My computer would not open the pdf. I found a screen shot of the first page; http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/02/04/scott_v_bowen_complaint_califorinia_aclu.pdf_600_.jpg https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/michael-scott-et-al-v-debra-bowen "Californians have a constitutional right to vote except while they are “imprisoned or on parole for conviction of a felony” ... the California Secretary of State has expanded this exclusion to include people who ... are on new forms of community supervision" WTF? Are you serious? As for the two linked articles, once again, neither identifies by name a single person who was prevented from voting! Try again. Or, leave the thread.
Neither articles states anything at all. The real issue that should be raised is why is it that blacks and latinos are less likely to possess any type of state-issued identification. In this day when an ID is required for so many things, one would think that progressives would make it a cause to remedy this situation. But it does not fit their narrative or political strategy.
Three things: 1) People are being denied the right to vote because they are felons. That's wrong. If you want to distinguish only voter ID voter suppression from felon voter suppression, please indicate so. If you do not, fine. 2) So because the MSNBC article identifies this: But not (hypothetically) this: You're not convinced? See, that's what we call stupidity. A large-scale survey, rather than aggregating a series of qualitative statements, aggregates a series of quantitative statements. The people in the survey denied the right to vote indicate as such, but are not quoted. The study is reported here. You may feel free to dissect it for methodological concerns, but you have absolutely no right to say that nobody in the study denied the right to vote was denied the right to vote. The level of statistics ignorance or idiocy amongst people who consider themselves to be the educated elite in this country is phenomenal. You either learn to acknowledge you don't know what you are talking about, or you stop posting about politics, but statistics is here to stay in political science. You can't change that, and putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh! I can't hear you!" because you only accept certain forms of evidence over others makes you look as stupid as you almost certainly are. 3) See comment number two. Again, and I cannot possibly state this enough, you either modernize or retire quickly so that we as a society are not held back by your colossal waste of resources. Bill Nye made a great point a while back when he said that we can hold backward, fact-free beliefs, but don't make our children hold these same beliefs as well. If you are unable to accept the fact that an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of thousands of barred voters in California and two surveys of disenfranchised racial groups is evidence that voter fraud does little more than keep minorities and poor people away from the polls, and demand ONLY quotes in news articles that show a single individual saying "Hi, my name's Joe. I was prohibited from casting my ballot, or registering to vote," then go away. That's not how science works, nor how statistics works. Consider it. What you are asking is equivalent to biologists saying "screw all this data we collected on fruit bat mutations. I want just one fruit bat to walk up and tell me what its mutations were." It's stupid, colossally stupid.
The study is just that. It does not prove anything. Look at the table explaining the reasons for not voting. The numbers vary from category to category. Whites led in 3 categories. So the numbers are skewed. The study started off with its conclusion and then went about a way to reach it.
No. There is so much wrong in here. Science can never "prove" anything. We also can use statistics to weigh categories if we think we oversample. If the weights are off, others can use the raw data to create our own weights. You don't know anything please stop.
Bullshit. Felons lose other right as well. Don't do the crime ... As for your personal attacks, Go ******** Yourself, you self-righteous piece of shit!
Glad to hear this is how you feel about felons. Possibly a topic for a different thread, but since you don't believe felons can be rehabilitated (otherwise their punishments in all forms should end as soon as they leave prison), why don't we just shoot them after they're convicted? Seriously. Why don't we? They just waste space if we think they're just dangerous criminals who should never be allowed to vote. And as for the other stuff, I'm sorry you're not smart enough to grasp this material, but getting angry at me isn't the solution. There are dozens of books to help you on the subject, from the most accessible to the highly technical. Until you get there, though, you really ought to consider why you don't know what a survey is but think you should be allowed to make public policy with your vote - fascinating that your policy preferences are to deny others their right to vote. Especially since there are so many ex-felons out there who know more about this than you do.
