why Black Lives Matter isn't helping flood victims

[John Miller 761]

What is strange to me is that people who vote in person are expected to produce various forms ID, but if other folks choose to via absentee ballot, then no ID is necessary. Oh wait, that's not strange at all, once you figure out who is more likely to vote via absentee ballot or in person at the polling station.

And that right there is the crux of it all. You can vote absentee without any ID whatsoever. But voting in person - where virtually none of what little voter fraud may exist occurs - does require an ID. Absentee voting is Republican heavy while in-person voting is minority (read: Democrat) heavy. It's utterly ridiculous to claim that the voter ID laws arenot designed to suppress the minority (read: Democratic) vote. The evidence is so clear that one has to completely disassociate from reality to make the claim that voter ID laws are not designed specifically to suppress the vote that the GOP knows isn't likely to go their way. It's not a coincidence that these laws are pushed exclusively by Republicans.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I disagree with court findings when they don't make sense. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a part of the "sheeple".

I said a retired military ID is not common because there are not all that many retired vets compared to the overall population.

But thanks for confirming what I already knew, that you DO possess all of those IDs. Several which prove you are who you say you are. Had to have them to get married, didn't you? Why is that? Why does buying alcohol or cigarettes, or getting married, require proof of who you are, but not voting? That's my point, and I think down deep inside, you agree with me, but you won't admit it. Because for your WHOLE LIFE, you have had to carry an ID to prove you are you. As it is in MANY countries, and as it SHOULD BE in the US. That is the premise we are discussing.

Now, do I think it should cost $35 to obtain a state ID? No. That's ridiculous. Anything over $10 is too much, IMO. If it costs a state more than $5 to generate an ID, then the government should step up and subsidize them. (And I am just as good with $Free.99, except that it DOES take time and resources to generate an ID; but if the federal folks want to pony up those fees, then great!) That way, everyone has equal access to said ID. And without it, one should NOT be able to vote, get married, buy a gun, buy alcohol, etc. It should be standardized.

My comments betray nothing except your own stubbornness to agree with me. You have an ID, your ex wife (from another country) had to have an ID, your current wife has an ID... Why do you resist everyone having one?

Why are you disagreeing with court findings? This isn't my opinion, it's the statements of people with more access and information on the subject than both you and I. It's like you just don't want to believe it, no matter how much evidence is presented to you. And a retired ID is common for someone who retires from the Armed forces. It's something we earn.

But more to the point. I think ID should be free and given out to folks for voting purposes. But your comment betrays your thought process. Because this says a lot.

[John Miller 761]

The central question is not how hard it is or how much it costs to obtain an ID. The central question is what problem do voter ID laws actually solve? In person voter fraud? Sorry, but it doesn't exist in any meaningful way - there were but a few dozen cases among more than a billion votes cast over the last several elections. Not even a drop in the bucket. If that is the rationale, then these laws are a solution in search of a problem. If that is not the rationale, then what is?

Edited August 23, 2016 by John Miller

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If by "doing homework", you mean posting links that others before you have done all the work, then you are falling WAY behind LIB. Yet you (and several other MDL folks here) refuse to give him an ounce of credit.

I read your article. More than once. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Doesn't mean it's right. Just means that someone (or three someone's) in a position of power made a decision that may or may not be fair for everyone. Heck, the governor himself says they will appeal the ruling. Seems not everyone agrees with it.

Also interesting to note is that all three of those judges were appointed by Clinton (1) and Obama (2).

That must be it.

I don't know what makes me more mad, when folks want to argue without doing their homework, or when they refuse to admit it when I've done their homework for them.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Voter fraud is not an issue? Illegal immigrants walking into a poll and voting isn't an issue? The truth is, voting in this country is a freaking joke. The private sector vote doesn't matter. If we were to only take in-person votes and do away with "absentee" or "write-in" votes, and require an ID to do so, I think it would make a big difference. Of course, that will never happen, thanks to the democrats.

The central question is not how hard it is or how much it costs to obtain an ID. The central question is what problem do voter ID laws actually solve? In person voter fraud? Sorry, but it doesn't exist in any meaningful way - there were but a few dozen cases among more than a billion votes cast over the last several elections. Not even a drop in the bucket. If that is the rationale, then these laws are a solution in search of a problem. If that is not the rationale, then what is?

[John Miller 761]

I ask again, what is the rationale for voter ID laws and why are these laws pushed exlusively by Republicans?

