Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Seriously, fug this state(voter id)


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#46 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:28 PM

they've literally admitted that there's little to no voter fraud and that they are doing this to f*ck with voter turnout and sway elections... are you people just in denial... or do you not care?


in b4 "both sides do it."



There is actual evidence that voter id laws had little to no impact on turnout or election results or anything else. Are you people just in denial or do you just want something to complain about.

In b4 only the side I don't like does it..


Fwiw, there is no way I would support this if the government is unwilling to provide id's free of charge. Requiring id's and charging for them would in effect be a poll tax. But if the government is willing to provide id's, then the only legitimate complaint about this is the cost to the gof providing the id's.

#47 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

Voter ID law impact on voter turnout

In Tennessee, where a new photo voter-ID law went into effect this year, the Secretary of State’s Office reported no negative impact on turnout, reporting turnout rates “consistent with past presidential elections,” said Communications Director Blake Fontenay.
“If anything, the law may have encouraged more people to vote because they were more confident their ballots would not be cancelled out by ballots cast by ineligible voters,” Fontenay told ProPublica.
Out of 2.45 million ballots cast statewide, 674 Tennessee voters filled out provisional ballots for lacking acceptable photo ID.
New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan said that while the state doesn’t have a final tally on voters who filled out challenged voter affidavit forms as a result of lacking ID, the number “appears to be quite low, possibly less than 1 percent.”


Oh my god, stop the presses, the republicans are trying to influence the elections with 674 votes. And notice that those who didn't have an id still got to vote?

“What we saw, by and large, was the same problems we’ve seen over the last 10 years,” said Eric Marshall, manager of legal mobilization for the Lawyers’ Committee. “The biggest theme was the recurring problems: the more things change, the more things stay the same.”



Almost no impact in the states that have enacted or are preparing to enact voter id laws. Much ado about nothing.

#48 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,805 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:40 PM

Yes lets just say that, although there is ZERO EVIDENCE THIS EXISTS and substiantiated evidence that VoteRId, purposely long lines in places like Florida, etc DID affect voter turnout, because its not about reality, it's about the fantasy that people spend time thinking about ways to vote 2 times instead of once, risking federal prison time because it's somehow worth the risk.

#49 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:47 PM

Why do some people want to keep voter fraud easier?

No response????

#50 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:03 PM

Yes, because voting problems in florida are so unusual. Despite those nasty republican efforts, florida had a record turnout and voted for the blue guy. Of course, those record turnouts and the fact that florida had one of the longer ballots in the nation had nothing to do with those long delays, but taking 5 seconds to show an id did?

#51 4Corners

4Corners

    suck me beautiful

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,952 posts
  • Location704

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:03 PM

Yeah they'd rather try to change the rules then change their misogynistic, homophobic, elitist, and quite frankly dated opinion on our society.

They worried about another L in four years.

#52 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

Just whining on the part of the democrats.

Of course, republicans do it to. :)

#53 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:10 PM

There is actual evidence that voter id laws had little to no impact on turnout or election results or anything else. Are you people just in denial or do you just want something to complain about.

In b4 only the side I don't like does it..


Fwiw, there is no way I would support this if the government is unwilling to provide id's free of charge. Requiring id's and charging for them would in effect be a poll tax. But if the government is willing to provide id's, then the only legitimate complaint about this is the cost to the gof providing the id's.

I object vehemently to the intent of the law. Whether it accidentally provides benefit is neither here nor there for me... I don't disagree with voter identification laws on principle but these laws are an admitted voter suppression campaign. F*ck that.

#54 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,805 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:13 PM

wow you guys are great at spinning reality.

In Florida it had nothing to do with IDs, it was the curtaining of early voting hours, and confusion from different accounts on how and when it was done. It was only a few months ago people.

If coming out against proven voter suppression tactics is "whining" you'll be hearing a lot more whining from me. Record turnout does not equal people having to wait over 5 hours - or more - to vote.

#55 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

I object vehemently to the intent of the law. Whether it accidentally provides benefit is neither here nor there for me... I don't disagree with voter identification laws on principle but these laws are an admitted voter suppression campaign. F*ck that.

Can you show me a case in which a voter was prevented from voting due to voter id laws?

#56 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,805 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:16 PM

What's awful is that EVERYONE HERE KNOWS that this is a Republican plan, carried out in all the states they can do it in, know that there is no evidence of voter fraud in any kind of manner befitting "government spending" on something that does not exist but yet seem happy to pay for it, tend to complain about "Obama taking away their freedoms" while knowing full well that the policies they support take away THE MOST BASIC RIGHT we as Americans have, and will continue to defend it.

#57 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,320 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:32 PM

So no one has any actual evidence that shows voter id laws had a negative impact on voter turnout, or the election? Just suppositions based on nothing but suspicion of the motives of the other side? Just what I thought.

#58 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,294 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

So no one has any actual evidence that shows voter id laws had a negative impact on voter turnout, or the election? Just suppositions based on nothing but suspicion of the motives of the other side? Just what I thought.

Where is the evidence that these voter id laws will substantially decrease voter fraud?

#59 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,294 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

Let's make it harder for people to vote, then to buy guns- Conservatives

#60 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,294 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:48 PM

Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia...._Election_Board

Oh really?

A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday unanimously rejected Texas’s voter ID law, which required court approval to take effect. The court described the law, known as SB 14, as “the most stringent in the country.”

Under the law, voters who do not have a driver’s license might have to pay $22 to get documents necessary to obtain a state ID card, and some would need to travel 250 miles round-trip to get the card. The court said, “Undisputed record evidence demonstrates that racial minorities in Texas are disproportionally likely to live in poverty and, because SB 14 will weigh more heavily on the poor, the law will likely have retrogressive effect,” reducing the number of minority voters.

In Florida, an election law approved last year has severely restricted voter registration drives by the League of Women Voters, Rock the Vote, and other groups. By imposing burdensome and pointless reporting requirements and fines for any infraction, it has had a huge effect in suppressing new voter registrations.

As The Florida Times-Union reported, from July 2011 until this month, only 11,365 more Democrats have registered to vote in the entire state — and since 13,000 registered in one county, the rest of the state lost Democratic voters. In the same block of time before the 2004 and 2008 elections, the average increase in Democratic voters statewide was 209,425.

A federal district judge in Florida temporarily blocked the law in May because it was unconstitutional and announced on Tuesday that he plans to issue a permanent injunction.

Two weeks ago, another three-judge panel of the federal district court in the District of Columbia unanimously rejected part of the Florida law that allowed local supervisors to significantly limit times for early voting, with a disproportionate impact on blacks in five counties of concern to the court. In those in 2008, more than half of black voters cast an early ballot, compared with just over one-fourth of white voters.

These federal courts were careful to respect state sovereignty. But they were also mindful that state laws that suppress minority votes cannot be allowed to stand.



http://www.nytimes.c...orida.html?_r=0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.