Response to post 3 - Due Friday, 10/26
If you are in period 3 respond to someone in period 5. If you are in period 5 respond to someone in period 3. Address whether you agree or disagree with their take on the issue of voter identification. Use at least one source to agree or disagree with them. Please write a complete paragraph and be sure to be specific to who you are responding to and what specific point or argument in their post you are addressing. We shouldn't have to go back and read their post in order to understand yours. This is due by class on Friday, 10/26.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:14 AM
36 Comments:
Noah Nieting, being of sound body and mind, is to be whole-heartedly congratulated in his jab at the voter id amendment. I agree most with his assertion that it is 'a solution looking for a cause (1). In my own words, an issue such as voter fraud, which is the issue most cited as a reason for the amendment, is in-quantifiable. Not only did Noah explain this with quotes from Tim Pawlenty and the Star Tribune, he uses hard facts, such as the 38 votes that were supported by evidence, representing less than .01% of the electorate(1).
I further reiterate one of my own as well as one of Noah's points that the new law amendment would disproportionately affect the elderly. In the words of Amy McDonough, spokesperson for the AARP, "A new voter ID would disproportionately affect older voters because we know they're less likely to have the required identification,"(2).
Lastly, Noah does a great job explaining the process of obtaining a photo I.D. Quite frankly, I did not realize that it was so difficult. His animadversion of the amendment has only galvanized me further. After all, in a nation already suffering from low voter turnout, how will disenfranchising specific groups help anyone in the long run. I really want to find the legislator who penned this amendment and give him/her a piece of my mind!
(1)http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2012/10/post-3-due-friday-october-12th.html
(2)http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Voter_Identification_Amendment,_Amendment_2_(2012)
I decided to respond to Marco’s blog post because I think he has an interesting argument, but one that could be highly debated and refuted. First of all, Marco splits his blog into three sections. The first section talks about arguments for the voter I.D. amendment, the second talks about arguments against the voter I.D. amendment, and the third part talks about his views and how after weighting the arguments, he decided that he would against the voter amendment. I disagree with his perspective as I think passing the amendment would have great benefits. I went through and analyzed each of the three sections of Marco’s blog and critiqued it as follows. In Marco’s first section in which he mentions arguments for the amendment, he states that the center core of the supporters’ arguments inclusive of myself, claim that the amendment is, “necessary to complete a more precise and efficient election in elections.” I disagree strongly with this statement. The words, “precise,” and “efficient,” do not match our reasoning at all. In one of my sources I stated that I support the amendment since voting is a qualified right, everyone can afford a voter ID since the government steps in and provides a free one if you cannot afford it, provisional ballots can come into play if people do not have voter ID’s on election day, and voter fraud is high in Minnesota (1). I looked up a new source that bolsters my position, in which is states that this voter ID increases confidence among voters since it shows that our Electoral System will be for the most part free of any unruly behavior, it will make life a little less difficult for the disadvantaged voter since they do not have to worry about the cost of obtaining an ID, and it will be an extension of the “Motor Voter” law which established a voter registration system (2). So instead of the two words Marco used, I would instead use an “increase of validity,” and an “increase in confidence.” I do agree with Marco however on a few of the points favoring the amendment including the fact that many places and services already are subject to the necessity and requirement of having photo identification such as receiving Medicare benefits (2). I stated that, “to get access to many public services such as free meals or clothing, a person needs a photo identification.” Another supporting argument for the amendment according to Marco’s blog was, “there are also arguments made that even though voter fraud may not be present, why should the government not protect the right to vote.” In my mind, this is a wrong and misleading supporting statement that can deter people from voting for this amendment. The truth is voting fraud is extremely high in Minnesota. As I said in my blog post, “a study shows that there has been, 2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota’s 2008 general election (3).” This has been backed up by my source in contrast to the superficial claim of Marco’s source claiming that fraud does not exist.