Voter fraud is not an issue? Illegal immigrants walking into a poll and voting isn't an issue? The truth is, voting in this country is a freaking joke. The private sector vote doesn't matter. If we were to only take in-person votes and do away with "absentee" or "write-in" votes, and require an ID to do so, I think it would make a big difference. Of course, that will never happen, thanks to the democrats.

No, it is not. There's no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. None. If there is, produce it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Because the majority of voter fraud is perpetrated by democrats, perhaps? Of course, you will pooh-pooh that concept, because it doesn't fit your perception of reality. Feel free. But there have been more than enough evidence of dead people voting in my lifetime to cause me to realize it's a real issue. I once worked on a program that showed that voting machines can change votes. So in that respect, you are correct, an ID would do nothing to change the outcome. Even if 100% of the voters had an ID, but the machines are rigged, then the ID is moxnix.

I ask again, what is the rationale for voter ID laws and why are these laws pushed exlusively by Republicans?

If an ID is not required to vote, then produce evidence that illegal aliens cannot vote.

No, it is not. There's no evidence whatsoever to the contrary. None. If there is, produce it.

[John Miller 761]

Because the majority of voter fraud is perpetrated by democrats, perhaps? Of course, you will pooh-pooh that concept, because it doesn't fit your perception of reality. Feel free. But there have been more than enough evidence of dead people voting in my lifetime to cause me to realize it's a real issue. I once worked on a program that showed that voting machines can change votes. So in that respect, you are correct, an ID would do nothing to change the outcome. Even if 100% of the voters had an ID, but the machines are rigged, then the ID is moxnix.

If an ID is not required to vote, then produce evidence that illegal aliens cannot vote.

You're asking me to prove a negative. Doesnt work that way. Those pushing the "solution" have the burden of proof that there's indeed a problem to be solved and that the solution proposed solves that very problem. The long and short of it is that it hasn't been done and that it can, in fact, not be done.

[OriZ 3,157]

Anything that infringes or may potentially infringe the ability of a person to vote is a no no Constitutionally. The ability to obtain an ID is largely involved in matters of state law, which at times have requirements and measures in place that make it nearly impossible, in some cases, to obtain it. One that has no trouble obtaining an ID, may easily fob those individuals off as a minority not worth caring about, but their rights to vote are every bit as enshrined.. I've provided real world examples before of exactly how this happens, especially to those who are the poor, those who have had difficult circumstances befall them, old, some of our veterans, and most vulnerable - but there is also a rising subset of youth who have come out of fundamentalist sects with literally no documentation to their name (thus the ability to obtain any said documents can be a many years struggle proving futile). There are many that hold concerns about such laws within the conservative and libertarian movements, and are not so willing to embrace such measures with open arms until these problems are rectified. They won't be the loud ones getting themselves on tv every day, but they do make some really sound arguments.

The tradeoff should be if Voter IDs are deemed a necessity, which analysis has shown is patently false, then there should be proper structure in place within the states to ensure that obtaining one is a smooth process in all cases, thereby ensuring no one's right to vote is suppressed. Fix the problems first before compounding them.

I do agree with the part in bold. In fact, I also agree with Stay Woke that it should be free. At the same time I strongly believe everyone should present a photo ID in order to vote. Again, it should be issued for free, as it is in Israel and many countries across the world. In Israel, Germany, The Netherlands and some other countries photo ids are separate from drivers licenses. I think we can't pick and choose what we want to point out that is in place in many countries other than the US(such as the health care and maternity leave discussions of late) but ignore something else that exists in most countries which is the requirement to present a photo ID in order to vote, including the countries mentioned above, as well as other countries in Europe, as well as Canada and Brazil.

Yes, I have seen it before. And still disagree with it. I'd be willing to bet that YOU have a driver's license, a SS card, a retired ID (not common, but all retired vets can get one for free), and a birth certificate. All of which are FREE, except the DL. And since the cost of many state IDs (other than a DL) are between $10-35, I say it comes down to a decision between a couple of packs of cigarettes or the ability to register to vote. If someone cares enough to vote, then they can probably afford an ID. And I believe most states issue one for free to the elderly and handicapped, so there goes a fair amount of the "oppressed" demographic.