What science? It is a survey taken by a group looking to make a point. It asked those selected of their opinion or memory. If it was scientific, there would be people at the polling places taking real data. You have another failed attempt at passing bullshit.
More horseshit from a horse's ass. You're a waste of space. I asked you a simple question. You can't answer it! You're the stupid one. Try again, or get lost. Name a person who can be identified as being denied the right to vote, or STFU.
A few things: 1) Science is testing a hypothesis with replicable data to make predictions (give or take). It is no more complicated than that, and unless you have contrary evidence we will accept it as scientific. However, if you can point to problems in their sampling methodology, if they biased their estimates, if their questions primed individuals to answer a certain manner, please state in specific terms what the problems are. I am eager to know what answer you provide to my question. 2) I am curious what you think "real data" means. 3) There are two surveys, I am unsure which of the two you take issue with. I am led to believe that since you only quibble with one of the surveys (otherwise you would have used "the surveys" and not "a survey" in your second sentence), that you find no fault with the other. 4) My shits pass just fine and have to date never failed me.
I will enjoy reading your response to this post. https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/rep-lincoln-davis-i-was-denied-my-right-vote http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...people-denied-voting-rights-by-voter-id-laws/ http://rt.com/usa/vote-tennessee-thompson-veteran-073/ See, what's wrong with you is that you don't accept surveys, thinking that individual, anecdotal accounts are more valid. You can hear them and see them, and it's much more accessible than a survey with 1s and 0s. You are undoubtedly bad at math, and many Americans are. So it must kill you, just kill you, to know that the quotes in the links above also exist. Not only do the surveys show everyone who passed sixth grade that voter ID laws disenfranchise, but the anecdotes do as well. Now that you have everything you need, I would politely request that you now provide both survey evidence and anecdotal evidence that voter ID laws are a net benefit on the expression of citizen preferences. In simpler words that I hope will resonate with you better than the previous sentence's complexity: "Does our democracy benefit from voter ID laws?" Like I said, I will truly enjoy reading your post.
No you won't. For some reason, my computer's Bullshit Detector won't open your ACLU links. However, there are other links: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/07/tennessee-officials-apologize-lincoln-davis-over-v/ A clerical error: because he was listed as a voter in 2 counties, one dropped him, and he went to vote there. Looks like, instead of casting a provisional ballot, as any rational person would do, he decided to link up with the ACLU to file a lawsuit, to stop The Man from holding Ole Linc down. “Now I know how the black man must have felt a hundred years ago.” “I called him ... and said, ‘Lincoln go vote [a provisional ballot]. We’ll work this out. ... if in fact there’s an error on our side, we inform the local county and your vote will be counted.’ Of course, at this time, Lincoln — he didn’t want to go.” He's as stupid as you are. Let's see what other crap you've dredged up: "Ricky Tyrone Lewis is 58 years old, a Marine Corps Veteran and a lifelong Milwaukee resident. He was able to offer proof of his honorable discharge but Milwaukee County has been unable to find the record of his birth so he cannot obtain a voter ID card. Ms. Ruthelle Frank, now 84, is a lifelong resident of Brokaw, Wisconsin and a member of her town board since 1996. She has voted in every election over the past 64 years but she does not have a voter ID card. She located her birth certificate but found that her name was misspelled. She was advised to obtain a certified copy of the incorrect birth certificate and try to use that to obtain a voter ID card" Amazing. He doesn't have his own birth certificate? Veteran status does not prove citizenship. My own father was drafted while on a green card. In 2000, I had a non-citizen living in my own house, who didn't try to register to vote, but did enlist in the Army! He qualified for citizenship through that. The lady was told what she had to do. Did she do it? Oh, please! I bet his driver's license & gun permit were in his wallet, but he wanted to make a big show by claiming a Marine patch on his jacket was a valid ID. And, he brought Russia Today along with him? is that I'm engaging in dialogue with you. I can't believe that I'm still responding to your nonsense.