Next Marco talks about the arguments against the amendment. Marco states that, “getting the free I.D. would not be free because you have to go the nearest location where I.D.’s are given out and not everyone has those resources to obtain them. Another argument made is that voter fraud is almost non-existent because in most cases it is felons who try to vote early that causes problems.” He however substantiates this with no evidence or sources. The extra cost of going to the location is not valid since it simply is not stated in the amendment. The fact is that, “If you are an eligible voter and do not already have a government issued photo ID, the state will provide one for you free of charge (4).” I already refuted the fact that voter fraud does not exist.
Marco then goes on to state his viewpoints. He first states that he does not think he would vote for the amendment since he does not know, “how absentee ballots would work out in this proposed amendment.” To answer this question, “minnesotahousegop” claims that, “Very little will change with absentee balloting. Absentee voters may be asked to include a driver’s license or other ID card number on the absentee ballot so that eligibility and identity can be verified (4).” Marco is also uneasy about the difficulties seniors and soldiers overseas might face in voting. To answer this, the “startribune” states that, “Seniors have ID (if they don't drive, it never expires). It's now required just to see a doctor. Students have ID. You can't take the ACT or SAT to get into college without photo ID. Soldiers have ID. They can't be deployed without it. Military ID is government-issued photo ID, meeting the requirements of the amendment (5).” Overall, I think Marco has good reasoning for his arguments against the amendment, but the fact that some of his sources are misleading and vague can negatively impact feelings about the amendment.
1. http://www.voteridformn.com/Home_Page.html
2. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=98
3.http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/375/Default.aspx
4.http://www.minnesotahousegop.com/storage/VoterID-FAQ.pdf
5.http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/173954891.html?refer=y
I agree with Ryan on the issue of the Voter ID Amendment. America is supposed to abide by majority rule without infringing upon minority rights. As Ryan pointed out, the Voter ID Bill does not discriminate because such a wide variety of photo ID’s are allowed. The majority of people either currently have an ID or will be able to get them without difficulty. According to a CBS/New York Times poll from September, 70% of those polled throughout the country support the efforts to require voters to show a photo identification card in order to vote (1). The amendment is also supported by 51% of Minnesotans while only 43% oppose. The voter ID Amendment is needed to ensure fair voting practices. Many countries around the world do not have the right to vote. It is easy and necessary to protect the vote in the U.S.
1- http://pollingreport.com/politics.htm
2-http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/173192111.html
I disagree, on factual, logical, and constitutional grounds, with Sam L’s comment supporting the Voter I.D amendment. He states that because the law requires the government to provide free I.D’s, the argument that poor voters will be disenfranchised is invalid. This is oversimplification of the situation. The phrasing of the law, as used by Sam, states that “the state must provide I.D to anyone who does not have it, free of charge.” The flaw in Sam’s argument lies in the word free. In order to obtain an I.D, one must provide a copy of one’s birth certificate, or other substitutable paperwork. If one has misplaced a copy of that document, a monetary fee must be paid in order to replace said document. Furthermore, time must be taken off from work and transportation costs must be incurred in order to obtain a “free government I.D.” These very real monetary losses amount to a poll tax, which by itself is unconstitutional. When the fact that this poll tax is static is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that the Voter I.D amendment would disproportionately affect those with the fewest resources in any given state.
Next, I take issue with Sam’s sources. He uses one of his sources (1), to claim that voter I.D does not decrease minority turnout. But a) His source also advances the argument that voter I.D did not prevent a single case of election fraud in Georgia (1), b) his side’s argument of widespread fraud was overblown (1), and c) record minority turnout was likely the effect of having Barack Obama on the ballot (1). When held up to daylight, the argument that this source presents crumbles.
Finally, there are simply numbers that cannot be ignored. Less than 1,000 total cases of fraud that voter I.D could have prevented have occurred over the last 10 years (2). Proponents of voter I.D try to ignore the numbers, but that doesn’t change the fact that only one in 15 million votes involves fraud (2).
1. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/despite-voter-id-law-minority-turnout-up-in-georgi/nR2bx/
2. http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/
In response to Matt S’s post:
Voter I.D. is far more detrimental than Matt proposed. For instance, Minnesota’s law would be very different form Alabama’s. Minnesotans would need “government-issued” I.D.’s (1). Thus, unlike Alabama, employee I.D.’s, student I.D.’s, and utility bills would not suffice in Minnesota because these are not government-issued. However, if you find these items convenient, Minnesota actually allows them now (2)!
This leads into my main point: while the photo identification itself is free from the government (and the government only might I add), the means of running the system or obtaining an I.D. (if the voter does not have one) have costs beyond that measure. Taxes will provide the revenue necessary for providing I.D.’s, and expenses are estimated to be in the millions (3). These expenditures are being spliced into an already crippled budget. Where’s the money coming from? It’s obviously coming from taxpayers, but to actually cover the costs, the state will have to act to maintain the budget (3). Thus, a vote for voter I.D. is also a vote for either cuts in other programs or higher taxes. Other – and closer to home – costs include those put upon voters without I.D.’s. They would otherwise have to incur the expenses of transportation in obtaining an I.D., the costs behind necessary certificates (birth, marriage certificates, etc.) to verify their identities, and the payments associated with fixing any mistakes on these certificates (1). That… is anything but free.
So, to eliminate near-inexistent voter impersonation (not fraud since I.D.’s don’t prevent actual fraud (3)) we as taxpayers must fund a solution in search of a problem, making the disadvantaged foot the real bills or simply be disenfranchised.
1. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171416011.html
2. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204
3. http://www.lwvmn.org/page.aspx?pid=734#hurdles
In response to Sydney’s post
First of all, I would like to point out that there are many good points that have been brought up by my classmates about why the voter ID amendment should not be passed. I especially found that Sydney’s facts were very interesting. The facts that she presents are clear in that they show that if a voter ID amendment were passed it would make it more difficult for certain groups to vote including African Americans, young adults and low income families would suffer. Yet it is pointed out that these people will be given free ID’s by the government. However, this would not be effective because all of these groups are already pretty unlikely to vote and by placing stronger restrictions against them will make it harder for them to even vote. They would be more unlikely to go out and vote and it just helps further discourage people to vote.
In response to Trevor’s post against mine,I would like to point out that it would actually hurt students who wanted to vote. The amendment states that voters are subject to “equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.” (1) That would mean that student ID’s would not be allowed anymore because they are not the same kind of ID that everyone else has. That is what “equivalent identity” would mean, that everyone shows or proves their identity in the same way, meaning the same type of ID. Yet another fact I’d like to clarify, is that some voters would not be able to access the means to obtain these government issued ID’s. That fact that they are free does not necessarily mean that they are actually “free” as everyone knows nothing is for free in America, everything has a cost. In this case if you don’t have an ID and you would like to get one,you can get one from the government, one that accordingly is “free”. However in order to make sure that the right people get ID’s people must show another source of identification such as a birth certificate which can be up to $25 for those who have lost theirs. To a low income family that might mean a meal or money that could have gone towards bills. These families would probably rather pay their bills instead of paying money for their right to vote, which they already should have free of charge. There is also the factor of time and what it means to everyone. Everyone knows that time is a valuable and limited resource, and it would take time to go get that “free” ID, and that might be difficult for some families to give up, If they are struggling to earn money, going to get that ID is not a priority, It takes at least an hour or more to do so, meaning that the person would have to ask for a day off possibly. With that in mind some people would find that the cost is too much, and there is not enough benefit for them, So I would like to invite Trevor and any other of those who support the amendment to clarify at least this point of the debate. The term “free ID” is representing the nominal value of the ID and not the real value and cost which it brings to people. The term is being used too much to help defend the amendment and it is misinforming many people about the real debate.
