t require adequate verification of identity, then you can have fraudulent registrations.

          The fact that your identity was verified when you registered does not mean that nobody can vote under your name. That’s what voter ID is supposed to do; confirm that someone actually is who they claim to be, at the point of voting.

    3. “I also don’t have much regard for the idea that we need tighter voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.”

      Goddammit Ron, how old are you? 12?

      1. I would think that real voter fraud is the recent push in places like NYC to pad the Democratic party with illegal alien voters.

        1. This is how I would do it.

          1) Have early voting.

          2) Have unions pick up all the culinary workers in buses to go vote.

          3) Go to a friendly polling station on a week-day during work hours.

          No one going to see nothing, and the workers will be scared to lose their jobs and assume the union wouldn’t do anything illegal.

          Do the same with Somalis in Minnesota, except maybe drive them to multiple locations.

    4. There have been more than a few absolutely clear cases of vote fraud in small towns where the number of votes cast exceeds the town’s population. In one case the “loser” for an office lost by more than the population of the town.

      Just shows that “Vote fraud? No such thing!” fraudsters are really bad at math.

  11. Gee Ron, it is almost as if minorities are just like upstanding white people and have jobs and lives and bank accounts and do things that require having an ID.

    Joe from Lowell once claimed that these laws are racist because people in immigrant communities often don’t have IDs. I mean everyone can come here legally on a VISA and get citizenship and thus the right to vote without any kind of photo ID. Everyone knows that.

    1. Ha! Yeah, if you qualify for a visa, once you get past being finger printed and photographed multiple times, the interviews, extensive background checks by your original country and Interpol, and the medical exams, vaccinations, and chest x-rays. Not to mention the out of pocket expense for everything.

      I’m sure they throw all that data away, so that once you’re a citizen, you can vote anonymously in every election.

      Your friend should get out more..

      1. I should admit, unlibertarian as it is, that I’m not necessarily against a screening process like that for immigration.

        But then I also think that if you actually want to maintain an honest democracy, some form of insurance that voters are real and only vote once is probably the most (only?) legitimate reason for having IDs.

        Flame on.

      2. Your friend should get out more..

        Joe from Lowell is hardly anybody’s friend around here. He’s a longstanding troll who more goes under the handle Jack and Ace…

  12. It’s completely reasonable and rational and consistent with the practice in almost every other context to require identification for voting. Nothing screams to me more that the left does engage in some level of voter fraud (or improper voter manipulation) than this stupid issue. I’ll grant that the useful idiots that defend the attacks on voter ID likely have no knowledge or thought of fraud, but the people pushing this crap sure the fuck do.

    1. If someone asked to see my photo ID before allowing me to vote, I would show them a photo of my balls.

      1. Do you often carry photographs of your balls with you, or do you bust out the “balls album” whenever you go to your polling station?

        1. Everyone has a photo of their balls… smartphones, yo!

          1. Exactly. And even on the off chance that I didn’t happen to have a photo of my balls in my library, I can use my phone to take one and present it instantly.

            1. Why would you take a photo? Why wouldn’t you just pants yourself right there and say, “I’ve got your voter ID right here.”

              1. That’s only effective if there’s some kind of window or clear partition between me and the election official that I can press my balls against.

                1. Up close, they always look like landscape.

            2. Same-day voter-balls ID is ripe for fraud.

          2. Post-op trans women don’t, Paul. Stop being so cisnormative.

      2. I thought felons couldn’t vote?

    2. And the avenue for fraud is so obvious. You use your access to social networks and your volunteers to collect a list of names of people who are not planning to vote and track the obituaries to create a list of dead voters. You then hire people to go out and vote in their names. IT is a foolproof system. Even when a few of those people change their minds and show up, they will just blame it on the poll workers screwing up. “Oh you must have marked off the wrong name”.

      Organizations like ACORN have used this method to create tens of thousands of fraudulent votes. And there is no way to stop it without voter ID. This is why the Democrats are so against voter ID laws.

      1. Yeah. But just corrupting poll officials and stuffing ballots is so much more efficient.

        1. But so much harder to get away with. This is much easier to get away with and much harder to detect.

          1. I have to wonder how hard it is to get away with in some places given the stories I’ve heard about polling places in some practically one-party cities.

          2. It wasn’t an issue when Dino got screwed in the 2004 Washington Governor’s race. They just kept finding more boxes of previously misplaced ballots in Team Blue King County. Then you appeal to the election board, which was 2 Dems and 1 Rep. Guess how that went.

