Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Boring Voter ID Thread

I don't want to write this thread. The subject bores me. But I am taking the bait from Sean at Kay's Blue Racine. The subject is a voter ID requirement. Here goes.

There are various claims about the impact a voter ID requirement would have on people. Sean's thread at KBR makes some rather outrageous claims. Can I refute them? I am not sure if I could or I couldn't. You see, I don't really care if the claims are true or not. Rights come with responsibilities or ought to. If you want to participate in a democracy, it really isn't too much to ask that you prove your identity in order to safeguard our democracy and make voter fraud more difficult.

Are there some people for whom a voter ID requirement will cause some measure of hardship? No doubt. This presents an opportunity for either political party to help said individuals to overcome the obstacle. Imagine a comfortable van paid for by George Soros, shuttling grateful seniors, homeless, handicapped etc...., chock full of cigarettes and propaganda about the virtues of the Democrat Party. Everyone who wants to vote will be able to vote. Only once though. End of story.

Sean, if I choose not to respond to your rebuttal, it is because it is not you that needs convincing. It is our democratically elected representatives that seemingly already are convinced. Elections have consequences.

25 comments:

Real Debate said...

Is asking someone to get a free ID a hardship?

No.

Just like all GOTV efforts if anyone needs help getting an ID to vote I am sure EITHER party would be happy to find volunteers to assist.

Sean Cranley said...

Running home with your tail between your legs eh? Capitulation Complete.

I knew neither one of you could provide a factual and reasoned argument as to why the Jim Crow GOPvoter Supression Act is NEEDED or why the significant COST is justified. Gloat, gloat gloating gloat!

Nemo said...

The courts would seem to agree with you RD, but what do they know? Heh.

Denis, while the subject can be boring, it can also be entertaining. It's been amusing over at the BURP (like kay's, only more crazy/less estrogen).

Denis Navratil said...

The reason the law is needed to remove the present opportunities for voter fraud and to ensure fair elections. And the fact is that not having to show an ID at the polls makes fraud easier than it would be if an ID is required. Would you dispute that fact Sean? It really is quite simple Sean. Even you should be able to understand.

Sean Cranley said...

For aNEMOnous: The bill's authors, Republican Rep. Jeff Stone and Sen. Joe Leibham, have modeled their bill after Indiana's Voter ID law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s Voter ID bill, the lower court found “99 percent of Indiana’s voting age population already possesses the necessary photo identification to vote under the requirements.”

Wisconsin’s population is substantially less likely to have a state-issued identification. Those without state-issued photo identification and who would need to obtain one under the Wisconsin Voter ID bill include:

•23 percent of all elderly Wisconsinites over the age of 65
•17 percent of white men and women
•55 percent of all African American males and 49 percent of African American women
•46 percent of Hispanic men and 59% of Hispanic women
•78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24
[Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin, 6/05] http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_50902.pdf

Yes, the bill as written does have a provision to provide free identification for some Wisconsinites. Each and every one of these people would have to take the time off (in many cases unpaid) from work or family obligations to flock to Wisconsin DMVs. However, access to the DMV is a problem in Wisconsin; Indiana provides its residents exponentially more access to its Department of Motor Vehicles offices to obtain identification.

Wisconsin and Indiana have similar voting age populations (4.35 million vs. 4,8 million), but Wisconsin is 50 percent larger geographically than Indiana (54,314 sq. miles vs. 35,870 sq. miles). Indiana not only provides its residents 50 percent more DMV offices than Wisconsin (140 to 91), but also nearly three times the total hours these facilities are open.

Also consider:

•Twenty-six percent of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open one day a month or less, while none of Indiana’s are open less than 100 days a year and nearly all are open over 250 days a year.
•Wisconsin has only one DMV with weekend hours, while Indiana has 124 offices with weekend hours.
•Three Wisconsin counties have no DMVs, no Indiana county is without a DMV.
•Over half of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open on a part-time basis, while Indiana provides full-time DMVs in every county.
[Wisconsin DMV service centers and hours, by county; Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, locations and hours] http://dot.wi.gov/about/locate/dmv/scmap.htm

The need to expand the numbers and operational hours of Wisconsin DMVs to provide appropriate access could increase the $70 million biennial Wisconsin DMV budget by as much as 50 percent on top of the current $5 million price tag to provide free identifications.

Sean Cranley said...

