https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

Quote:When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

just get a ******* ID man

(02-16-2017 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

Quote:When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexicans and Guatemalans to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

(02-16-2017 01:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

Quote:When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexican-Americans and Guatemalan-Americans to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

FTFY

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

Fine, most things. You knew what I meant, don't be obtuse. I need an ID to purchase alcohol but not to vote? Ridiculous.

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

Quote:When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexican and Guatemalan to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

FTFY

It was correct the first time. Just because they moved here doesn't make them citizens. I take it you missed the article linked about the illegal alien who got arrested for voting at least 5 times in recent years.

Here's a suggestion. Find out what it is about requiring an ID that causes alleged voter suppression....attempt to fix that. Not requiring an ID to vote is not a valid solution to those problems.

(02-16-2017 01:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Here's a suggestion. Find out what it is about requiring an ID that causes alleged voter suppression....attempt to fix that. Not requiring an ID to vote is not a valid solution to those problems.

The reality is that IDs are real easy to obtain.

Ask any illegal alien. They can get one at the nearest flea market.

(02-16-2017 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

Quote:When we compare overall turnout in states with strict ID laws to turnout in states without these laws, we find no significant difference. That pattern matches with most existing studies. But when we dig deeper and look specifically at racial and ethnic minority turnout, we see a significant drop in minority participation when and where these laws are implemented.

Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.

These laws have a disproportionate effect on minorities, which is exactly what you would expect given that members of racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to have valid photo ID.

So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexican and Guatemalan to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

FTFY

It was correct the first time. Just because they moved here doesn't make them citizens. I take it you missed the article linked about the illegal alien who got arrested for voting at least 5 times in recent years.

when I say mexican-americans I mean those who have citizens in this particular thread.

and wasn't that illegal alien a republican?

(02-16-2017 01:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monk...b947077bfb

So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexican and Guatemalan to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

FTFY

It was correct the first time. Just because they moved here doesn't make them citizens. I take it you missed the article linked about the illegal alien who got arrested for voting at least 5 times in recent years.

when I say mexican-americans I mean those who have citizens in this particular thread.

and wasn't that illegal alien a republican?

no, the illegal alien said she had voted for the prosecutor who was prosecuting her, likely to try to get leniency.

(02-16-2017 01:52 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

Fine, most things. You knew what I meant, don't be obtuse. I need an ID to purchase alcohol but not to vote? Ridiculous.

no. in general it's an incorrect assertion.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because my license says John smith but the list says john j smith.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because the ID I used is expired.

then there is the more technical stuff like an airplane. you don't need an id to get on an airplane. a NYT reporter decided to test the system him/herself to see if it was possible (it was).

(02-16-2017 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:55 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  So with strict voter ID laws, its harder for Mexican and Guatemalan to vote in US elections. That makes sense.

FTFY

It was correct the first time. Just because they moved here doesn't make them citizens. I take it you missed the article linked about the illegal alien who got arrested for voting at least 5 times in recent years.

when I say mexican-americans I mean those who have citizens in this particular thread.

and wasn't that illegal alien a republican?

no, the illegal alien said she had voted for the prosecutor who was prosecuting her, likely to try to get leniency.

I'm pretty sure the article said she was a registered republican.

also wasn't she a legal resident who was a non-citizen? so I don't think the term "illegal-alien" even applies.

(02-16-2017 01:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:52 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

Fine, most things. You knew what I meant, don't be obtuse. I need an ID to purchase alcohol but not to vote? Ridiculous.

no. in general it's an incorrect assertion.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because my license says John smith but the list says john j smith.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because the ID I used is expired.

then there is the more technical stuff like an airplane. you don't need an id to get on an airplane. a NYT reporter decided to test the system him/herself to see if it was possible (it was).

Regardless, buying beer required an ID.

So you are OK with beer needing an ID but not voting?

(02-16-2017 02:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:52 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:50 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  So?

Either way, photo ID should required to vote. You need a photo ID for everything else.

this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

Fine, most things. You knew what I meant, don't be obtuse. I need an ID to purchase alcohol but not to vote? Ridiculous.

no. in general it's an incorrect assertion.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because my license says John smith but the list says john j smith.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because the ID I used is expired.

then there is the more technical stuff like an airplane. you don't need an id to get on an airplane. a NYT reporter decided to test the system him/herself to see if it was possible (it was).

Regardless, buying beer required an ID.

So you are OK with beer needing an ID but not voting?

under a standard that was far less rigorous.

the fact that you want to ignore this point speaks volumes.

by "regardless" you mean: ignoring the critical point that was made here...

(02-16-2017 02:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 02:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:52 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this is actually an incorrect assertion. but it doesn't stop the GOPers from repeating it.

Fine, most things. You knew what I meant, don't be obtuse. I need an ID to purchase alcohol but not to vote? Ridiculous.

no. in general it's an incorrect assertion.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because my license says John smith but the list says john j smith.

no one is stopping me from buying beer because the ID I used is expired.

then there is the more technical stuff like an airplane. you don't need an id to get on an airplane. a NYT reporter decided to test the system him/herself to see if it was possible (it was).

Regardless, buying beer required an ID.

So you are OK with beer needing an ID but not voting?

under a standard that was far less rigorous.

the fact that you want to ignore this point speaks volumes.

Voting is far more important than beer. Well, for most Americans. Based on your posting, I imagine Bud Light is your best friend.

Make them undergo a vigorous background check when they register. We require it for other Constitutional rights.

(02-16-2017 01:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Here's a suggestion. Find out what it is about requiring an ID that causes alleged voter suppression....attempt to fix that. Not requiring an ID to vote is not a valid solution to those problems.

A national voter ID?