http://www.growthandjustice.org/CR09062012.html
In response to Ben H’s post, he make a very logical well thought out response. All the facts are laid out before Ben gives his opinion. This post focuses on the voter I.D issue throughout the country. If someone was voting “yes” on the amendment they would have little ground to stand on after reading Ben’s response. One of the major sticking points for the proponents of this amendment is that it will decrease voter fraud. As Ben pointed out, there is already very little voter fraud in the country as well as here. Right now it is said that “ 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud committed in 2008,” these people are convicted felons (1). The number is rumored to be higher “but many who violate election rules avoid punishment if they can prove they did not know they were ineligible to cast a ballot” (1). With this data it helps prove that while there is some fraud, it is not significant. So far “in Hennepin County, 23 people have been convicted of voter fraud and eight cases are pending. In Ramsey County, 36 convictions have resulted from the 2008 elections as of last spring, including cases involving ineligible voters who registered, but who did not end up voting” (1).While there are other reasons for the amendment and potential consequences, fraud alone is not enough of an issue for a constitutional amendment.
1.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/10/poligraph_voter.shtml
In response to Annika’s post, I thought she brought up many basic arguments against the amendment, went into detail with them and gave statistics and sources to back them up. It was very well organized and easy to read. First, she discussed the issue of voter fraud not only in Minnesota, but also in the country. The fact is that that voter fraud is basically non-existent (1). Why should we fix a problem that does not need fixing? She cites the senatorial race between Franken and Coleman and how Voter ID supporters blame voter fraud for giving Franken the win (2). Looking at the fact that this is mostly a Republican supported issue, it makes sense that the losing camp would want to find any reason they could to blame the lost race to an issue they support.
Annika also brings up the point of the amount of people who would suffer, not benefit, if the amendment was passed. Minorities, people with disabilities, active-duty service members, people who live in rural or secluded areas and college students would have more difficulty being able to vote (3). Absentee ballots would become cumbersome and arduous. Same day registration would also be in jeopardy. Same day registration is what makes Minnesota the top ranked state in voter turnout. Why would we change a system that seems to work just fine, and is arguably the best in the nation? If I could vote in November, I would vote no on this amendment.
1)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
2)http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0399.pdf
3)http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/stop_photo_id/91
In the forthcoming consideration of the Amendment concerning the nature of Voter ID’s, there has been much controversy (even more than after Macbeth did off with Banquo, and that started a war!). Thus, it was decreed by the all-powerful Ms. Aby that “thus it shall be that in the date of bloggeth of the October 12th the topic shall be thus, the Voter ID Amendment...eth”. So the students went forth, and in their splendor, did posit the arguments of the proponents and opponents. Thus we come to the head of our tale, that on October 11th, in the year of our lord two thousand and twelve (or as some pagans have thus referred to it: “twenty twelve”) sir Mike Sherman did propose that the Amendment be thus passed by the noble and good people of the fair State of Minnesota, and, although he has a noble and honorable name (as bestowed upon him by his holy parents, who are clearly highly intelligent and sophisticated, as they chose the greatest name to ever be bestowed upon any soul in this earthly realm for their son), he was unfortunately misplaced in his assertion. Therefore, furthermore, I do intend to go forth from here to prove thus that indeed, the Voter ID Amendment should not be passed, contrary to what my honorable brethren (if we may say that, for we do share a name) has supposed.
Mr. Sherman begins his argument with statements of objective (and I mean totally, not “objective” facts as either side pulls out) truths, like the fact that Alabama was the first state to pass a Voter ID act, and that it was very lenient. He goes on to say that currently, 15 states require Photo ID and 35 states do not. So far, I can see no gaps, nor holes, in his argument for me to attack (if you, the reader, can, I would encourage you to exploit them, unless of course you are in the mindset of supporting the Amendment, in which case I blaspheme you as a fool!...and then would encourage you to keep reading). Therefore, I will continue in my analysis and scrutiny of his post. He continues with a general layout of arguments against the Amendment, which, while very simplified and nearing overgeneralization, are nonetheless correct (in essence). (1) However, these things need to be clarified in order to be properly informed about this issue. Mike (distinct from myself, let’s be clear) states that opponents claim that these laws disproportionately affect the elderly, minorities and low-income groups. Opponents generally say this because it’s true; after Voter ID is instituted there is a considerable (and very measurable) shift in voting for Republicans. (2) Therefore, one could assume that this is caused by a decrease in voting among those typically-Democratic demographics. The next simplification is that ID’s can be costly. Yes, it is true that this plan would provide ID at no cost to the voter. Opponents are saying though that 1) it will cost the state a fair amount of money to give away that many ID’s and 2) in order to get ID, you often need ID (it’s this idea that in order to prove that you can get this state ID legally, you have to have another ID—like a birth certificate—to prove your citizenship. That ID is not guaranteed for free and many groups—like the ones named above—may not have this first ID necessary to get the second state-issued ID).
