|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 12, 2013 23:22:21 GMT
We just had our first election after passing the Voter I.D. law. Despite all the whining from the left, it did NOT suppress voting. In fact, voting was much higher than in the last constitutional amendment election 2 years ago. Once again.......liberals have been proven wrong!!! "Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable election. The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992. According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments. If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670. So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections. But that's statewide. How about in areas the anti-voter ID side predicted should see "suppression"? Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%. Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted. If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov. Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013. So in its first real-world test, Texas' voter ID law -- which 66% of Texans support, according to a 2012 University of Texas poll -- had no impact on suppressing the vote. It even can be argued that voter ID helped increase turnout. Turnout was up, and in fact, the 2013 constitutional amendment election saw the highest constitutional amendment election turnout in Texas in about eight years. Opponents of voter ID must come up with a new line to attack it. The old dog that it suppresses the vote just won't hunt." www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t4 |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 13, 2013 11:41:37 GMT
A little premature as this is based upon an opinion article by a conservative blogger that provides no demographic information on the vote which is required to provide an analysis of it. Simply citing an aggregate increase in the vote count has little meaning in an off election year were only 8% of the registered voters turned out to begin with. Remember we're not taking about aggregate votes but instead that a small percentage of American citizens, predominately the poor, would be excluded.
For example in Hidalgo County there are about 307,000 registered voters, predominately Hispanic, only 16,000 voted and those that would vote in a constitutional amendment election tend to be the most politically involved and motivated voters. 291,000 registered voters didn't show up at the polls and the ones without a valid photo voter ID would be very unlikely to turn out to vote knowing that they couldn't vote even if they wanted to.
We also don't have any information on the number of people that showed up at the poll to vote but were denied because they didn't have a valid voter photo ID on them or how many "provisional" votes were allowed that won't even be counted unless they would potentially affect the outcome of the vote.
We can also note that the voter turnout for a constitutional amendment election is generally determined by how contentious the proposed amendments are. If the amendments proposed are not contentious then the voter turnout tends to be low but if they are highly divisive then turnout typically goes up.
BTW We know why the turnout in Hidalgo County was up for 2013 because Prop 8 on repealing the provision authorizing a hospital district in Hidalgo County was on the ballot. When there is a constitutional amendment that directly affects the citizens of a specific county the turnout is going to be greater in that county. Seems that Bryan Preston was a little dishonest in not mentioning this very pertinent fact about why the vote was up in the Hidalgo County.
So we really don't have any information so far that would establish whether the vote of American citizens was suppressed or not based upon the dribble of information related to this election. A demographic study of the vote in a general election, preferably a presidential election where the highest turnout would be expected, would be far more revealing on the impact of the law.
Now here's a more important question that can't be answered based upon the actual vote last Tuesday either but can be estimated based upon history of voter identity fraud at the polls.
How many non-citizens did the Voter Photo ID law prevent from voting?
Based upon history the answer is probably NONE because the odds of a person committing voter identity fraud at the polls is virtually nil in the United States! Voter Photo ID laws remains laws looking for a problem because there really isn't voter identity fraud being committed anywhere in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 14, 2013 0:45:02 GMT
You're doing a lot of "surmising" there....but that's typical.
Shiva: "We also don't have any information on the number of people that showed up at the poll to vote but were denied because they didn't have a valid voter photo ID on them or how many "provisional" votes were allowed that won't even be counted unless they would potentially affect the outcome of the vote".
Probably a lot. Like ME, for instance. I'll give you my personal experience. I went in there with my Voter Registration card that I've always shown before....AND my Texas Driver's License. But my middle initial is showing on my Voter Registration card....but NOT on my Texas Driver's License. So, I had two choices: 1) Sign an affidavit that said both of the names were me, or 2) take 2 seconds to sign a form to get my Voter Registration card changed to match my Drivers' License. I chose the 2nd one.....and a new card will be mailed to me. It literally took 2 or 3 seconds. And the reason I chose that one....is because now it's done and I will no longer be bothered with it on any elections from now on.....because now my Registration card will match my Driver's License.
IF they showed up without photo ID and got denied....then shame on them. They've had plenty of time to get it done. Maybe they'll get it done before the 2014 election....IF they truly want to vote. I haven't seen anything in the papers where someone claimed they were denied. Not saying it didn't happen.....
BTW, Officials also said that there was little traffic at the offices set up by the state to provide free voter ID documents for those without another approved form of identification. By Election Day, only 121 voter identification documents had been issued statewide. Okay.....we made the effort; we set up offices state-wide to get the FREE Voter ID for those who didn't have Driver's License or some other form. You can lead a horse to water; but you can't make him drink!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 14, 2013 10:40:48 GMT
You're doing a lot of "surmising" there....but that's typical.
Shiva: "We also don't have any information on the number of people that showed up at the poll to vote but were denied because they didn't have a valid voter photo ID on them or how many "provisional" votes were allowed that won't even be counted unless they would potentially affect the outcome of the vote".
Probably a lot. Like ME, for instance.