            1. Same thing with Al Franken in Minnesota. If my memory serves, during the recount somebody found a full ballot box in the back of a pickup on the deeply blue Iron Range. That got him in.

              Let me know if I’m wrong.

  13. My thinking about voter ID laws has changed recently because of the aggravating process the BATF and federal authorities demand I go through to purchase a firearm. If I have to ask permission to exercise my right, it isn’t a right it’s become a privilege. The government can reasonably run a check on whether I’ve been adjudicated to be mentally ill or a violent felon, but otherwise it infringes on my rights to COMPEL me to sign under perjury a form that “proves” that I can own a firearm.
    Then it struck me that voter laws are the same thing. If you believe voting is a right then other than registering and there swearing you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to prove you are the person you claim to be. It is the government’s responsibility to discover and prosecute voting violations, not mine. Now, I firmly support serious fines and penalties for voter fraud, but they have to prove it without my compelled testimony. Otherwise lets stop pretending we even have “rights”.
    Just my thought on this.

    1. *ding*ding*ding*

      The Voter-ID-is-racist canard goes right out the window on logic.

      It has been explained to me, carefully and with words even I could understand that “that which is more difficult to do is racist because minorities are poor and marginalized, and therefore have a harder time executing these administrative tasks”

      Aside: The person telling me that minorities aren’t smart or as capable as white people to perform these tasks was accusing me of racism… but that’s another discussion.

      Either way, the glaring implication of the logic above is that if true– that which is more difficult to do is racist– then all firearm licensing, background, carry permits, business licensing– or almost any licensing scheme is racist, as it raises the logistical bar.

      And as someone who has his carry permit, I can personally tell you that getting a carry permit was far more technically difficult, arduous and expensive than simply getting a simple non-driver ID card from the DMV.

      aside: I see a shitload of people from east Africa wearing headscarves and driving around in my neighborhood, so I guess a driver’s license (adequate for voting) is racist?

    2. That is absurd. I have a right to the money in my bank account. The bank’s requiring me to show an ID to get it doesn’t infringe on my rights. It protects me from people stealing my money. Same thing here. Having me show an ID just keeps my vote from being canceled out by a fraudulent one. My right to vote is only good if it occurs in a fair election. Without a fair election my right to vote is meaningless just like my ownership of the money in my bank account is meaningless if anyone can take it.

      1. “The bank’s requiring me to show an ID to get it doesn’t infringe on my rights.”

        Not if the bank decides to do it all on their own, no. Just like a gun dealer who asks for your ID isn’t infringing if they just want to know who you are. The moment that act becomes required by law then it is infringing on your rights.

        If government mandates it, it’s against your rights. If a private institution does it, it’s not (unless they broke your contract).

        1. That is an absurd distinction. By your logic, the government requiring me to show an ID to get my tax return violates my rights. I mean it owes me the money right? I have a right to it just as much as I have a right to vote. But its the government and the government can’t require me to show an ID to exercise my right so it can’t require me to show an ID to get the money it owes me.

          FAIL.

          1. Taxes violate your rights.

            You have no right to choose my oppressor. If you want to say that you have the “right to vote”, you are likely claiming a positive right… And they cannot coexist with negative rights.

            I suppose that if we indeed have the “right to vote”, then that means we could vote for those who… I don’t know what government would do without violating NAP so I’m stumped. I honestly don’t care who gets elected if they don’t violate NAP. The problem is, people think that their “right to vote” trumps NAP wherever their pet issue is concerned.

            To be more narrow in my opinion, I was initially arguing that if it happens in the market, it doesn’t violate your rights. If the government makes it happen, it does.

          2. I’m a tax accountant, and in all my years, I’ve never had a single client that had to show their ID to get their tax refund.

            FAIL.

            1. You mean they didn’t have to put their social security number and current address on their tax forms?

              Interesting.

        2. No, John is correct. Ensuring fair elections does not “infringe on your rights.” It safeguards them.

          1. Maybe, maybe not. It is quite possible for a fair election to put someone in office who will shit all over your rights.

            1. Indeed, a benevolent dictator is preferable to a malignant legislature. But benevolent dictators are rare and fleeting while malignant legislatures can be constrained. Furthermore, a corrupted election is not very likely to result in a better politician getting elected. So we live with democracy and try to keep it honest.