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
In his next paragraph Mike begins his argument. He states that Voter ID is “necessary [for] ensuring fair elections” and that it is “not discriminatory toward any [legal] group.” First, I have just provided substantial evidence that it is discriminatory (here it is again: (2)). Second, he has not proved with any evidence that A) there is a problem and B) this will solve the problem. He continues by stating that most people should have ID already because it is required for so many daily activities. To which I respond A) most people don’t vote fraudulently, B) more people lack ID’s than vote fraudulently C) this ID is mostly focused on those other people anyways, because nothing is going to change for the “most people” who don’t commit fraud and who do have ID’s, but things are going to change drastically (for the worse) for both those who don’t have ID’s and those who vote fraudulently. Why is disenfranchising thousands of voters—84,000 without ID and another 131,000 with invalid ID’s according to the requirements of this Amendment (3), plus 500,000 who used same-day registration, something that would probably be ended by this amendment (4) (that’s right, I just used a pro-amendment page to prove my anti-amendment argument)—an acceptable cost for catching, depending on your definition of fraud, between 0 people (who willingly and knowingly tried to vote fraudulently/cheat the system), 156 people (people convicted of voting when they were ineligible), 229 people (people convicted plus those cases pending as of August 14, 2012 (5)), or somewhere around 6000 people (those addresses that couldn’t be confirmed in 2008 but were provided on ballots/registration materials(4))? My answer is that it is not. (Other) Mike concludes by revisiting the point that even if you don’t have ID, you can get it for free. Which therefore leads me to my final point: sometimes you need ID to get ID, as could be the case here, depending on how the regulations are set up; furthermore, while it will be possible to get an ID yes, that doesn’t mean it’s not a barrier: the US has one of the lowest turnout rates among industrialized countries. Why? Because we require voter registration, which, even before Voter ID laws (when it was very open and all you needed was a bill or a friend), was a significant deterrent. After all, it does take effort. The higher the marginal cost, without a higher marginal benefit, the less people will do an action. Don’t cause people to vote less, vote NO on the Voter ID Amendment.
1. http://www.ourvoteourfuture.org/why-vote-no/
2. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/
3. http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/169055996.html?refer=y
4. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
5. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/08/14/good-question-is-minnesota-1-for-voter-fraud/
I will be responding to Mr. Dylan "Swag me out" Haschka's post. Honestly, I don't have that much of an opinion when it comes to voter id, so I will be going through his argument fact by fact, instead of generally. One of Mr. Haschka's facts is that it is untrue that voter id will cost too much because any cost associated with voting constitutes a poll tax, which is is of course, unconstitutional. He is missing the point of the argument, however. Those opposed to voter id say it will cost too much because it will not be payed for by individuals. The current plan is to have the money for the ids come from the general fund (1). detractors would claim that general fund money would be better spent on things like education and medicare. I personally find it a little odd that a party so obsessed with fiscal responsibility would be so much in love with an idea that they would be willing to spend upwards of $10 million to fund voter id cards (2). This is especially odd because as Mr. Haschka says, "Voter ID solves a problem that is not a problem." Voter fraud plays a negligible role in elections (3), and I would argue that if we are going to spend money on fixing elections, it would be better spent reforming the electoral college, or finding more accurate ways of vote instead of punch cards (for the record, not sure if these are still in use, but you get my point). God knows we don't want another Florida. Another claim that Dylan makes is that decreasing the political efficacy of voters through voter id will have a negative effect on turnout. However, in states that have instituted voter is we have actually seen turnout increase (1). Clearly, voter id laws would not decrease political efficacy. If anything, they would increase it, because people would be so riled up about the new regulations that they would feel a need to come out and vote. At any rate, I have no real opinion on voter id because the information out there contradicts itself, and I don't know what to believe. For all I know, all the arguments I just made were wrong, and Dylan was right.
