Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

GAO: Voter ID laws suppress voting, not fraud

Page 1 of 11 [ 166 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Oct 2014, 10:08 am

Senator Bernie Sanders asked GAO to publish research on the voter ID laws being passed in many states, and GAO found that it had the effect of significantly reducing voter turnout, especially among African-Americans, the young, and the newly registered. GAO found scant evidence of election fraud impacting the results of elections, which is exaggerated and used as a pretext to enact laws that have a highly negative effect on voter turnout, an effect that tends to favor Republicans over Democrats:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/08/ ... eport.html



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Oct 2014, 1:25 pm

From the report:

GAO wrote:
When estimating effects separately by race, we found that turnout among African-American registrants declined more than turnout among White registrants in Kansas and Tennessee between the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and our analysis suggests that this difference is attributable to changes in those states? voter ID laws (see table 17). The effect among African-Americans was - 7.0 percentage points in Kansas and -4.1 percentage points in Tennessee, using all comparison states, compared to -3.2 percentage points among Whites in Kansas and -2.6 percentage points in Tennessee. The effects varied across these subpopulations, with larger effects among African-American registrants, younger registrants, and recent registrants. Expressed as a ratio, African-American registrants were affected 2.2 and 1.6 times more strongly in Kansas and Tennessee, respectively, than White registrants. We found similar results when comparing African-American registrants to Asian-American and Hispanic registrants, respectively. The effects among Asian-American, White, and Hispanic registrants were similar to each other, particularly when considering the effects? margins of error.

And here is the above-mentioned Table 17 (my emphasis added):

Image
(Table truncated for brevity. See 2nd link below for full table)

Summary: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665965.pdf
Full report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf (see page 166-167)



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Oct 2014, 2:35 pm

GGPViper wrote:
From the report:

GAO wrote:
When estimating effects separately by race, we found that turnout among African-American registrants declined more than turnout among White registrants in Kansas and Tennessee between the 2008 and 2012 general elections, and our analysis suggests that this difference is attributable to changes in those states? voter ID laws (see table 17). The effect among African-Americans was - 7.0 percentage points in Kansas and -4.1 percentage points in Tennessee, using all comparison states, compared to -3.2 percentage points among Whites in Kansas and -2.6 percentage points in Tennessee. The effects varied across these subpopulations, with larger effects among African-American registrants, younger registrants, and recent registrants. Expressed as a ratio, African-American registrants were affected 2.2 and 1.6 times more strongly in Kansas and Tennessee, respectively, than White registrants. We found similar results when comparing African-American registrants to Asian-American and Hispanic registrants, respectively. The effects among Asian-American, White, and Hispanic registrants were similar to each other, particularly when considering the effects? margins of error.

And here is the above-mentioned Table 17 (my emphasis added):

Image
(Table truncated for brevity. See 2nd link below for full table)

Summary: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665965.pdf
Full report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf (see page 166-167)


2008 and 2012 were very different elections, attributing the decline in the black vote specifically seems to undersell the historic nature of the 2008 election. Turnout overall was lower in 2012.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Oct 2014, 2:47 pm

Jacoby wrote:
2008 and 2012 were very different elections, attributing the decline in the black vote specifically seems to undersell the historic nature of the 2008 election. Turnout overall was lower in 2012.

... which is why the study compares the *relative* drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012 by racial category.

And turnout among black voters had been steadily increasing from 1996 to 2008, so you are overselling the so-called "historic" nature of the 2008 election.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Oct 2014, 3:05 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
2008 and 2012 were very different elections, attributing the decline in the black vote specifically seems to undersell the historic nature of the 2008 election. Turnout overall was lower in 2012.

... which is why the study compares the *relative* drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012 by racial category.

And turnout among black voters had been steadily increasing from 1996 to 2008, so you are overselling the so-called "historic" nature of the 2008 election.


The study isn't particularly clear with its graphs with the whys and the comparisons, it is pretty confusing. I don't feel like reading 200 pages of it to get the gist of it, I doubt you did either.

2008 was different tho, that's why turnout was so much higher over all. It would be more interesting to compare turnout between the year 2000 or 2004 with 2012 rather than 2008. 2008 just seems like it could just be an outlier due to the historic nature of it, it is a pretty big leap to declare than any decline is due to voter ID laws. Does this study explain why there is a correlation or is it just pointing out there is one and basing its conclusions on that?

You can't exactly quantify voter fraud prevented, that's asking to prove a negative. The amount of voter fraud caught hasn't seen a discernible difference okay but why would it?



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Oct 2014, 3:15 pm

Jacoby wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
2008 and 2012 were very different elections, attributing the decline in the black vote specifically seems to undersell the historic nature of the 2008 election. Turnout overall was lower in 2012.

... which is why the study compares the *relative* drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012 by racial category.

And turnout among black voters had been steadily increasing from 1996 to 2008, so you are overselling the so-called "historic" nature of the 2008 election.


The study isn't particularly clear with its graphs with the whys and the comparisons, it is pretty confusing. I don't feel like reading 200 pages of it to get the gist of it, I doubt you did either.