For Denimous: There is absolutely no evidence of a widespread conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General JB Van Hollen has made prosecuting so-called voter fraud one of his top priorities. However, after a two year investigation into the 2008 election, Van Hollen has found a scant 11 potentially improper ballots out of nearly 3 million total votes cast. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/86917797.html

Of those, eight involved felons who voted while out in the community on probation or parole, a situation that voter ID would not remedy. That leaves 3 potentially bad votes out of 3,000,000 votes, or about 0.000001% of all votes cast. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

Denis Navratil said...

I couldn't help but notice Sean that you did not challenge the fact that voter ID would make voter fraud more difficult. Is there some reason you want to avoid a simple and fair method of reducing potential fraud?

Nemo said...

sean, can you give me one name of a Wisconsin voter that will not be able to get a photo ID? Just one? No? Thought so.

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Denis, Your solution is neither "simple" nor "fair" nor is it justified. (Oh and it ain't cheap either).

There is a principle of law called proportionality. In essence it means that a legal response to a problem should be proportional to the severity of the problem.

It's common sense really. We don't impose the death penalty for shoplifting. We don't require the registration and tracking of all guns to keep some of them from falling into the hands of felons. We don't require strip searches at the entrance to banks to prevent robberies.

The New Jim Crow GOPvoter Suppression Act does not meet the standard for proportionality. Preventing a rate of 0.000001% bad votes out of all votes cast which would not change an election result is not worth the $5,000,000.00 (minimum) price tag.

And with NO CONSEQUENTIAL IMPROVEMENT to our system it isn't worth placing significant impediments to the Constitutional rights of legitimate voters as follows:

•23 percent of all elderly Wisconsinites over the age of 65
•17 percent of white men and women
•55 percent of all African American males and 49 percent of African American women
•46 percent of Hispanic men and 59% of Hispanic women
•78 percent of African American males age 18-24 and 66 percent of African American women age 18-24

Thank you for the continued opportunity to show the falsehoods and flawed logic that constitute the underpinnings of modern Con "thought", both at KBR and now here on your home turf, particularly on a subject that supposedly bores you in a thread that you claim you didn't to write.

Denis Navratil said...

A minor inconvenience - securing proper identification - required of all voters in exchange for reducing the potential for voter fraud is considered to be a proportionate requirement to all but the lunatic fringe. Comparing such a requirement to imposing the death penalty for shoplifting simply proves that you are intellectually, or more likely emotionally/psychologically, incapable of being a proper judge of proportionality and as such you should be ignored and/or pitied by balanced individuals.

Sean Cranley said...

It's not worth the $5,000,000.00 (min) price tag to stop 3 bad votes out of 3,000,000 cast. THAT is NOT proportional. But the I guess I'm just not a spendthrift like you.

It's also NOT "a minor inconvenience" Denis. One must:

- Determine the requirements and coordinate and set aside the time to complete them.
- Get a copy of your birth Cert and pay the fee. This may require several hours (unpaid) off of work and transportation (by otherssince you don;t have a license) to city hall or whatever the hell is required to retrieve your cert if you were born out of town, out of state or out of the country, pretty damn inconvenient and in some cases insurmountable!
- Arrange to go to the nearest DMV when it's open, pay the fee and get your ID. This may require several hours (unpaid) off of work and transportation (by others)to the DMV. If the DMV isn't in your city these will be NO means of public transport available to you, so you will have to rely on friends or family also having the hours of time required available for you. WAY INCONVENIENT. If you're disabled you may need to arrange for special transport services. SUPER Inconvenient! BTW special transport services for the disabled will not tranport outside the resident county, so if there's no DMV in your country, you've been disenfranchised!
-If you can't afford the fee, you'll have to gather information to demonstrate financial need.
-If you move you'll have to do repeat the whole DMV portion.

If you think that's a "minor inconvenience", especially for those with disabilities, limited means, no transportation and daytime jobs then you're pretty cavalier with the time and resources of you fellow citizens to excercise their Constitutional right.

Allow me to reiterate the info on Wisconsin's oh so convenient DMV system:

Twenty-six percent of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open one day a month or less.
•Wisconsin has only one DMV with weekend hours.
•Three Wisconsin counties have no DMVs.
•Over half of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open on a part-time basis.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to dismantle what passes for Con-logic to wich you cling so tenaciously on this boring and unwanted subject.

Of course we all know it's really not about fraud at all but rather suppressing the votes of citizens who are deemed less desirable than certain others. In light of the FACTS that could not be more obvious.

Sean Cranley said...

It's not worth the $5,000,000.00 (min) price tag to stop 3 bad votes out of 3,000,000 cast. THAT is NOT proportional. But the I guess I'm just not a spendthrift like you.

