10 of 17
10
New voter ID laws politically motivated?
Posted: 02 September 2012 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 06:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html

It is notable that when the question was framed as ” the voter ID laws can prevent some eligible voters from voting”, that is when you got the highest percentage of all of Republicans in favor of them (99%).  Wow. The argument that it can disenfranchise some voters, actually gets more Republican support for such laws.  Hmmmm…  What could that mean?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 02 September 2012 07:55 PM

Everyone favors voter ID laws. But I should hope that no one favors voter laws that disenfranchise a segment of the population.

*sigh*

So you didn’t read the Huffpo piece and look up “framing” yet?

The researcher is obviously against voter ID.  He framed one of the questions to try to generate opposition to voter ID laws in his survey.  He was able to get Democrat approval of Voter ID down to 43 percent by framing the question negatively (as you’re doing).  Without the negative frame, Democrat approval of voter ID is 67 percent.

I don’t see why you have to make this so hard.

Is that not what the 15th Amendment was all about?

Oh, you’re right!  Just think of the mature 14 year-olds we are disenfranchising with a voting age of 18!  We need to lower the voting age down to 3 months, clearly.

Better to extend the franchise to the irresponsible rather than lose even one responsible vote.  Do we need yet another voting rights amendment or what?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 02 September 2012 07:59 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 06:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html

It is notable that when the question was framed as ” the voter ID laws can prevent some eligible voters from voting”, that is when you got the highest percentage of all of Republicans in favor of them (99%).  Wow. The argument that it can disenfranchise some voters, actually gets more Republican support for such laws.  Hmmmm…  What could that mean?

Most obviously, it means that nearly all Republicans agree with 43 percent of Democrats using that frame.  But if you look at the actual statement used to frame the question, it’s ambiguous.  A person could take it to mean that persons not eligible to vote are eligible to vote and the law would prevent that.  And that ambiguity may also help explain the high percentage of Democrats willing to see such votes lost.  Just goes to show once again how hard it can be to construct a survey to answer the right question.

Regardless of that the survey makes one pretty obvious point:  Support for voter ID laws is strong and bipartisan.

I do love the way you try to spin everything, though.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 09:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26

Yes, spin, that’s why the courts are beginning to declare those new ID laws as “disenfranchising” segments of the population.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 10:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 02 September 2012 09:37 PM

Yes, spin, that’s why the courts are beginning to declare those new ID laws as “disenfranchising” segments of the population.

Tim does spin.  He’s also the one who described the three judge panel as 2/3 Republican when two out of three were appointed by Democrat presidents.  He never answered how he knows the panel was majority Republican. 

But you clearly want to switch from Tim’s spin on the majority bipartisan support for voter ID laws and switch to the burgeoning opposition to such laws ...

as exemplified by one case decided by a three judge panel in D.C. where two of three were Democrat-appointed (and the other by George H. W. Bush, who brought us Justice Souter).

What else you got?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/pennsylvania-court-upholds-voter-id-law/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/04/17/arizona-court-upholds-voter-id-law-strikes-down-critical-provision/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2012 11:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 02 September 2012 10:18 PM
Write4U - 02 September 2012 09:37 PM

Yes, spin, that’s why the courts are beginning to declare those new ID laws as “disenfranchising” segments of the population.

Tim does spin.  He’s also the one who described the three judge panel as 2/3 Republican when two out of three were appointed by Democrat presidents.  He never answered how he knows the panel was majority Republican. 

But you clearly want to switch from Tim’s spin on the majority bipartisan support for voter ID laws and switch to the burgeoning opposition to such laws ...

as exemplified by one case decided by a three judge panel in D.C. where two of three were Democrat-appointed (and the other by George H. W. Bush, who brought us Justice Souter).

What else you got?

Got about what? Clearly there is disagreement, even in the courts. Your point of Souter voting against only proves that there are conservative judges who do feel that, at least at this time, these new laws pose a burden.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/pennsylvania-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
The state’s Department of Transportation is required to provide free IDs for any prospective voters who do not have the requisite form of identification. As many as 1.3 million Pennsylvania voters lack the required form of ID, according to testimony from Matt Barreto, a Seattle political scientist from the University of Washington who was called to the stand by lawyers from The Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy group challenging the law.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, told ABC News that it was “ludicrous to think that any significant percentage” of the more than 1 million Pennsylvanians who do not have a valid photo ID will be able to get one before November’s election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
Stevens’ opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana’s voter ID law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/04/17/arizona-court-upholds-voter-id-law-strikes-down-critical-provision/
The U.S. Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the 9th Circuit to overturn the state law, saying the law is invalid because it conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act.