2008 was different tho, that's why turnout was so much higher over all. It would be more interesting to compare turnout between the year 2000 or 2004 with 2012 rather than 2008. 2008 just seems like it could just be an outlier due to the historic nature of it, it is a pretty big leap to declare than any decline is due to voter ID laws. Does this study explain why there is a correlation or is it just pointing out there is one and basing its conclusions on that?

You can't exactly quantify voter fraud prevented, that's asking to prove a negative. The amount of voter fraud caught hasn't seen a discernible difference okay but why would it?


So why do we need such laws that make it harder for people to vote?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm

beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
2008 and 2012 were very different elections, attributing the decline in the black vote specifically seems to undersell the historic nature of the 2008 election. Turnout overall was lower in 2012.

... which is why the study compares the *relative* drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012 by racial category.

And turnout among black voters had been steadily increasing from 1996 to 2008, so you are overselling the so-called "historic" nature of the 2008 election.


The study isn't particularly clear with its graphs with the whys and the comparisons, it is pretty confusing. I don't feel like reading 200 pages of it to get the gist of it, I doubt you did either.

2008 was different tho, that's why turnout was so much higher over all. It would be more interesting to compare turnout between the year 2000 or 2004 with 2012 rather than 2008. 2008 just seems like it could just be an outlier due to the historic nature of it, it is a pretty big leap to declare than any decline is due to voter ID laws. Does this study explain why there is a correlation or is it just pointing out there is one and basing its conclusions on that?

You can't exactly quantify voter fraud prevented, that's asking to prove a negative. The amount of voter fraud caught hasn't seen a discernible difference okay but why would it?


So why do we need such laws that make it harder for people to vote?


Just because it can't be quantified doesn't mean it doesn't happen obviously, I don't see the requirement being unfair or discriminatory since it applies to everyone. People that actually wants to vote won't have any trouble meeting it, someone that can't be bothered doesn't really want to vote. Do we really want people that can't be bother and don't really care deciding our elections anyway? Canada has voter ID laws, are they discriminatory? It just seems rather silly given all the things we need ID for in this country and voting isn't one of them.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

09 Oct 2014, 4:16 pm

Jacoby wrote:
The study isn't particularly clear with its graphs with the whys and the comparisons, it is pretty confusing. I don't feel like reading 200 pages of it to get the gist of it, I doubt you did either.

Well, I suppose it would have been better If I had provided a link to a 2-page summary of the report...

Oh, wait... I did provide a link to a 2-page summary of the report... :roll:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Oct 2014, 4:57 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The study isn't particularly clear with its graphs with the whys and the comparisons, it is pretty confusing. I don't feel like reading 200 pages of it to get the gist of it, I doubt you did either.

Well, I suppose it would have been better If I had provided a link to a 2-page summary of the report...

Oh, wait... I did provide a link to a 2-page summary of the report... :roll:


Yea, it seems pretty flimsy. Do the 200 pages go into more detail as to why voter ID specifically caused lower voter turnout in these states? The summery itself says that 5 studies showed it had no statistically significant effect on turnout, 4 showed decreases, and 1 even showed an increase. Comparing just Kentucky and Kansas to certain comparison states and finding correlation doesn't really prove anything.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 6:20 pm

Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Oct 2014, 8:25 pm

Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 8:40 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.

Dec. '12
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Voter suppression again. :?
You go to your assigned voter precinct, show them your voter registration card and drivers licence (or whatever), and they give you a ballot.
Honestly, I think anything less then chauffeuring the people of the poorer neighborhoods to the polls and buying them lunch for their troubles would be considered "voter suppression" by the left.
:roll:


What's wrong with providing transportation to voters unable to otherwise reach the polls?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nothing as long as an individual does it for them on his own at his expense. It is not "voter suppression" when it's not provided at taxpayer expense.
You have the right to vote but have the responsibility to get there and back on your own.


I personally have no problem with persons of either party being given transportation by the government if poverty or disability hinders their ability to get to the polls.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"nuff said....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Oct 2014, 9:01 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.

Dec. '12
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Voter suppression again. :?
You go to your assigned voter precinct, show them your voter registration card and drivers licence (or whatever), and they give you a ballot.
Honestly, I think anything less then chauffeuring the people of the poorer neighborhoods to the polls and buying them lunch for their troubles would be considered "voter suppression" by the left.
:roll:


What's wrong with providing transportation to voters unable to otherwise reach the polls?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nothing as long as an individual does it for them on his own at his expense. It is not "voter suppression" when it's not provided at taxpayer expense.
You have the right to vote but have the responsibility to get there and back on your own.


I personally have no problem with persons of either party being given transportation by the government if poverty or disability hinders their ability to get to the polls.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"nuff said....


As I clearly stated that I had no problem with the government providing transportation for those voters who are not able to get to the polls due to poverty or disability - not that it should be a requirement - I fail to see how that refutes or discredits my point in this thread.
You conservatives just laugh off voter disenfranchisement with such arguments as being frivolous. You don't seem to be alarmed that Americans are having their right to vote denied them, simply because of idiot racism, or because conservatives aren't able to attract a certain group, and so keeps them from casting their ballots.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Oct 2014, 9:35 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.