It's also NOT "a minor inconvenience" Denis. One must:

- Determine the requirements and coordinate and set aside the time to complete them.
- Get a copy of your birth Cert and pay the fee. This may require several hours (unpaid) off of work and transportation (by otherssince you don;t have a license) to city hall or whatever the hell is required to retrieve your cert if you were born out of town, out of state or out of the country, pretty damn inconvenient and in some cases insurmountable!
- Arrange to go to the nearest DMV when it's open, pay the fee and get your ID. This may require several hours (unpaid) off of work and transportation (by others)to the DMV. If the DMV isn't in your city these will be NO means of public transport available to you, so you will have to rely on friends or family also having the hours of time required available for you. WAY INCONVENIENT. If you're disabled you may need to arrange for special transport services. SUPER Inconvenient! BTW special transport services for the disabled will not tranport outside the resident county, so if there's no DMV in your country, you've been disenfranchised!
-If you can't afford the fee, you'll have to gather information to demonstrate financial need.
-If you move you'll have to do repeat the whole DMV portion.

If you think that's a "minor inconvenience", especially for those with disabilities, limited means, no transportation and daytime jobs then you're pretty cavalier with the time and resources of you fellow citizens to excercise their Constitutional right.

Allow me to reiterate the info on Wisconsin's oh so convenient DMV system:

Twenty-six percent of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open one day a month or less.
•Wisconsin has only one DMV with weekend hours.
•Three Wisconsin counties have no DMVs.
•Over half of Wisconsin’s 91 DMVs are open on a part-time basis.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to dismantle what passes for Con-logic to wich you cling so tenaciously on this boring and unwanted subject.

Of course we all know it's really not about fraud at all but rather suppressing the votes of citizens who are deemed less desirable than certain others. In light of the FACTS that could not be more obvious.

Denis Navratil said...

I have been disarmed by our repressive government! What good is a right to bear arms when I must:

1) Get a job and save money to buy a gun.
2) Buy a car, get a valid drivers license, insurance etc...to drive to a gun store.
3) Prove my identity with valid state ID to said gun store.

To protect my rights we should:

1) do away with ID requirement
2) make guns free
3) have government deliver guns to my home
4) recognize that the exercise of one's rights require absolutely no individual responsibility. The state must provide.

Sean Cranley said...

The impediments you've identified to buying a gun arise from:
A) The normal activities required to acquire property of any kind; and
B) The the very real and legitimate public safety concern the guns not be purchased by children and criminals.

However, the impediments to voting for tens of thousands of legitiate voters that you, though bored, continue to advocate would arise through the imposition of a government program to stop one bad vote out of 1,000,000 cast. The causes, reasons and legitimacy of these two examples are completely different. Consequently, your attempt at analogy fails.

Government shouldn't impose restrictions or make expenditures without an established need to do so. You have failed to demonstrate an established need. I notice that you've steered completely clear of the cost issue, because you know your condoning the expenditure of $5,000,000.00 in taxes that we don't have for this spurious and wholly political purpose will demonstrate your hypocrisy. $5M to prevent 3 bad votes. That's $1.66 million per vote which is neither prudent nor proportional.

Speaking of which, my examples for proportionality were obviously outlandish and intentionally so, to demonstrate why measures that are disproportionate to the problem they address are ridiculous. But I guess that went right over your head.

So you see you've failed demonstrate need. You've failed to justify the cost. And you've failed to establish proportionality.

First do no harm? Your "cure" is far worse than the ailment. Doctor, you've failed, doctor!

Nemo said...

Elements of Denis's analogy holds up pretty well.

If "B) The very real and legitimate public safety concern the guns not be purchased by children and criminals."

Then "B) The very real and legitimate public integrity concern that votes not be cast by children, criminals, more than once per person,..." follows.

Without the legitimacy of legal votes, elected government is embezzled and any mandate suspect.

To put a few cheap bars in the window to protect the jewel of the Republic from being stolen is common sense. The only reasons I can see to oppose such simple precautions would be the soft bigotry of low expectations or felonious intent.

Sean Cranley said...

Nemo did you write this? "Without the legitimacy of legal votes, elected government is embezzled and any mandate suspect.

To put a few cheap bars in the window to protect the jewel of the Republic from being stolen is common sense. The only reasons I can see to oppose such simple precautions would be the soft bigotry of low expectations or felonious intent.

Because based on our correspondence, it sounds WAY TOO eloquent for YOU. IT makes me wonder about the real author and the actual context, SO important.