sources
1. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
2. http://assets.democrats.org/pdfs/photoid/Dems-report-real_cost_of_voting_ID.pdf
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-nebraskan/problems-with-voter-id-requirements_b_1391224.html
I tend to agree with the ideas presented in Sara’s post. I think she makes very valid claims and uses solid information to back them up. In her opening argument, Sara states that the voter I.D. amendment is a partisan measure designed to benefit Republicans through the disenfranchisement of citizens that generally support Democrats (1). This is apparent as this action could potentially target the less fortunate and minority groups who have historically chosen to vote liberal. Sara proceeds to inform that there is already a lucrative reward for anyone reporting voter fraud (1). Despite this offer, no one has come forward. I did not know this earlier, and now I am led to believe that fraud is not even an issue at all. At first, I was skeptical of the statistics Sara presents next. She said that 700,000 Minnesotans could be disenfranchised by this amendment (1). I initially thought this number to be extremely high, as it is nearly a quarter of the percentage of Minnesotans that voted in the 2008 presidential election, where 78% of the population showed up (2). I thought this because from what I have read, in theory, identification is available to all citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote through a number of different means (3). However, I changed my mind after considering the numerous obstacles that could be encountered during the acquisition process. I can easily picture 700,000 people choosing not to vote because it is not worth it to them to take on the extra stress of getting state identification. This statistic alone is enough to get me to vote no on this amendment.
1. http://apusgopo.blogspot.com/2012/10/post-3-due-friday-october-12th.html
2. http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2008/12/minnesota_leads_nation_in_vote_1.php
3. http://www.protectmyvote.com/
I'm responding to Sara's post, and I'll mostly be doing some debunking. The first claim that Sara makes in her post is that “The real aim of the voter ID requirements is to cut down on turnout, and to do it in a way that affects Democrats more than Republicans.”, citing this NY Times 'article'. Upon checking the source, I found that it was actually a very opinionated blog post, and the only source that it pointed to was an earlier post by the same author. In actuality, it would be very hard to prove that any politician would openly support an amendment that cuts off voters from their guaranteed right. Sara's second argument is also based on a blog post from the same author, but this argument has a little more truth to it. The author, Andrew Rosenthal (head of the NY Times opinion section) linked to more information than his own previous blog posts in this post. Mr. Rosenthal (and Sara) first pointed out again that this amendment disenfranchises seemingly only Democratic voting groups, before pointing to a $1,000 reward offered by the ACLU, and stating that no cases of voter fraud have been found/reported. In fact, the group Minnesota Majority claimed this prize money, but the ACLU said it needed to review the case and won't announce whether they will pay up until April 5th. Additionally, opponents of this bill tend to underestimate the susceptibility of our voting system to voter fraud. This admittedly opinionated article (with many facts to back its arguments) reveals that many counties don't submit cases of voter fraud that they have charged, and that a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholds voter ID laws, citing an “extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator” if ID isn't required. Sara's next point is that this amendment would alienate 700,000 Minnesota voters, and then says that even if all of them "try to become eligible to vote there will still be about 140,000 Minnesotans that won’t become eligible when they were eligible in 2010", citing this blog, which in turn cites a Saint Paul Pioneer Press article. She then claims that voter ID would get rid of Election Day Registration. The website for the group Protect My Vote points out that the amendment doesn't even talk about Election Day Registration, which is the basis for the estimated 500,000 of those estimated 700,000 who couldn't vote. The other estimated 200,000 are people who don't currently have a government issue ID, but I point out again that the actual text of the amendment requires the government to issue an ID to such people at no charge. Overall, I found many of Sara's sources to have misleading facts and half-truths, and my position on the issue remains the same. If you need an ID to function as an everyday American citizen, you should need one to vote as an American as well.