              1. yeah. That’s pretty much why I think some measure of democracy is overall a good thing. But seeing how much regard most of the population has for my rights, I’m not ready to declare that elections safe guard my rights. I hope they do, but there is no guarantee. A lot of people honestly and genuinely don’t want to safeguard my rights and many of them vote.

          2. This is so obvious I don’t see how anyone can argue against it with a straight face. It’s bad enough with the people who are legitimately elected. How much worse is it when someone willing to rig elections gets in power?

    3. What is “the right to vote”?

      Is it just the right to show up at a polling place and cast a ballot?
      Or is it also the right to have your ballot counted honestly?

      If the former, then we can skip the whole counting thing and just make up the numbers after the polls close. Your “right to vote” was honored, no questions asked.

      If the latter, then the state can and should take all reasonable measure to prevent fraudulent activity. There is nothing particularly onerous about requiring identification at the polling place.

      1. Details, details, and all those words, they sound racist.

      2. That is an excellent way to put it Kbolino.

      3. Put it this way:

        You have the right to cast your vote. You don’t have the right to cast someone else’s vote.

        The government has an obligation to protect everyone’s rights. And everyone’s right to cast a vote in any given election is contingent on nobody else violating their rights by casting their vote for them.

        In order to protect your right to vote, the government has to check IDs to make sure nobody violates your right to vote by, effectively, stealing it from you.

      4. I would argue that whenever you are compelled to jump through an unreasonable hoop to exercise a right (a natural right versus a social entitlement) it is being infringed upon. I would agree that providing an ID is not onerous and I would be willing to choose to go along with that to make ensure people feel confident in the process being honest and representative. But I agree to that. But that doesn’t mean somebody in my voting area who knows I am misrepresenting myself can’t bust me.
        I agree to give the FBI my name and social security number to check THEIR database of violent felons and mentally dangerous people, but if I have to it’s infringement.
        The bigger issue is that we are foolish to think that we are free people with liberty and rights if we operate on the assumption that some other citizen is uncomfortable with me not complying with their expectations when I choose to exercise any natural right. Too many people in this country have scant understanding of what the difference is between a right and a privilege, or that our rights do not come from the government’s largess. These kinds of justifications only perpetuate the notion that rights are subject to citizen or government approval.
        The bank example is just silly. That’s a private contract and the money ISN’T yours if you understand how banking laws work. Plus, I have never heard of a “right to deposit and withdraw” cash.

        1. Actually, the bank analogy makes a lot of sense, even though the underlying mechanism (constitution vs contract) is different. Both institutions (the government and the bank) have made a promise, one to honor your vote and one to honor your deposit. In elections, this means:

          1. Votes must be counted honestly;
          2. Only the candidate who received the most votes may hold office.

          In banking this means:

          1. Deposits made by the account holder must go toward balances;
          2. Only the account holder may make a withdrawal against the account.

          The analogy does break down a bit, with interest, fractional reserve banking, and powers of attorney muddying the water on the banking side, but the basic concept of fidelity is still there.

          1. I’d put it differently, kbo:

            Voter ID is necessary to prevent your vote from being stolen from you.

            You only have one in any given election. If someone falsely claims to be you and casts that vote before you do, its been stolen from you.

            The government has an affirmative obligation to protect your right to vote. Its hard to see how it can do that if it can’t prevent your vote from being stolen.

    4. I’m with you Greg. But it is pretty low on my list of things to worry about. And it’s worse in teh gun buying situation than in voting. Being able to defend yourself is a real, natural right. Voting is a made up political right which is denied to lots of people for lots of reasons.

    5. But purchasing a firearm and voting (or the process of getting the required document to be eligible to vote) is apples and oranges.

      My mom can speak enough English to identify herself and ask where the bathroom is, but she has a photo ID. Waters bills are dime a dozen. She has a passport. Ballots written in her language come election years, and there might be personnel at the voting stations that speak Asian languages. So if we ever moved to a voter ID state, she’d be covered.

      Gun laws are all over the place and some states even require training. And guns are expensive. Voter identification require things you already have and use in your life. No fingerprints, no separate background checks (every time you vote), etc. My mom can vote by herself, she’ll NEVER be able to buy a gun by herself.

      The argument against voter ID is the same as argument for the post office. “Well, there are thousands of people living in secluded countryside with no internet, how will these people get their mail? Private alternatives to the post office will ignore them because they can’t make money”

      Most black people have picture IDs and water bills. That’s what’s being proven by this article.

