Judicial Watch study: voter id laws increase minority turnout

[Texashiker]

You cant be for the expansion of social programs and for anarchy.

Really? And you honestly believe that?

Do what you want, when you want, and with no consequences.

Lose your job, no problem, here is all the welfare you need.

Fail a drug test and get fired, here are your handouts.

 

[alien42]

We want things spelled out, we want guidelines, we want laws.

lol, then why in the hell are conservatives always bitching about any and every single form of regulation that exists? why are they always bitching about the federal government?

oh, that's right, you don't actually want guidelines or laws, you just want whatever will benefit you personally.

 

[xBiffx]

Maybe I should of said *Liberty and Freedom for all*

But really, your stuck in your own little bubble and wouldn't see it anyways

I'm stuck in a bubble? You're the one trying to say the side that by in large is for more and more restrictive laws is about Liberty and Freedom.

The topic at hand is one rare case of the right breaking stride with regards to more laws. But feel free to use that detail to claim that all of sudden the left is all for freedom.

 

[Orignal Earl]

What do you call it when there are no laws?

The ultimate goal of the left is anarchy. Do what you want, when you want, and with no consequences.

When you chat up the members of the left in your community, do their faces seem to sort of shape shift. The shift is only milliseconds long, but the more you think on it the more noticeable it becomes?

 

[Jhhnn]

This whole "voter id will drive minorities away" is a song and dance by the liberal left.

Get over it all ready.

That's not what I said. You fail to show cause for any voter of any race to be inconvenienced in the slightest by additional voter ID requirements. The rest is meaningless noise.

 

[realibrad]

Really? And you honestly believe that?

Do what you want, when you want, and with no consequences.

Lose your job, no problem, here is all the welfare you need.

Fail a drug test and get fired, here are your handouts.

They are conflicting terms. I think you mean to say that some people want some types of laws, and not other types of laws. Inherently, you cant want to do away with all laws, and want some laws.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I'm stuck in a bubble? You're the one trying to say the side that by in large is for more and more restrictive laws is about Liberty and Freedom.

The topic at hand is one rare case of the right breaking stride with regards to more laws. But feel free to use that detail to claim that all of sudden the left is all for freedom.

I'd say on this board when it comes to minorities, the right wingers would love a lot of changes in regards to Freedom.

 

[xBiffx]

I'd say on this board when it comes to minorities, the right wingers would love a lot of changes in regards to Freedom.

Well thanks for displaying whose the one that is in fact living in a bubble here. You've even got a double layered one at that.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Well thanks for displaying whose the one that is in fact living in a bubble here. You've even got a double layered one at that.

Whoa whoa there Biff, no need to break out the double layered bubbles.
I see your from a cornfield in Iowa so we probably have a lot more in common then differences.
I probably lumped you into a bubble that you did not belong in

 

[CitizenKain]

In order to vote you need to prove who you are anyways. What is liberal reason for wanting to avoid voter id?

Because voter id laws are setup by groups to prevent people from voting. Strangely enough, this happens to be republicans trying to keep minorities, low income people and students from voting, because these people seem to not vote republican. Weird that.

 

[xBiffx]

Whoa whoa there Biff, no need to break out the double layered bubbles.
I see your from a cornfield in Iowa so we probably have a lot more in common then differences.
I probably lumped you into a bubble that you did not belong in

I guess I see someone who uses these forums seriously as a demonstration of anything and someone who thinks that voter ID is about the right lowering the freedoms of minorities as living in a double layered bubble.

I could be wrong. The corn is getting taller by the day, after all.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't know if Texashiker is trolling, but this thread is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Then again, I don't have a study, so I could be wrong about how funny this thread actually is.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The corn is getting taller by the day, after all.

Right on
It's rained so much here, can't even get the seeders in the fields

 

[Victorian Gray]

One more time:

What the hell does voting in a primary have to do with *real* voting?

