David Blaska wrote:You disqualify Von Spakovsky because a conservative magazine prints his research but see no inconsistency in using liberals to support your argument. (Al Franken!)
Von Spakovsky's entire history speaks to unbridled partisanship. I'm not going to spend my day reading through your avalanche of links to his obviously-biased opinion articles. If you want to use him, go to the sources he uses and make your own points. Then we'll see whether they hold up or not.
I mentioned the Al Franken quote because it doesn't matter who said it. Sure, he's a liberal Democrat; doesn't matter. Here-- let's revisit the actual transcript and use someone else's name:
"For example, Mississippi, a state with a large African-American population just like Georgia, there was only a third of what it was in Georgia," von Spakovsky said during his testimony.
"Can I ask you something?" Harry Potter interjected. "Do you know how much Mississippi grew in terms of black population during those years versus Georgia?"
"I don't," said von Spakovsky.
Same result. Al/Harry didn't inject his own data or spin. He simply blew a huge statistical hole in von Spakovsky's argument with a single question. A cynical person (realist?) would ask himself: How is it even possible von Spakovsky merely overlooked such a fundamental issue before presenting his case?
David Blaska wrote:You say you're worried about spending money to assure clean elections -- except when liberals ask for recounts in all 72 counties.
After 14,000 votes were suddenly "found" in Waukesha County, Prosser had a lead of 0.5% of total votes cast. Unsealed bags of ballots were found during the recount. If the shoe had been on the other foot, conservatives would have been howling
for a recount, damn the cost, and you know it.
I have yet to see a final cost tally, but estimates were anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million. This is a ONE-TIME cost. Your photo ID measure to combat a vanishingly small "problem" is going to cost the state an estimated $6 million the first year, and $4 million EVERY YEAR afterward. You don't see the difference?
Like I've been saying, it's conservatives (namely one Mr. S. Walker) that have been repeatedly stating how broke the state is. And yet, the fake candidates run against Democrats in the recall primaries are estimated
to have cost the state over $400,000, which is in the ballpark of what the recount will cost.
Let's recap the conservative stance:
- Recount of an election where ballot mishandling had actually happened
? Waste of taxpayer funds!
- Dickhead political maneuver to delay the recall elections? PEACHY KEEN!
- Millions of dollars to combat statistically insignificant voter fraud at the ballot? LET'S GET IT PASSED IN EVERY SINGLE STATE!
David Blaska wrote:You say voter fraud is inconsequential yet Von Sp. cites a New York Daily News article that found 46,000 New Yorkers registered to vote in both New York and Florida. Between 400 and 1,000 had voted in both places in at least one election. (Remember, George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by a margin of only 537 votes.)
Seriously, does von Spakovsky also tie your shoes in the morning? Yes, I actually found the article
. Thanks for making me do your work.
Yes, that's a problem. Did you happen to notice that neither New York nor Florida is Wisconsin? Did you also happen to notice that Florida already HAS a friggin' photo ID law?
David Blaska wrote:Do I agree with the Weyrich quote? No.
Thank you. Q6 closed. You could have typed that weeks ago.
David Blaska wrote:
Did liberal groups also send false information
in this year's many elections? Yep. (As far as I know, Americans for Prosperity does not have a liberal mailing list.)
You're equating a misleading television ad to mailing absentee ballots with false submission dates and false return addresses? Really?
Q5 evaded, unanswered, and still open.
David Blaska wrote:We've already shown that Georgia's voting participation increased after passage of Voter I.D., even among minorities.
Sigh. Are you just ignoring everything we type to you?
As we've said over and over, of course
the minority vote increased-- we had the first African-American candidate with a chance of winning. But as has been pointed out to you multiple times now, the minority vote in Georgia didn't increase as much as in neighboring states that didn't have photo ID laws, i.e., the minority vote in Georgia was likely depressed from what it should have been
David Blaska wrote:Now, address once and for all the question: show where voter I.D. reduces turnout.
ARRRGH! I have
“It is incredibly clear how voter I.D. requirements disproportionately affect and suppress minorities,” said Logan, professor of sociology. “This data shows that if voter I.D. policies had not been in place in 2004, voter turnout would have increased by more than 1.6 million.
Don't like the Brown University study? Think the Brennen Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law is biased? How about this one
from Rutgers University?
In the aggregate data, requirements that voters match signatures on file or provide a nonphoto identification had negative effects on turnout compared to requiring that voters state their names.
Or this one
with authors from the Universities of Washington, California, and New Mexico?
Our results clearly suggest that voting laws which require specific or multiple forms of identification will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities, immigrant populations, and those with lower incomes.
As a side note, I can see why Republicans continue to defund state universities. These pesky institutions of higher learning keep telling you things you don't want to hear!
At any rate, you have yet to address Q1, the big justification for all of this taxpayer money:
Q1: What studies/statistics show that, for the other six states with strict photo voter ID laws, fraudulent voting at the ballot box decreased as a direct result of the law?
I await your response.