    6. Voting is not a natural right, like the right to bear arms. It’s an artifact of the state, in order for the government to maintain legitimacy it must be decided by those it governs.

      Everyone, worldwide has the right to bear arms, and free speech. Not everyone worldwide has the right to vote in U.S. Elections. Just as the Chinese can’t vote in our elections, we couldn’t vote in theirs. California has a responsibility to ensure those voting for its government are Californians, and the U.S. has the same responsibility.

    7. In most states you can still by a firearm from a private individual without a background check. Exercise your right that way.

      I actually believe voting is a privilege not a right. The history of voting in the U.S. backs that up. The founders were totally comfortable with denying the vote to all sorts of people, while establishing rights to free speech, religion, keeping and bearing arms, etc.

      You can have your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness protected without ever getting to vote on it. In fact, the closer to a pure democracy our system gets, the more tyrannical it gets — the tyranny of the majority.

  14. Voter ID laws help improve people’s perception of the fairness of the electoral process. Many people here don’t venerate democracy, neither do I. But if we have the democratic form of government, then we should make an effort to ensure that the process is not corrupted and that people believe that it’s not corrupted. In many countries it’s done with voter IDs, in others with purple fingers. In the US there are millions of people who suspect that their political opponents would cheat if they get a chance. If voter ID laws alleviate some of their concerns, then these laws are a good thing. Minority voting is not the only thing we should care about.

    1. In the US there are millions of people who suspect that their political opponents would cheat if they get a chance. If voter ID laws alleviate some of their concerns, then these laws are a good thing.

      Agreed that perception/faith in the process is important, but I’d argue that spoiled cabbage should be thrown at the politicians who are trying to driver voters to the poll by making it into an issue in the first place.

  15. I do not agree that it should be easier to register and to vote. When I turned 18 (in 1989 and pre motor-voter) I had to go to the county courthouse to complete the forms. They weren’t mailed, I wasn’t pre-registered and the DMV didn’t have any assistance to provide. I had to make the effort to do it.

    When we use every government transaction as an opportunity to register people to vote we are not weeding out those who simply don’t care. If people have to make a positive effort to register and have the real threat of their registration being cancelled if they skip voting after a period of time, then we will have people who are (hopefully) more engaged and better informed showing up at the polls.

    Setting aside the ample opportunities for fraud the Motor Voter process brought to life, it also significantly raised the number of “low information voters” whose participation in the system has been nothing to get excited about.

    1. It is if you are a Democrat.

      1. Not at all. I simply would prefer to have voters be committed and informed. They may not agree with me but if they are informed then so be it.

        A good example are all of the ballot initiatives you will see on a local ballot for bond issues for school renovations or park building etc…Many times I do not vote on those questions as I am not informed so I don’t know what the right answer is.

        When we swell the voter rolls with people who have no idea about issues…have given little to no thought about their beliefs we are asking them to guess when they are in the booth which does not end up well for us as a locality, state or country…

        I have the same general feeling every time I hear about “where the undecideds are breaking” in election coverage. How can you get to the end of a statewide or nationwide campaign and not know? If you are undecided you shouldn’t be voting…if you haven’t examined the issues enough to know by then you are a detriment to the entire process.

        1. And when you’re stuck pulling the lever for the giant douchebag or the shit sandwich, it may be a game day decision.

          1. Ironically, the elections must subject to fraud and probably warranting the most scrutiny are local elections, when there are often (but not always) real choices.

          2. If those are your choices and you are not sure then don’t vote – that is all I am saying.

    2. And when you register people who don’t care and forget they registered that day, it becomes that much harder to clean them off the voter rolls when they move or die. When you combine not requiring an ID requirement with bloated voter rolls that include large numbers of people who are dead or have moved away, you create a tremendous opportunity for fraud.

    3. i agree with that. Too many people vote, not too few. We’ve been so inundated with the bullshit about how voting is your civic responsibility that people who really have no idea what they are voting for feel like they are obliged to vote and think they have done something good if they do.
      You aren’t obliged to be concerned with politics. And if you aren’t, you shouldn’t vote.

  16. Every racial demographic in the country supports voter ID laws to include blacks. Even a majority of Democratic voters support voter ID laws. Some polls have placed black support for voter ID laws over 60%.

    So, black people support a law that is supposed to suppress their vote according to a bunch of white progs and the corrupt NAACP.