Dec. '12
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Voter suppression again. :?
You go to your assigned voter precinct, show them your voter registration card and drivers licence (or whatever), and they give you a ballot.
Honestly, I think anything less then chauffeuring the people of the poorer neighborhoods to the polls and buying them lunch for their troubles would be considered "voter suppression" by the left.
:roll:


What's wrong with providing transportation to voters unable to otherwise reach the polls?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nothing as long as an individual does it for them on his own at his expense. It is not "voter suppression" when it's not provided at taxpayer expense.
You have the right to vote but have the responsibility to get there and back on your own.


I personally have no problem with persons of either party being given transportation by the government if poverty or disability hinders their ability to get to the polls.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"nuff said....


As I clearly stated that I had no problem with the government providing transportation for those voters who are not able to get to the polls due to poverty or disability - not that it should be a requirement - I fail to see how that refutes or discredits my point in this thread.

It's on the voter to make it to the polls. Just because it's a right doesnt obligate anyone to facilitate them exercising it.

Quote:
You conservatives just laugh off voter disenfranchisement with such arguments as being frivolous. You don't seem to be alarmed that Americans are having their right to vote denied them, simply because of idiot racism, or because conservatives aren't able to attract a certain group, and so keeps them from casting their ballots.

Other than a few isolated instances in Florida and Wisconsin that, if I remember right, weren't conclusively proven to be racially motivated, you haven't brought much to the table.
It's pretty obvious that you think that racism is an inherent attitude in all conservatives.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,435
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Oct 2014, 11:43 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.

Dec. '12
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Voter suppression again. :?
You go to your assigned voter precinct, show them your voter registration card and drivers licence (or whatever), and they give you a ballot.
Honestly, I think anything less then chauffeuring the people of the poorer neighborhoods to the polls and buying them lunch for their troubles would be considered "voter suppression" by the left.
:roll:


What's wrong with providing transportation to voters unable to otherwise reach the polls?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Nothing as long as an individual does it for them on his own at his expense. It is not "voter suppression" when it's not provided at taxpayer expense.
You have the right to vote but have the responsibility to get there and back on your own.


I personally have no problem with persons of either party being given transportation by the government if poverty or disability hinders their ability to get to the polls.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"nuff said....


As I clearly stated that I had no problem with the government providing transportation for those voters who are not able to get to the polls due to poverty or disability - not that it should be a requirement - I fail to see how that refutes or discredits my point in this thread.

It's on the voter to make it to the polls. Just because it's a right doesnt obligate anyone to facilitate them exercising it.

Quote:
You conservatives just laugh off voter disenfranchisement with such arguments as being frivolous. You don't seem to be alarmed that Americans are having their right to vote denied them, simply because of idiot racism, or because conservatives aren't able to attract a certain group, and so keeps them from casting their ballots.

Other than a few isolated instances in Florida and Wisconsin that, if I remember right, weren't conclusively proven to be racially motivated, you haven't brought much to the table.
It's pretty obvious that you think that racism is an inherent attitude in all conservatives.


Again, I said I had no problem with transportation being provided, not that it be a requirement.
As for voter suppression laws... er, I mean voter fraud laws not really being motivated by racism - considering that a great many of them are enacted within those states that have had long histories of racial discrimination, the charge is hardly far fetched, and is in fact very probable.
And no, I don't accuse all conservatives of racism, just those who have had a preexisting history of it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

09 Oct 2014, 11:46 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Anything less than chauffeuring the "marginalized" to/from the polls and buying them lunch for the troubles is voter suppression to the ones that dote on the term "voter suppression".


Ahahahahahah(cough, cough)hahahahaha!
But seriously, no. Voter suppression is all about using the rarely committed crime of voter fraud as a pretext to justify such repressive laws, because conservatives know they can't realistically get the college age vote, and never seriously wanted blacks voting at all.

Dec. '12
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Voter suppression again. :?
You go to your assigned voter precinct, show them your voter registration card and drivers licence (or whatever), and they give you a ballot.
Honestly, I think anything less then chauffeuring the people of the poorer neighborhoods to the polls and buying them lunch for their troubles would be considered "voter suppression" by the left.
:roll:


What's wrong with providing transportation to voters unable to otherwise reach the polls?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


more dishonesty and denial of reality by Conservatives. You know very good and well that there or efforts by Conservatives to minimize the number of voters in specific groups who are prone to vote Democratic and yet you consistently deny what is going on. You should be denouncing these tactics if you really believe that Conservatives are morally and ethically superior.

Nothing as long as an individual does it for them on his own at his expense. It is not "voter suppression" when it's not provided at taxpayer expense.
You have the right to vote but have the responsibility to get there and back on your own.


I personally have no problem with persons of either party being given transportation by the government if poverty or disability hinders their ability to get to the polls.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


"nuff said....