I have already stipulated that voter ID is not unreasonable in and of itself.  What is unreasonable is that enforcement of new laws this close to elections does pose an undue burden on several segments of the population.  I guess I agree with Souter…. cheese

Have you actually looked at the numbers of people who might be disenfranchised?  All that to stop a phantom problem?

Answer me this, why now, at this time, this close to elections, specifically in Republican run states?

[ Edited: 02 September 2012 11:43 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2012 06:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 10:18 PM
Write4U - 02 September 2012 09:37 PM

Yes, spin, that’s why the courts are beginning to declare those new ID laws as “disenfranchising” segments of the population.

Tim does spin.  He’s also the one who described the three judge panel as 2/3 Republican when two out of three were appointed by Democrat presidents.  He never answered how he knows the panel was majority Republican… 

 

I made a mistake, based on what I heard on a news report. I had to dig to find that, in fact, Brian is correct about the make-up of the District Court on the TX Voter ID Bill.  It was decided unanimously by the 3 justices (1 rep appointed justice and 2 dem appointed).  If I had knowingly provided that erroneous info, it would not have been “spin”, it would have been lying.  I didn’t bother to check it until now, because it was a part of a side point that I made, that is not significant to this topic.

Brian must be an attorney, as he will go after any extraneous detail or side issue, like a dog after a bone, in order to deflect from the primary injustice of a segment of voters (disproportionately minorities) having their right to vote assaulted. 

If I were going to “spin” I would call these voter ID Bills what they actually are, by intent, i.e., Voter Suppression Bills.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2012 06:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 02 September 2012 08:13 PM
TimB - 02 September 2012 07:59 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 06:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html

It is notable that when the question was framed as ” the voter ID laws can prevent some eligible voters from voting”, that is when you got the highest percentage of all of Republicans in favor of them (99%).  Wow. The argument that it can disenfranchise some voters, actually gets more Republican support for such laws.  Hmmmm…  What could that mean?

Most obviously, it means that nearly all Republicans agree with 43 percent of Democrats using that frame.  But if you look at the actual statement used to frame the question, it’s ambiguous.  A person could take it to mean that persons not eligible to vote are eligible to vote and the law would prevent that.  And that ambiguity may also help explain the high percentage of Democrats willing to see such votes lost.  Just goes to show once again how hard it can be to construct a survey to answer the right question.

Regardless of that the survey makes one pretty obvious point:  Support for voter ID laws is strong and bipartisan.

I do love the way you try to spin everything, though.  grin

I despise the way you just attempted deception about the framing of question 4 on the survey being any more ambiguous than any of the other framed items.  I despise the way that you so easily dismiss the fact that 99% of Republicans favor or strongly favor voter id laws when the opposition to such laws is framed that “they can actually prevent eligible voters from voting” (as stated in the survey). 

Your point is that the words “they can actually prevent eligible voters from voting” (as stated in the survey) could be interpreted as “persons not eligible to vote are eligible to vote and the law would prevent that” (your words). That is not spin. It is either a flat out attempt at deception, or it is some sort of gobble-dee-goop from the opposite-world mind of a Republican sympathizer.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 02 September 2012 11:31 PM

Got about what?

Got about the courts “beginning” to go against voter ID, of course.  You’re spinning it as a trend, right?  It doesn’t look like a trend based on the available evidence.  It looks like an anomaly likely to get crushed when the case goes to the SCOTUS.

Clearly there is disagreement, even in the courts. Your point of Souter voting against only proves that there are conservative judges who do feel that, at least at this time, these new laws pose a burden.