    But look at this study! 73% of whites supported voter ID laws after seeing a picture of a black person voting compared to just 67% before!
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..le-voting/

    When so many on the far left are against something that the majority of every demographic supports, it raises the question as to why. The simplest answer is these assholes really do stuff ballot boxes.

    1. So, black people support a law that is supposed to suppress their vote according to a bunch of white progs and the corrupt NAACP.

      False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness! False conciousness!

    2. “The simplest answer is these assholes really do stuff ballot boxes.”

      No. Shit.

      1. When you have precincts that submitted more votes than registered voters actually eligible to vote in that precinct, it should make you wonder.

        When you have precincts that voted over 90, 95% for one candidate, it should make you wonder.

        When there is no credible, plausible reason to oppose something, but people do anyway, it should make you wonder.

        Occam’s razor says that the opposition to voter ID is the protection of voter fraud schemes.

    3. I think that perhaps more common is Democrat activists who register people who they sincerely believe “ought” to be able to vote; illegals, felons, and so on. And they are OUTRAGED that somebody proposes to catch them at it.

      Keep in mind, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives are mostly well meaning goddamned fools. The leaders are evil twits, but the rank and file just can’t THINK. So they are totally fine with breaking laws they don’t like, are offended if they might get caught, and get all rightious about laws. they think YOU should obey.

  17. In response to voter fraud not occurring, I have one name, Al Franken

    1. Racist.

      1. Doggone it.

    2. My grandparents kept voting, even through Alzheimer’s and death…

  18. ” Nielson finds that “there is little evidence that racial minorities are less likely than whites to vote when states institute voter identification requirements.” The elderly vote drops a few percentage points when IDs are required, but the turnout of middle-aged and young voters does not change.”

    Did they measure the change in turnout of dead people. That’s the important data since it’s a main intent of the tighter requirements. A key question is: does it demobilize dead voters, because them zombies be votin’.

    1. Nagash the Undying would like to point out that he is technically a Lich and not a Zombie.

      1. He’s actually a god now. Age of Sigmar for the loss.

    2. I believe that drop in older voters may have been from the dead.

      1. I think it might be because their children aren’t voting for them any more.

    3. My former girlfriend’s dad voted for John Kerry 6 months after he died. I sat there and watched his widow and sister-in-law fill out his absentee ballot. I asked them if they thought what they were doing was ethical or moral, but they stared at me blankly. If you can cheat, why wouldn’t you? I wonder how many others do this in each election.

      1. Democrats seem to have fewer qualms about that. It’s the one thing that worries me with Hillary.

        1. By any means necessary! Personally, I feel that if you have to cheat to win then you didn’t really win. But that doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And it’s telling that Dems paint Repubs as totally evil, but they don’t seem concerned that their enemy might cast fraudulent votes or steal an election.

          1. Personally, I feel that if you have to cheat to win then you didn’t really win.

            Doesn’t matter if we “really won,” what matters is that we prevented the TEATHUGLIHADISTARDIKKKANS from sending black people to concentration camps!

            /prog

      2. JohnKerry is dead ? Who knew.?

        No wonder that Iran treaty is so fucked up.

        1. You have to admit, it’s really hard to tell. He was never very lifelike.

  19. My unscientific, not-necessarily representative experience as a poll worker in suburban Philadelphia is that I have yet to see an instance where I thought someone was pretending to be someone else in order to vote. PA requires only a signature, not an ID, though some individuals are flagged in the sign-in book as needing to show ID or fill out an elaborate affidavit in support of their identity (I think it applies to people voting for the first time in a particular ward).

    I did experience an interesting incident last year, when a group of about half a dozen physically and/or mentally disabled residents of a local “group home” came in to vote. One of them, wheelchair bound, but seemingly lucid, was flagged as needing to show ID which she didn’t have. Poll watchers came out of the woodwork to monitor the situation, and ultimately she was allowed to fill out a paper “provisional ballot” to be individually verified and tallied at the county election board. Our suspicion was that some data entry clerk mistakenly had flagged her as “Must Show ID” when she should have been marked as “Assistance Required”.

    1. Meanwhile, at least two of the “Assistance Required” voters looked to me like they had minimal concept of where they were, or what they were doing. I suspect their voting was comparable to the “facilitated communication” that became more-or-less discredited about 20 years ago.

      On the other hand, I can’t readily think of any way to disqualify such people from voting that wouldn’t be rife with abuse. Nor do I have much reason to think that their voting choices, if they could be divined, would really differ that much from their facilitators. And clearly the number of such “ouija board votes” seems trivial in the grand scheme of things. Even in a Florida ’00-like close-call, they’re below the threshold of statistical significance — mere “noise” in the data.