"Comparing May 4, 2010 North Carolina primary election data with the May 14, 2014 primary data, the study found that voter turnout increased across the board, but particularly among black voters"

So, just what is it that's being discussed? It's certainly not a study on voter turnout for *real* elections.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Out of curiosity,

Have Brazil, Canada, Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland had many problems with voter suppression? All of these countries have some sort of Voter ID law in place.

Well, I know in Brazil it shouldn't since voting three is compulsory.

I'll let you know if it ever becomes a requirement to have photo ID to vote in Canada. As it stands right now, I have many alternatives I can present at the poll in the absence of photo ID.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Out of curiosity,

Have Brazil, Canada, Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland had many problems with voter suppression? All of these countries have some sort of Voter ID law in place.

Well, I know in Brazil it shouldn't since voting three is compulsory.

This is what you need for federal elections in Canada:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

and this is what you need to vote in provincial elections in my province, British Columbia

http://www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/voting/#ID

As it stands, not particularly onerous at either level. Federally, the Conservatives (the present party in power) are trying to play with the federal voting rules but so far are making enough of a hash of it that it doesn't look like they will be able to do much damage.

 

[Joepublic2]

This study is bullshit, TH, and you're retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States

No ID required at polling place: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming do not require ID to vote.

If you can't beat them, join them. Lots of states on this list that I'd like to visit (and actually have the time and money to unlike most anti-ID people).

VOTE EARLY; VOTE OFTEN

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No ID required at polling place: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming do not require ID to vote.

I don't know about the other places, but Oregon is exclusively vote-by-mail; there are no voting locations, so it would be literally impossible to check ID when voting. Which of course means that Oregon has literally all the voter fraud... except they don't. Odd that.

 

[Joepublic2]

I don't know about the other places, but Oregon is exclusively vote-by-mail; there are no voting locations, so it would be literally impossible to check ID when voting. Which of course means that Oregon has literally all the voter fraud... except they don't. Odd that.

From the short wiki article it seems the state mails out the ballots to currently occupied residences, I'm guessing using income tax/DMV records, and they must be returned with a valid signature and return address, which are easily correlated against each other via said records if a discrepancy is noted. Very little room for fraud in that system, and totally different from other no-id states with public polling locations where one can just throw out a name and address of anybody registered in that location.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

From the short wiki article it seems the state mails out the ballots to currently occupied residences, I'm guessing using income tax/DMV records, and they must be returned with a valid signature and return address, which are easily correlated against each other via said records if a discrepancy is noted. Very little room for fraud in that system, and totally different from other no-id states with public polling locations where one can just throw out a name and address of anybody registered in that location.

What if they haven't been in the state during the election... I'm going to guess if you need to you can just print out the form, which means a crafty person could vote for someone they knew wasn't going to bother to vote or try to get votes thrown out creating duplicates...

 

[HomerJS]

What do you call it when there are no laws?

The ultimate goal of the left is anarchy. Do what you want, when you want, and with no consequences.

you get this...

 

[Texashiker]

This study is bullshit, TH, and you're retarded.

Do you have a study to dispute the judicial watch study?

 

[Texashiker]

I don't know if Texashiker is trolling, but this thread is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Then again, I don't have a study, so I could be wrong about how funny this thread actually is.

A study shows voter id laws increase turnout, but somehow I am trolling?

 

[fskimospy]

A study shows voter id laws increase turnout, but somehow I am trolling?

At this point it's impossible to believe you aren't trolling. I don't normally report people but you're really starting to push it.

 

[Texashiker]

At this point it's impossible to believe you aren't trolling. I don't normally report people but you're really starting to push it.

Because a study conflicts with your beliefs you get your panties in a knot.

You sir are arrogant. When presented with evidence that your beliefs are wrong, you call the person presenting the evidence names.

You need to reexamine why you think voting id laws suppress voters. What you believe is wrong. You have no evidence or study, nothing of substance to affirm your stance.

Because you have no evidence, I am trolling?