Regardless your argument falls flat and you guys are still batting ZERO on thsi argument based on th following:

There is absolutely no evidence of a widespread conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General JB Van Hollen has made prosecuting so-called voter fraud one of his top priorities. However, after a two year investigation into the 2008 election, Van Hollen has found a scant 11 potentially improper ballots out of nearly 3 million total votes cast. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/86917797.html

Of those, eight involved felons who voted while out in the community on probation or parole, a situation that voter ID would not remedy. That leaves 3 potentially bad votes out of 3,000,000 votes, or about 0.000001% of all votes cast. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.

Cry Uncle aNEMOnous, it's your only defense!

Oh and thanks for the entertainment.

Nemo said...

Yeah, it's my non-prose. I was feeling strangely metaphorical late yesterday. Not to bad for an engineer, eah? But what do I know.

Sean Cranley said...

Well it sure sounds purdy Nemo, until you think about putting "bars" on our democracy, bars that will stop many legitimate voters from excercizing their constitutional right to participate.

And those bars are "cheap", they cost as least $1,660,000 per illigitimate vote, (not that the GOPters in charge are concerned about Wisconsin's deficit, everything they're doing is inceasing it).

And you notion that 3 bad votes out of 3,000,000 cast are going to allow the "jewel of the Republic" to be "stolen" is laughably ludicrous, but then that's par for the couse. And simply repeating Denis' failed arguments in you own purdy words doesn't advance your cause.

You and your pals have have failed to demonstrate a need for this government program, you've failed to judstify the exense of tax dollars and you failed to demonstrate proportionality of the measure and the harm it will do in respect to the minor, almost non-existent threat these isolated incidents pose.

Three strikes, your out. You've clearly lost this one. Perhaps no we can move on to discussing the disgusting and equally politicall motivated GOP Abuser Protection Act of 2011 that poses as "Tort Reform" Id love to see you dance in defense of that atrocity.

Anonymous said...

sean...don't argue with an idiot, people might not know the difference.

Nemo said...

sean as umpire? The dark glasses and red tipped white cane of your premises do not inspire confidence. You parrot the number 3 but in reality no one knows how many votes were stolen. Certainly more than 3. Probably less than 25,000.

Clearly lost? Let's review. Last year Conservatives campaigned for, among other things, voter ID. There was an election last November that served as a very real and binding referendum. Voter fraud proponents lost the Wisconsin House. Lost the Wisconsin Senate. Lost the Wisconsin executive race. I'm surprised you don't seem to know this, it was in all the papers.

Lost? Remember that the next time you vote and are asked for a photo ID.

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

Failing prevail with an argument for the GOPvoter Suppression Act of 2011 based on the merits of facts and reasoning to justify it, Nemo resorts to not only moving the goal posts, but changing the playing field entirely to the results of an election. As if that makes the case and as if it's proper for a transitory majority to trample on the Constitutional rights of a minority.

A typical Nemo dodge in the face of better facts and superior reasoning which he cannot overcome, thus showing his true colors and of course failing once again by virtue of the need to resort to this sort of tactic at all. Nice try. Well, not really.

Nemo said...

sean,"changing the playing field entirely to the results of an election."

Uh...are you claiming that conservatives did not win in the 2010 election? I think the word was shellacking. Sean 0, Nemo 7.


sean,"transitory majority to trample on the Constitutional rights of a minority. "

The courts don't agree with you. Last I checked they, not you (thank God!), are the final arbitrators on the Constitutional rights of a minority. Sean 0, Nemo 16. (got the 2 point conversion on that one)


And remember sean, next time you vote, bring a photo ID. Sean 0, Nemo 19 (Nemo kicks a meaningless field goal to beat the spread)

Heh.

Sean Cranley said...

What a perfectly ridiculus question Nemo. No, what I'm saying is that you should be able to justify and defend a measure you're in favor of on its merits

But you've failed to achieve and so you fall back on the election "argument". It's good to know that the next time the dems win the election, to be consistent you will support whatever measures they propose. Either that or I'll be perfectly justified in calling out your hypocrisy.

But why wait for the inevitable? HYPOCRISY!

Nemo said...

The merits were discussed before the election. Your side lost.

See you at the polls (only once).

Sean Cranley said...

Oh not so Nemo. Walky never made voter suppression a major topic of his run for corporate schill, I mean Gov, though it's been a republicon wish to blunt the brown for sometime now.

If the topic were ever openly and HONESTLY discussed there wouldn't be tens of thousands of Wisconsinites deluded into believing the necessary pack of lies used to justify this government program that you're incapable of defending, but want ever so badly anyway my dear illogical engineer.