      I don’t see requiring ID to vote as being somehow beyond the pale, given all the things it’s routinely required for. On the other hand, I don’t think one could pull off a significant voter identity fraud without the collusion of the poll workers and suppression/co-option of hostile poll watchers, and I don’t think that requiring ID would significantly inhibit fraud in that scenario.

      1. That’s bee my hunch, that any large scale fraud must involve corrupted poll officials. a voter id requirement wouldn’t matter to plain old ballot stuffing. And if you have corrupt officials, they can just lie and say that the dead person came and showed their ID and voted.

      2. That’s what the Black Panthers were for.

  20. A $10,000 fine for voter fraud?!

    Now, *that* disproportionately impacts the poor!

  21. Funny how every other country requires an ID but we thinks it’s a big issue.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..es-require

    1. A lot of those places have national ID cards that you have to carry too. Which is less good.

      1. That is pretty much the case here, de facto, if not de jure. We use a driver’s license for that purpose.

        Have a cop stop you for jaywalking and refuse to show him any ID and see what happens.

    2. It’s a fine example about Americans having their heads up their own asses, thinking they are the worst. Other examples

      -abortion rights (if you are pro-abortion)
      -free speech
      -racism
      -immigration
      -unaccountable politicians
      -power of political parties over members

      Your cops are the worst in developed world for killing people, though.

      1. I’m sure you’re sooooo much better over there in Zaglobaville.

        1. Canada could stand to be more self-critical over stuff where it sucks. Like health care, free speech, immigration, and actual (as opposed to fictional) racism. God forbid someone mention gun rights.

          1. Gun Rights

            1. Jesus, man, you just triggered all of Toront!

              1. That’s why I’m here.

            2. I don’t think my guns should have rights. I’m their sovereign ruler. They shoot when and where I tell them to and that’s that.

          2. When was the last segregated school in Canada closed?

            1. 1996, if you are talking actual racist segregation.

              If you include voluntary segregation in public schools, still running

      2. Yeah, i hate that shit. I’ll be the first to criticize the US when it sucks, and there are plenty of ways that it sucks. But we still have a lot of things pretty damn good, at least relatively speaking.
        Unless you are a fan of the socialistical policies, in most areas where America sucks, most European countries are worse. Though a good number of interesting exceptions exist.

    3. We’re the only (civilized) country with the death penalty. Coincidence?

      1. Japan and South Korea?

        And I don’t know if I’d consider China “uncivilized”. Unfree, yes. Horrible political and economic system? Absolutely. But it’s a country that can argue they invented civilization.

        1. The country did but not the current political masters and the culture they have imposed.

  22. If voter ID laws were created to suppress minority toting, they’re actually not doing that.

    Of course not, voter ID laws have nothing to do with minorities ability to tote stuff from one place to another. What kind of moron would argue otherwise?

    1. Ease up. He obviously mean “toking”.

      1. +100 bong hits

  23. Should non citizens be able to vote?

    1. If they are residents, pay income tax and all other applicable taxes?

      1. I’d steer clear of the [poll] tax requirements, which actually do have a racist history.

        1. I would like to see a system where only people who receive a majority of their income from the private sector can vote. If you are like me and work for t he government, you can’t vote unless you can show you have some skin in the game and recieve a majority of your income from investments or a private source other than your government job. Same thing if you get social security. IF that is a majority of your income, then you don’t vote.

          I suspect such a system would make our government much smaller and less intrusive than it is today.

          1. I could get behind that. I’ve often thought that going back to only property owners voting could be good. But that is less of an indication of having skin in the game than it once was. It does give you a good view on all the ways the government can fuck with you, though.

            1. Net taxpayers not property owners.

              Government workers should still get to vote but not belong to unions.

          2. Let’s disenfranchise people so we can get the outcomes we want. Freedom!

            1. One man, one vote.

              No taxation without representation.

              Now, consider the next logical step:

              Taxation should be a flat rate for everyone.

              1. If you want progressive taxation, then we should have progressive voting, i.e. if I pay MORE in taxes, then I get MORE votes.

                1. Sort of how like slaves paid no taxes and got no vote either. Clearly that worked in their best interest.

              2. Not a flat rate, a flat fee.

                Would be nice to see excise taxes limited to specific things and rates, with the rest assessed per person to each state, leaving it up to the state as to how they want to collect it.