In response to T-Poon, I have to disagree with him on supporting the Voter ID amendment. T-Poon suggests that "Poor people, old people and minorities won’t be able to afford a photo ID" is a myth. Although this isn't entirely true, its not about whether or not they will be able to afford it, but rather that it disenfranchises them from voting. It is not as easy as one may think for many Minnesotan's to obtain a valid voter ID (1). Many people in assisted living centers, or people who do not have readily available transportation, can have a difficult time getting to the locations that issue valid ID's (1). Also, yes there is a waiver for those who may not be able to afford a valid ID, the waiver process to obtain one is discretionary which means that it is up to another person to decide whether or not one will be eligible for a free ID (1). Although the ID itself may be free, to some, it is not a free program. The estimated costs of this amendment are around $30 million to $50 million (1) which will be funded by tax payers money by an increase on property taxes (1). Voter fraud does exists T-Poon, but it is such an insignificant figure that it makes up barely any of votes in past elections. 2800 ineligible felons may have been BELIEVED to have unlawfully voted in the 2008 general elections (2), but how many were actually proven guilty of this action? In 2010, 2.7 million votes were cast in the primary and general elections (1), of those 2.7 million only 160 voter eligibility violation cases were filed, and of those 160 cases only 140 were convictions or proven guilty (1). That is a .006% rate of error (1). How can this be a problem when 45% of the eligible voters in Minnesota did not vote in 2010 (1)? Minnesota has the highest voter turnout rate of any state for the presidential election (3), any potential blocker inhibiting voting could possibly bring us down despite the effects in other states.
1. http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
2. http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/375/Default.aspx
3. http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
In reading Kelly’s post about the Voter ID amendment, I found myself agreeing by what she had to say. Especially her point about the proposed amendment making it much harder for some people to get governmental ID. In speaking with my Aunt the other day, she was explaining how she got my elderly grandmother an ID. The process itself took a lot of time, and there were a lot of legal loopholes to go through, especially for someone who cannot use a computer. I understand that the amendment states that the ID price will be subsidized(1.) However this doesn’t take into account the price to get the document for the ID. To get an ID a person must provide legal copies of Birth Certificates and another Form of ID such as a Marriage Certificate. This becomes rather expensive, as by the internet these seem to cost about 65 dollars put together. However these are the minimum prices, the number that my aunt quoted was much higher, possibly because she had to do all of that over the phone. I definitely agree with Kelly that this is going to reduce the voter turn out, even on the difficulty level alone. Senior Citizens are some of the most dedicated voters I know, and if we reduce the percentage of those people voting we may not have as high of voter turnout. Therefore my question still becomes, why on earth would anyone want to mess with a system that is working? Voting, is very important to America and we want to keep that people voting for years to come.
(1.)http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=90
Josh made a very convincing argument when he used numerous examples to show that the right to vote has been abused and that a Voter ID amendment would help to eliminate this problem. He also showed that it did not harm voters because there are numerous options to consider when deciding what method of identification one uses. Plus, there is the added bonus that the Voter ID amendment makes the overall election process more efficient. Furthermore, he addresses how the amendment is economically beneficial to society. I agree with this statement because it seems fairly evident that in the long run, the benefits of this amendment will offset any potential costs because this bill increases the integrity of the voting process. Every year, the average cost of this amendment can be found by taking the total fixed cost of the bill and dividing by the quantity of output created (output being measured by voter turnout and the integrity of the electoral process). This demonstrates that the amendment will be beneficial in the long run because each year will see an increase in the output created. This is a result of the fact that the electoral process will be smoother, the integrity of the process of selecting our nation’s leaders will continually be solidified, and, as previous elections such as in those in Indiana have shown, voter turnout actually increases (1). Thus, the total output will continually increase, while the cost is fixed, which will lead to the average cost of the bill continually decreasing. This is because the total benefit of the amendment eventually equals and surpasses the total cost. This makes the approval of the bill an economically appropriate decision. This demonstrates that the amendment is in fact beneficial and should be passed, and because of this reason, most voters (both nationally and in the state) currently approve of the Voter ID amendment. In a CBS/New York Times poll from September, 70% of those polled (1,170 registered voters) support the efforts to require voters to show a photo identification card in order to vote (2). This is substantially greater than those who stated they oppose the amendment, a mere 28% (2). Meanwhile, a recent Minnesota poll from the Star Tribune (conducted by Public Policy Polling in the first week of October) demonstrates the fact that the number of Minnesotans who support the amendment are leading with 51% while only 43% oppose it (3). If these numbers hold true, then the amendment will be passed, which will benefit society in the long run.