IF they showed up without photo ID and got denied....then shame on them. They've had plenty of time to get it done. Maybe they'll get it done before the 2014 election....IF they truly want to vote. I haven't seen anything in the papers where someone claimed they were denied. Not saying it didn't happen.....
BTW, Officials also said that there was little traffic at the offices set up by the state to provide free voter ID documents for those without another approved form of identification. By Election Day, only 121 voter identification documents had been issued statewide. Okay.....we made the effort; we set up offices state-wide to get the FREE Voter ID for those who didn't have Driver's License or some other form. You can lead a horse to water; but you can't make him drink!!
The last paragraph is actually indicative of the problem with the law. Only 121 voter identification cards had been issued because....... people that don't have the documentation to obtain one are unlikely to go to the expense of purchasing a certified copy of their birth certificate if they're poor. When they have a choice of feeding their family for up to two or three days they're likely to make that choice over being able to vote. Some people simply fail to understand how much money even $35 that would be required to obtain a copy of a birth certificate is when it comes to a poor family. I've literally tossed away thousands of dollars at a time because of a relatively high income but to a poor person even $10 can make a difference in feeding the family.
I did notice that the key question was not answer:
How many non-citizens did the Voter Photo ID law prevent from voting?
Preventing one "illegal vote" and the expense of ten "legal votes" is a negative proposition and harmful to the election process. The law in such cases is doing more harm than good.
Once again the fact is that a conservative opinion writer that provides no actual demographic information on a single vote that isn't a general election is virtually meaningless when it comes to evaluating the effect of the law on a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 16, 2013 1:06:28 GMT
Shiva: "I did notice that the key question was not answer:
How many non-citizens did the Voter Photo ID law prevent from voting?
Preventing one "illegal vote" and the expense of ten "legal votes" is a negative proposition and harmful to the election process. The law in such cases is doing more harm than good."
You expect someone to PROVE a negative??? Come on....you're smarter than that.
Do you know how much of that county's population is illegal?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 16, 2013 12:58:44 GMT
Shiva: "I did notice that the key question was not answer:
How many non-citizens did the Voter Photo ID law prevent from voting?
Preventing one "illegal vote" and the expense of ten "legal votes" is a negative proposition and harmful to the election process. The law in such cases is doing more harm than good."
You expect someone to PROVE a negative??? Come on....you're smarter than that.
Do you know how much of that county's population is illegal?
Of course a "negative" cannot be proven but a positive can be. How many cases of voter identification fraud at the polls have been documented in Hidalgo County in the last 50 years? How many cases of non-citizens voting have been identified in Hidalgo County? These would be "positive" statistics that can be proven and not negative statistics that can never be proven.
I don't have any statistics exclusively related to Hidalgo County but we do have statistics related to the entire Republic of Texas.
So we have documented evidence of 66 cases but only four of them would be related to the Voter ID law in the entire Republic of Texas over an eight year time-frame. Even if all four cases of Voter ID fraud at the polls were in Hidalgo County statistically more "citizens" would not be eligible to vote because they don't have a valid photo ID or the documents necessary to obtain one from the state.
Based upon rational review the law causes more harm than good when it comes to voting because far more Americans citizens will be unable to vote than the number of non-citizens that would be prevented from voting under the provisions of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 17, 2013 16:57:18 GMT
Shiva: "For example in Hidalgo County there are about 307,000 registered voters, predominately Hispanic, only 16,000 voted and those that would vote in a constitutional amendment election tend to be the most politically involved and motivated voters. 291,000 registered voters didn't show up at the polls and the ones without a valid photo voter ID would be very unlikely to turn out to vote knowing that they couldn't vote even if they wanted to."
Again....you make assumptions and you have no proof of them. You assume that because there might be 307,000 registered voters that a high percentage of them would be voting. That's a bad assumption on your part. But what we DO have that is FACT.....is that the number who voted this time (after the Texas Voter I.D. law) was HIGHER than the last election. That means there is no indication the Voter I.D. act kept anyone who wanted to vote from voting. Therefore I have more FACTS on my side of the argument than you do on your ASSUMPTION that there COULD have been more except for the new law.
You can't make up stories like that. I can't make up a story that because 4 million less Republicans voted in 2008 for McCain than normally voted, that was....(fill in the blank for whatever I would like to assume). You can say what you THINK may have happened....but that doesn't make it FACT.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 17, 2013 17:13:19 GMT
Shiva: "I did notice that the key question was not answer:
How many non-citizens did the Voter Photo ID law prevent from voting?
Preventing one "illegal vote" and the expense of ten "legal votes" is a negative proposition and harmful to the election process. The law in such cases is doing more harm than good."
You expect someone to PROVE a negative??? Come on....you're smarter than that.
Do you know how much of that county's population is illegal?
Of course a "negative" cannot be proven but a positive can be. How many cases of voter identification fraud at the polls have been documented in Hidalgo County in the last 50 years? How many cases of non-citizens voting have been identified in Hidalgo County? These would be "positive" statistics that can be proven and not negative statistics that can never be proven.