            2. Tony, your favorite socialist countries made voting mandatory and required government issued identification. So I don’t see what you are complaining about.

    2. No, because citizenship should mean something.

      1. It does mean something. It means the IRS can claim the right to pick your pockets no matter where in the world you live.

      2. I think it has something to do with slavery.

    3. I’m probably not the first to think of this, but one unintended consequence of letting non citizens vote is that it gives a new outlet for politicians from other countries an incentive to try to manipulate elections. I think we have enough of that with our own politicians.

    4. Once the government is reduced to a simple night-watchman state, sure why not? In my ideal world, citizenship (and voting) are almost completely irrelevant to anyone’s life.

    5. Nope. Period.

  24. I also don’t have much regard for the idea that we need tighter voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

    For what it’s worth, I usually have a problem with people declaring knowledge of secret criminal participation based on list experiments.

    1. True. It’s kind of like the feminists’ claims that “only 2 percent of rape accusations are false!”

      1. Or 25% of college women are raped.

  25. Happily I have never voted for anything, not even a school gov’t position. I also have no intentions of ever voting in my life. With the way things are in reality, when you vote all you are doing is forcing your preferred noose around the other guy’s neck and he is trying to do the same to you.

    The idea that if 51% of people vote for some douchebag, the 49% that didn’t want that horse should just be all hunky dorey about it and jump on board is laughable.

    Not to mention that Congress, a body that has less than 10% approval, still considers itself a legitimate form of government because some old fuck voted for them speaks volumes about how stupid voting really is.

    1. I generally do vote, mainly third party, so that the losing TEAM candidate could look around and say – wow if I could just capture some of that third party action, I could win.

      It’s a silly notion, but I still want my protest vote on the record.

      1. I’m not gonna try to tell people what to do. My post is just my thoughts on the matter. I do think that a better way to at least scare them a little bit would be for everyone to just sit out the elections. Every election; senator, rep, pres.

        I did see the other day where someone was setting up a presidential run for their cat. This could also be a good Fuck You to the gov’t if everyone just wrote in elephants and cats and shit.

        On a more serious note it does show how big of a joke it has all become when people are writing in cats for the presidential nomination.

  26. “But the main objection to the changes involves the requirement that voters show photo identification at polling places.”

    The main objection is doing anything to verify that someone who is trying to vote actually has the legal right to do so.

    If you’re not mesmerized by the chants of “Racism! Racism! Racism!” this is a completely obvious and uncontroversial *requirement* to safeguard voting, particularly in a country with tens of millions of non-citizens running around.

  27. The changes that Barber abominates are simply how voting went everywhere a few decades ago, and some places (like New York) still operate that way. But they do interfere with the vote fraud that he considers an essential part of his political plans, and of course like any liberal he thinks he’s entitled to whatever he wants. Besides, liberals rely on race-baiting, especially stoking victimization fears among selected identity-groups (such as blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals). Note that Rhode Island (I doubt even Barber considers that state a GOP stronghold) passed a voter ID law a few years ago because a black legislator went to the polls and found out that she had already voted — according to their records. (Who really did vote in her name was impossible to establish after the fact. This is why there are almost never any convictions for such vote fraud.)

    1. That is a brilliant idea to get politicians to support it.

  28. Why do liquor stores hate teh brown people?

  29. And what exactly are these laws accomplishing Ronald? In fact nothing. For a website that rails against meaningless government regulations, you would think that would be your complaint and theme, rather than the “oh by the way” you gave it.

    1. There have been a number of cases in which people reported that someone had already voted for them. Of course, we can never establish who it was — and if the person whose vote was stolen doesn’t try to vote, we don’t even know that it happened.

      1. So let’s have government regulations for something we don’t even know is a problem?

  30. voter fraud is rare except for all the stories of voter fraud every election time. Thats like saying fish are rare since I can’t see under the water. If you don’t look you won’t find it.

  31. Bring back election by lottery for most elected offices.

    – No voter fraud is possible.
    – You only need to show ID if you’re elected.
    – The statistical term limit is 1.

    What’s not to love?

    1. +10000

  32. I was asked to show a photo ID every time I voted, in Illinois. My problem is the turnout. People, who sit at home and complain, have no one to blame but themselves. I would like to see minorities out in force. That way, we might see changes that need to happen, in our politicians!