Ahhhh...priorities. Wonderful word. There really is an issue with some people choosing to smoke or drink instead of spending it on something useful. So many people complain they can't afford to eat healthy yet they spend $300 a month or more on cigarettes and then some more on beer. We have neighbors here that smoke at least 2 packs of cigs a day each, and drink at least one six pack of beer. A few months ago their cat was dying of cancer. The poor thing was suffering and screaming in their house for 4 days because they couldn't "afford" the $85 to put it down, yet they could still afford their cancer sticks and six packs. Marvelous how that works. Had we known at the time we would have just given it to them because my wife hates letting animals suffer, but they didn't even bother asking, we only found out several days after they buried it in the yard.

Edited August 24, 2016 by OriZ

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I'll go out on a limb and say this isn't one of your requirements to vote.

well you brought it up, so I guess you have done the ol Jelly Bean count huh

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Uh huh. Doesn't happen. Oh wait. It does. Just not often reported on.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/

Let me guess, 46,000 illegal voters isn't an issue with you?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

1.8 million dead people still registered as voters.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote

It may not be prevalent, but even one illegal vote is two too many. Any sane person can see that.

[Rob L 3,811]

Uh huh. Doesn't happen. Oh wait. It does. Just not often reported on.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/

Let me guess, 46,000 illegal voters isn't an issue with you?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

1.8 million dead people still registered as voters.

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote

It may not be prevalent, but even one illegal vote is two too many. Any sane person can see that.

In many of these cases investigation turns out a valid matching name.

If you have zero tolerance for fraudulent votes then you must by definition have zero tolerance for an eligible voter being denied a vote in a fraudulent way. The Texas court did not establish why the law was constructed in that way...but they left the door open.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

In many of these cases investigation turns out a valid matching name.

If you have zero tolerance for fraudulent votes then you must by definition have zero tolerance for an eligible voter being denied a vote in a fraudulent way. The Texas court did not establish why the law was constructed in that way...but they left the door open.

i have zero tolerance for everything. I am a grumpy old man

[Rob L 3,811]

well you brought it up, so I guess you have done the ol Jelly Bean count huh

Just in case it is needed ...

Method 1: Estimation

1. Estimate the (filled) volume of the jar. In most cases, the container will be approximately a regular shape - spherical, cuboidal, etc. This volume can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
2. Estimate the volume of one bean. Considering the irregular shape of the beans, this may seem like a difficult task, but is pretty easily done. Fill a glass with water to the brim. Immerse a jelly-bean. Measure the volume of water before and after the immersion. The difference is the volume of a jelly-bean. Repeat with 5 or 6 different beans, and take the median/mean for best results.
3. Estimate the packing fraction of beans in a large container. This is a difficult step. The only way I can think of is using a smaller container and measuring it out. The problem is, that the packing fraction is significantly affected by edge effect. So, while you may be able to ignore these effects in a very large container (like the one we're guessing for), you probably can't, for a smaller container that you can afford to fill.

   Here's one work-around: Do the experiment with two different sized, smaller containers. That way, you obtain two equations in two variables. A practical way to do this would be to assume that the outermost layer, of thickness 1" has a different, packing fraction, p1, while the 'main' body has a larger, also uniform packing fraction, p2.

   From these,(p1*(Volume of outer layer) + p2*(Volume of inner section))/(Volume of 1 bean) = number of beans.

   If you can do this experiment with two different sized/shaped containers, the only unknowns remaining should be p1 and p2. Solve the two linear equations simultaneously, for p1 and p2.

4. Finally, Estimate the number of jelly beans in the big container as p2*(Estimated volume of container)/(Measured volume of 1 bean).

Method 2: Surveying

It has been observed that in such problems, wisdom of the crowds happens to be extremely applicable, and give a very accurate answer[1][2]

This idea involves asking as many random people as you can find to come up with an educated guess, and averaging all the answers. 'Wisdom of the crowds' is an idea that says that the collective wisdom of all of the people you ask, is likely to be more accurate thanany one of the people. So,

1. Simply go ahead and ask as many people as you can, to guess how many beans are there in the jar.
2. This step is optional, but makes the results mathematically more sound.

   Trim the outliers. That is, ignore the highest (say) 5% of the guesses, and the lowest 5% of the guesses.

3. Take the mean of the rest of the numbers. That's your estimate.

[Póg mo 1,749]

My voter ID card never had a photograph on it...that and my signature is all Washington state required to vote. We now have mail in ballots so everyone is absentee. There is no evidence that Mail in ballots increase fraud.

Of course, but I'm just trying to bring attention to the hypocrisy of requiring identification at polling stations, when logically absentee ballots present a much higher risk of being cast fraudulently than in person voting, not that voter the chances of fraud is particularly great in either case.