Things Leftists think are bad: “To
find the Tea Party throughline in this election cycle, you have to
look past the ballot counts and toward the policies – the
radicalism of which the GOP establishment refuses to recognize, much
less censure: voter ID, ratcheted down abortion access, bigotry
masquerading as "religious freedom", concealed carry.”
Showing posts with label Voter ID. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voter ID. Show all posts
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Monday, August 6, 2012
Voter ID Duplicity Part 2
The Financial Times weighs in on the validity of US elections:
Voter ID laws could sway US elections
"Millions of US voters could be turned away at the ballot box in this November’s presidential election as new rules impose tough requirements for identification that observers say could lead to minorities and young people – traditionally more likely to vote Democrat – being excluded."
Of course, on the other hand, millions of ineligible voters - traditionally more likely to vote Democrat - may vote in this November's presidential election as new rules designed to ensure the integrity of US elections are challenged in court and overturned or stayed by political judges.
How many? Millions? How does Anna Fifield know its millions?
She was told - just like Harry Reid was told that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years - by a reliable source.
"“There is certainly the potential for very serious outcomes,” said Keesha Gaskins of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which estimates as many as 5m voters across the country might be affected by the rules. "
Hans A. von Spakovsky comments in National Review Online regarding a related article for Politico:
"Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
"Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”
"Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.
"As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006."
"Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties."
Here's one of my favorites from the FT article: "Pennsylvania’s new rules are being challenged by three elderly women – including one who first voted for Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1940s – who say they will not be able to vote in November under the changes."
1. How are these poor old ladies going to get into the court building for their own hearing - without picture ID?
2. It seems they are elderly enough to draw Social Security - which at least one of them voted for, back in the day - they had to show ID, I'm guessing, to sign up for benefits and to open the checking account into which their benefits are deposited.
Voter ID laws could sway US elections
"Millions of US voters could be turned away at the ballot box in this November’s presidential election as new rules impose tough requirements for identification that observers say could lead to minorities and young people – traditionally more likely to vote Democrat – being excluded."
Of course, on the other hand, millions of ineligible voters - traditionally more likely to vote Democrat - may vote in this November's presidential election as new rules designed to ensure the integrity of US elections are challenged in court and overturned or stayed by political judges.
How many? Millions? How does Anna Fifield know its millions?
She was told - just like Harry Reid was told that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years - by a reliable source.
"“There is certainly the potential for very serious outcomes,” said Keesha Gaskins of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which estimates as many as 5m voters across the country might be affected by the rules. "
Hans A. von Spakovsky comments in National Review Online regarding a related article for Politico:
"Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
"Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”
"Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.
"As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006."
"Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties."
Here's one of my favorites from the FT article: "Pennsylvania’s new rules are being challenged by three elderly women – including one who first voted for Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1940s – who say they will not be able to vote in November under the changes."
1. How are these poor old ladies going to get into the court building for their own hearing - without picture ID?
2. It seems they are elderly enough to draw Social Security - which at least one of them voted for, back in the day - they had to show ID, I'm guessing, to sign up for benefits and to open the checking account into which their benefits are deposited.
 |
| Photo: USAID/Julie Fossler
An elections worker checks a voter's ID card during Afghanistan's 2009 presidential and provincial council elections. |
That's my absolute favorite. While one arm of the Leviathan - the (in)Justice Department - claims it is an unreasonable burden for Americans to show ID to vote, another arm (or should I say tentacle) brags on its web site that citizens of that advanced democracy, Afghanistan, are required to show picture ID in order to vote.
Detroit, apparently, is less able to provide for verification of its citzens than Kandahar...
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Voter ID Duplicity
Drudge bounced me to an article in the American Prospect entitled: You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts
Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."
He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.
He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"
It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.
UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.
He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable. He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely." Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.
Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."
He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.
He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"
It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.
UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.
He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable. He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely." Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)