  33. I agree that opposing Voter ID laws is a waste of time and money, unless your intent is to enable fraud.

    Do not fall for the Democrat trope that there is almost no impersonation fraud, and especially do not fall for the idea that easy and penalty-free same day registration has no impact.
    I have personally witnessed in NH more than 10% same day registrations when proof of residency is not rigorously demanded. Critical state senate races were skewed.

    Our research shows that a great deal of registrations are stale or bogus, and enough of those vote in two or more states to make life interesting for our fraud chasers.

  34. When David Ryu was running for some political position in LA, some of the Korean voters reportedly voted twice.

    Voter fraud is real, and studies have shown that non citizens vote. It might be isolated and not part of a larger trend, but it’s funny to hear liberal insist that ‘since X is rare, we don’t need additional regulation on this matter”.

  35. Huh? Wait a minute! Voter ID laws are completely unnecessary, because there can’t possibly be any voter fraud, right?! So how is these even the slightest bit relevant to anything? On top of that, illegals who make up a substantial minority non-voting bloc (if they’re part of a minority, numerically speaking) , are far more law abiding than other voters and therefore are honor-bound not to vote if they legally can’t!

  36. The vital place for Voter ID is in the registration process, to ensure that the registrant is eligible to vote. At the polls it’s just a matter of making sure that the voter is who they say they are.
    After all, if you have to show ID to walk into the Robert F. Kennedy Building in DC, shouldn’t you have to ID yourself to be handed a ballot.

    1. Not in DC where some wise guy was actually able to get Eric Holder’s ballot by merely asking for it!

    2. At the polls it’s just a matter of making sure that the voter is who they say they are.

      Yeah. Photo ID.

  37. “since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.”

    What you fail to note is that most research, not to mention criminal investigations, simply aren’t done. You sound like a feminist claiming false rape accusations rarely happen.

  38. The biggest voter fraud is phony registration, not phony voting. Google for the MASSIVE voter registration fraud in Seattle, by ACORN. For voter ID, how can one measure something that nobody’s checking?

    1. Well, since Congress is Republican-majority despite getting millions fewer votes from actual voters, consider the voter fraud problem amply dealt with.

      1. You’re fibbing against, Tony.

        In 2014, Reps got 5.5 million more votes than Dems for Representatives:

        [stupid fucking character limit kills link. this one is Wikipedia]

        And, though I can’t find final totals for the 2014 Senate elections, the early read was that Reps got 3 million more votes than Dems on that front.

        http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..5/3589157/

        Looks to me like the Reps got around 8mm more votes than the Dems in 2014.

      2. If you don’t like our representative apportionment system, please, please, move somewhere else.

  39. Why don’t we do what “other advanced nations” do? You know, like requiring photo id. The idea that you can just walk into a polling place and vote without proper and clear identification strikes people from other democracies as ludicrous.

    But then, all this voting fetishism really gives it a significance that it doesn’t deserve. Most of the important decisions are made in the primaries. And the whole exercise really is more intended to flatter the egos and increase the legitimacy of politicians than to have any real effect on the quality of government, because in the end whether you vote Democrat or Republican makes little difference.

    Of course, why don’t we really do what other advanced nations do, like the ones Obama likes to cross about: punish people who fail to vote. That should be great for minorities! /sarc

  40. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it man

    http://www.Cyber-Privacy.net

  41. There are very few mechanisms in place to detect voter fraud. Most states don’t have processes in place to audit the eligibility of those who voted, voter impersonation or individuals casting multiple votes.

    It’s intellectually dishonest for reason.com to assert that voter fraud is rare.

  42. I also don’t have much regard for the idea that we need tighter voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, since most research shows that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare.

    Statements like this are so disingenuous. The authors of the study admit that obtaining truthful information is difficult and advocate a “list method” (see the study link for a description.

    I think they are being tremendously naive thinking that they will uncover voter fraud using a list method, because voter fraud, if it is used in ways that are effective, is used as part of knowing conspiracies by partisan/party operatives. These people are A) unlikely to be a significant portion of a random selection of citizens and B) unlikely to indicate their knowing involvement in a felony vote fraud activity even as an aggregate on a list.

    I consider the study worthless.

  43. Many election outcomes are within a couple of percent. If voter ID laws affect old people and students, that is enough to alter the outcome of some elections toward Republicans, making it a real rather than merely an intended attack against democracy.

    If campaigners organize to encourage a few percent more members of minority groups to vote, this should not be canceled out by unfair legal obstacles to voting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.