Souter a conservative justice?  Appointed by a conservative.  He’s voted fairly reliably with the left.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/pennsylvania-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
The state’s Department of Transportation is required to provide free IDs for any prospective voters who do not have the requisite form of identification. As many as 1.3 million Pennsylvania voters lack the required form of ID, according to testimony from Matt Barreto, a Seattle political scientist from the University of Washington who was called to the stand by lawyers from The Advancement Project, a civil rights advocacy group challenging the law.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, told ABC News that it was “ludicrous to think that any significant percentage” of the more than 1 million Pennsylvanians who do not have a valid photo ID will be able to get one before November’s election.

Have we any basis for believing Ms. Hair?  She’s clearly partisan, right?

I have already stipulated that voter ID is not unreasonable in and of itself.  What is unreasonable is that enforcement of new laws this close to elections does pose an undue burden on several segments of the population.  I guess I agree with Souter…. cheese

Seems like a situation easily resolved by using provisional ballots, at least potentially.  Agreed?

Have you actually looked at the numbers of people who might be disenfranchised?  All that to stop a phantom problem?

Show me the numbers.  Make it better than a guesstimate from a partisan like Ms. Hair.  And don’t call it a phantom problem unless you can show evidence that it’s a phantom problem.

Answer me this, why now, at this time, this close to elections, specifically in Republican run states?

Six out of 8 of the new voter ID laws were passed in Republican-run states.  But when in doubt, just make something up.

Pennsylvania’s law passed in March.  Maybe people should have started in April to obtain a photo ID instead of dragging their feet hoping to get the law overturned in court.  And after failing turning to the complaint that there’s not enough time for people to get the IDs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 03 September 2012 06:06 AM

I made a mistake, based on what I heard on a news report. I had to dig to find that, in fact, Brian is correct about the make-up of the District Court on the TX Voter ID Bill.  It was decided unanimously by the 3 justices (1 rep appointed justice and 2 dem appointed).  If I had knowingly provided that erroneous info, it would not have been “spin”, it would have been lying.  I didn’t bother to check it until now, because it was a part of a side point that I made, that is not significant to this topic.

It’s part of the pattern of misinformation being posted by your side of the argument.  It’s smart to verify stuff before you post it.  And when you’re called on it try to respond in a more timely manner.  Otherwise it starts to look like you wouldn’t give two bits for the truth.

Brian must be an attorney, as he will go after any extraneous detail or side issue, like a dog after a bone, in order to deflect from the primary injustice of a segment of voters (disproportionately minorities) having their right to vote assaulted.

I’m no attorney; I avoid using the appeals to emotion that attorneys so love to use in appealing to juries.  I let this bit of misinformation from you essentially slide until I happened to need an example of your spin.  It’s one that came to mind.  If you don’t want me using those types of examples then avoid furnishing me with them.

If I were going to “spin” I would call these voter ID Bills what they actually are, by intent, i.e., Voter Suppression Bills.

Seems like you’re ramping down the torque a bit from “having their right to vote assaulted,” actually.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 03 September 2012 06:29 AM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 08:13 PM
TimB - 02 September 2012 07:59 PM
Bryan - 02 September 2012 06:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html

It is notable that when the question was framed as ” the voter ID laws can prevent some eligible voters from voting”, that is when you got the highest percentage of all of Republicans in favor of them (99%).  Wow. The argument that it can disenfranchise some voters, actually gets more Republican support for such laws.  Hmmmm…  What could that mean?

Most obviously, it means that nearly all Republicans agree with 43 percent of Democrats using that frame.  But if you look at the actual statement used to frame the question, it’s ambiguous.  A person could take it to mean that persons not eligible to vote are eligible to vote and the law would prevent that.  And that ambiguity may also help explain the high percentage of Democrats willing to see such votes lost.  Just goes to show once again how hard it can be to construct a survey to answer the right question.

Regardless of that the survey makes one pretty obvious point:  Support for voter ID laws is strong and bipartisan.

I do love the way you try to spin everything, though.  grin

I despise the way you just attempted deception about the framing of question 4 on the survey being any more ambiguous than any of the other framed items.

Actually I didn’t compare it to any of the other items.  Do you disagree that it was ambiguous?  Are you not ashamed for emphasizing the increase of nine percent of Republicans when such a high percentage of Democrats share the same view?  That’s just raw spin, Tim.

I despise the way that you so easily dismiss the fact that 99% of Republicans favor or strongly favor voter id laws when the opposition to such laws is framed that “they can actually prevent eligible voters from voting” (as stated in the survey).