There were eleven individuals in those three links, and in your post I count responses to four of them. That must mean that you could not find any response to seven of them. In addition to not having any response to criticisms of the polling methodology. In fact, of the four people, you proclaim astonishment that two of them don't have valid birth certificates or other forms of identification. This is only astonishing to someone who was not born in this country or has spent a lifetime huffing paint. The money quote is here: Before you get your diapers in a bunch that I'm :: only :: providing surveys that randomly sample 987 adults, according to the restrictive laws in place today, President Chester A Arthur could not have voted, much less been elected to office. In fact, some of our earliest Presidents don't have them. So we've got the two requirements we need again: 1) valid surveys that ought to trump anecdotes if we lived in any sort of reasonable world, and 2) anecdotes that bring life to the valid surveys that ought to trump anecdotes if we lived in any sort of reasonable world. Now, one of two things is going to happen, with or without your permission. UNIVERSE A: I'm going to ask you to provide any systematic evidence (surveys, experiments, etc) that voter ID laws have reduced the amount of voter fraud. You will ignore this portion of the post, attack other parts of my post at random, and engage in the sorts of personal attacks that look self-righteous when framed in my posts but look childish and churlish at best in yours. I will immediately respond by asking you to provide systematic evidence and you will say something like "I don't have to prove anything to you" and you'll stop posting here for a week or two. Eventually, you will return to this thread, and I'll patiently ask you again to provide systematic evidence that voter ID laws have reduced the amount of voter fraud. You'll ignore it at first, and then respond with something quite vitriolic, but you will never answer my question. You won't answer it because you know you have no evidence. You will never answer it because in all of this time you have to date not provided any systematic evidence to back up your beliefs; that is unlikely to change because the reality lies on my side of the issue. This will continue for months until you quit posting altogether on the subject; this will be a welcome relief for many, but it will not change your beliefs. UNIVERSE B: I'm going to ask you to provide any systematic evidence (surveys, experiments, etc) that voter ID laws have reduced the amount of voter fraud. You will ignore this portion of the post, attack other parts of my post at random, and engage in the sorts of personal attacks that look self-righteous when framed in my posts but look childish and churlish at best in yours. I will immediately respond by asking you to provide systematic evidence and you will say something like "I don't have to prove anything to you" and you will place me on ignore. Occasionally you'll take me off of ignore to say something childish, but you will never answer my question. You won't answer it because you know you have no evidence. You will never answer it because in all of this time you have to date not provided any systematic evidence to back up your beliefs; that is unlikely to change because the reality lies on my side of the issue. Eventually you will stop posting on the issue entirely. There is a universe c, where you actually try to defend your beliefs, but that is so very difficult for people on a politics forum that I ruled it out almost immediately. What a shame it would be if you tried to prove me wrong.
No, you clod. What it means is that my subsequent editing was timed out, and I did not go through the process of retyping my deleted reply. But, feel free to make more dumb assumptions. You're good at it. Wrong again, a-hole. My mother was not born in this country, and her largely hand-written foreign birth certificate misspells her name, which has never caused a problem for her, either in voting, driving, or obtaining and using her US passport. Of course, she never made a big deal of the error, and neither did anyone else. You're the only pissant here. What should happen, is that you should leave this thread, and not return, as you promised. In the universe of a-holes, you have clearly established your pedigree. If you do persist, I will paraphrase the comment of one Vincent Gambini, Esq.: "Everything that Brummie just said is bullshit." Now, go get your shine kit.
I was going to say it would save money. But then the lawyer lobby and you weak heart liberals would go on and on about how innocent people are being shot and we need 100 trials to make sure they are really guilty, at the end it would be very expensive. Plus the American prison system is a jobs program, so AB why do you hate jobs for Americans?
Make sure you pee before you go.. http://freakoutnation.com/2014/04/1...restroom-while-waiting-in-long-lines-to-vote/