I don't have any statistics exclusively related to Hidalgo County but we do have statistics related to the entire Republic of Texas.
So we have documented evidence of 66 cases but only four of them would be related to the Voter ID law in the entire Republic of Texas over an eight year time-frame. Even if all four cases of Voter ID fraud at the polls were in Hidalgo County statistically more "citizens" would not be eligible to vote because they don't have a valid photo ID or the documents necessary to obtain one from the state.
Based upon rational review the law causes more harm than good when it comes to voting because far more Americans citizens will be unable to vote than the number of non-citizens that would be prevented from voting under the provisions of the law.
Hidalgo County is one of the fastest growing counties in America.....and a large percentage are illegals. You are not claiming that illegals should be going agaist the laws and voting, are you?? |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 17, 2013 18:13:45 GMT
Shiva: "Preventing one "illegal vote" and the expense of ten "legal votes" is a negative proposition and harmful to the election process. The law in such cases is doing more harm than good."
But that's just it. Anytime you make something "easy" then it will get taken advantage of....if not now, eventually. And YES, if just ONE illegal vote cancels mine out....then I DO have a problem with that. It is LAW that one cannot vote if they are here ILLEGALLY. I respect that law....and you should to.
You don't live in a border state......where thousands are coming across the border and going back and forth daily......drug cartels bringing in drugs and the crimes that go with it......overcrowding our jails......endangering our families on the highways......overcrowding our public school systems......overcrowding our hospitals, health clinics, and at OUR taxpayer expense. And they are not just coming from Mexico....they are coming from Central America; Hondurus, El Salvador, Guatemala.....as well as from Asian countries as well.
In Hidalgo County, for instance,......and actually all of the Rio Grande Valley area, they've been coming over for decades and decades.....setting up "shanty towns,'.......making homes out of dry wall, with no plumbing and no water........no services. But then comes the liberals....."ain't it just awful how Texas doesn't take care of their poor???" Well, that's BS....considering the job of securing the country's borders if NOT the responsibility of TEXAS; but rather the federal gov't. It's one of the few responsibilities it actually has in the U.S. Constitution.
And 40% are on food stamps. Wondering how that happens......considering that is supposed to be for citizens as well, right??? They are purchasing high-fat, expensive fast foods/snacks with food stamps, which is giving them diabetes at a high rate, and obesity at high rates. Their favorite thing to purchase with the food stamps is bags of "Hot Cheetos." They then open the bag of Cheetos, and pour microwaved, hot cheese over it." If you've ever bought Cheetos and such snacks, you know they are more expensive than say.....apples or bananas. And yet, they choose to eat what is slowing killing them.....as well as costing the rest of us a LOT of money!!! And this is despite organizations and do-gooders who go in to these neighborhoods to try and instruct them as to how to make wise purchases, eat better, and exercise. I feel sorry for the children. But really.....at what point does this stop?
So, I think you could possibly understand it's not all as "easy" as you would have everyone believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 17, 2013 18:23:08 GMT
BTW, since Prop 8 just passed (both myself and my husband voted in FAVOR of it), there is already a positive announcement, that happened as a result of the vote:
"The Board of Regents approved a total of $196 million for the campus to fund four initiatives. A new science building in Hidalgo County on the current UT-Pan American campus will be built with $70 million dollars. Capital improvement projects at the Cameron County campus of the new university will receive $54 million. Another $54 million will be used for the South Texas Medical Academic Building in Edinburg. And $18 million will be used to acquire facilities from Texas Southmost College, which is ending its long relationship with UT Brownsville."
This should help to bring jobs to that area....and citizens who will actually take control of the situation there and get a handle on it. At least, that is the hope!! They are going to need to be vigilant against the Mexican Drug Cartels, who think they own the area, though. Tough law enforcement to clean up the place will be needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 19, 2013 11:22:42 GMT
When I did my research I'd already noticed that Prop 8 had passed although I don't know the specifics of it. My point was that the (conservative) opinion was simply dishonest in pointing out the increased turnout in Hidalgo County as being a sign that the Voter ID law hadn't suppressed the vote because or the high turnout in Hidalgo County that Prop 8 generated. It's also dishonest to try and use an off-year "amendment" vote at all related to the Voter ID law as these are election where few turn out to begin with. The impact would be for a general election, predominately a presidential election, as they have the highest voter turnouts.
Here is an inconvenient fact. The Voting Rights Act was to a large degree based upon discriminatory voting laws such as poll tax and literacy test laws that were Jim Crow laws to suppress the vote predominately of African-Americans. As soon as the Supreme Court struck down the criteria established that required some states to submit voting laws to the federal government these States jumped to impose new Jim Crow voting laws that would suppress the vote of minorities
There is no fundamental difference between the poll tax laws, the literacy test laws, and the voter id laws as they all targeted the same identical group. They all target the "poor" and/or "uneducated" that are predominately African-Americans or other minorities in the United States and every study on the Voter ID laws supports this fact!!! They are Jim Crow laws pure and simple.
|
|