Again the 47 (actually 43) percent of Democrats simply disappears.  And you’re not even creating a distraction, are you?

Let’s try this again:  Is the question ambiguous?  Yes or no, and feel free to explain your answer.  Dispense with the dodges and distractions.

Your point is that the words “they can actually prevent eligible voters from voting” (as stated in the survey) could be interpreted as “persons not eligible to vote are eligible to vote and the law would prevent that” (your words). That is not spin. It is either a flat out attempt at deception, or it is some sort of gobble-dee-goop from the opposite-world mind of a Republican sympathizer.

Why do you think it’s deceptive?  Do you think the question makes clear that persons persons eligible to vote as worded in the question excludes those who without the ID law will vote illegally with full cooperation from elections supervisors (thinking them legally credentialed voters)?  If that’s your view then it could use some explaining.  And if you maintain that the question isn’t ambiguous then explain why so many Democrats want to disenfranchise legitimate voters.

[ Edited: 08 September 2012 08:25 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 04 September 2012 12:45 PM
TimB - 03 September 2012 06:06 AM

...  And when you’re called on it try to respond in a more timely manner.  Otherwise it starts to look like you wouldn’t give two bits for the truth.

What I don’t give two bits for is your nitpicking side argument details, and your sense of entitlement in handing out assignments to persons you are having a “dialogue” with.

I realize that your Republican Brain is well inoculated against any reasoning that doesn’t support what you already believe, so what I say to you is not so much for your benefit, as it is for anyone else who might be influenced by your distorted perspective.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 September 2012 12:57 PM
Bryan - 04 September 2012 12:45 PM

...  And when you’re called on it try to respond in a more timely manner.  Otherwise it starts to look like you wouldn’t give two bits for the truth.

What I don’t give two bits for is your nitpicking side argument details, and your sense of entitlement in handing out assignments to persons you are having a “dialogue” with.

I realize that your Republican Brain is well inoculated against any reasoning that doesn’t support what you already believe, so what I say to you is not so much for your benefit, as it is for anyone else who might be influenced by your distorted perspective.

I pointed out that I’m not nitpicking anything.  Just giving an example of your past spin.  We wouldn’t be discussing it now if you didn’t insist on it.  We’d be done with you admitting you got the facts wrong and correcting the record (which you should have done earlier than this).

So—why did you ignore my explanation unless it was to keep yourself inoculated against any reasoning that doesn’t support what you already believe?

And if you’d rather ignore this sideshow of your own creation and return to the topic that’s absolutely fine with me.  Let’s see how long you can go without resorting to personal attacks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3195
Joined  2011-11-04

The “voter (suppression) ID” laws that are being pushed by Republicans are a tactic to prevent some persons (primarily) from minority segments of the population from voting.  Some would have us believe that this is perfectly acceptable, because most people think that we must protect the concept of “one person, one vote”. However, when it is questioned as to whether “one person, one vote” is actually being threatened, you get answers to the effect of “It could be.”  When asked for evidence that “one person, one vote” is actually being threatened, you get answers to the effect of “Show the evidence that it is not.”  (This is like being told one must provide evidence that ghosts do not exist.)

If someone is going to establish a law that can limit some persons rights to have a vote, then how in humanity’s name, is it not their responsibility to first show demonstrable evidence that the justification for making that law is a real phenomenon.


It’s like saying we have to risk limiting some people’s right to vote, so that we won’t be attacked by ghosts.  Then you say, “but ghosts don’t exist”.  And they say “show your evidence that ghosts don’t exist”.  Meanwhile they forge ahead with the laws that will impede some persons from voting, and thus give their side a better chance for keeping or gaining political control (as that was what they were after in the 1st place, not protecting us from ghosts).

[ Edited: 04 September 2012 01:27 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 September 2012 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05

Ten pages, and no one has pointed out the obvious: the number of proven voter fraud cases compared to the number of voters rounds to zero. Voter fraud is not a problem in this country, and these laws are obviously intended to keep registered Democrats from voting so Republicans can continue giving tax breaks to the rich and subsidizing private industries. Republicans know damn well that poor people overwhelmingly vote Democratic and have been doing everything they can to disenfranchise those voters.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 17
10