1.https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2549/EffectsPhotographicIdentificationVoter.pdf?sequence=1
2. http://pollingreport.com/politics.htm
3. http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/173192111.html
I agree with Jessica that the voter id amendment should not get passed. I don’t feel as strongly about it as she clearly does, but she does make many good points. She points out that with a 70% turnout, our system is working very well, which is something I pointed out. However, she goes in depth on the fact that most of the reported voter fraud cases are from felons, who are ineligible to vote (1). This brings up an unusual question, if the majority of voter frauders are felons, and the goal of this amendment is to alleviate voter fraud, then why don’t we just let felons vote? Yes, they’ve made bad judgments in the past, but by completing their sentence, and parole, they should technically be redeemed in society’s eyes. Yes, an argument could be made that those who break the law shouldn’t be allowed to help create it, but how many times have you driven over the speed limit? Inmates, parolees, probationers, maybe even repeat offenders, I can see why people would have problems with them trying to vote, and I would agree with them. However, a person that makes one mistake like Leola Strickland, who postdated a few checks, but then pleaded guilty to it and paid for it, should be allowed to vote (2). Is she a felon? Yes, but she’s paid her debt to society and she deserves to have the same rights as her fellow citizens. It seems to me that there are much better ways of protecting against voter fraud then what this amendment is proposing.
1. http://www.twincities.com/elections/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes?source=most_emailed
2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
I have decided to respond and concur with the post of a fellow Hanson, Sara. I agree with her stance that the amendment should be struck down by Minnesota's voters. While I tried to go out of my way to find particularly zany facts involving the "prevalence" of voter fraud, Sara brought up multiple facts that I found interesting. In one of her sources, Sara found that the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union had posted a $1,000 "reward" for anyone who could prove voter impersonation-this nice lump of money has yet to be claimed by anyone (1). Some other statistics cited by Sara echoed facts that I included in my article-I put the number of disenfranchised Americans overall in my post at 10,000,000, and Sara included in her post the number of Minnesotans who would lose their right to vote at 700,000 (2) It is clear that we both find the sheer number of people who would lose their right to vote a powerful number. Sara and I also agreed on what I found to be the most interesting point in the argument; that Republicans stand to gain more from the amendment being passed than the Democrats do. "The real aim of the voter ID requirements is to cut down on turnout, and to do it in a way that affects Democrats more than Republicans" (3). This New York Times article words this opinion perfectly. Through our like views on numbers of disenfranchised voters and the like, I once again affirm Sara's opinion on the voter ID amendment.
Sources:
(1)http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/all-quiet-on-the-voter-fraud-front/
(2)http://blog-takeactionminnesota.org/
(3)http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/voter-suppression-again-in-minnesota-this-time/
I read Annika’s blog post regarding the voter ID amendment. The two of us generally have different political beliefs so I was surprised to find that we agreed on this issue. I would and she is voting no on this issue. Our reasons were mainly the same but she had a few more specific statistics that I did. We both found that Voter ID does not prevent voter fraud (1). We also found that voter fraud is “virtually non-existent (1).” Annika’s second point, that the cost is unknown, is something I did not come across in my research but is interesting. Because the figures are widely varying the cost of implementing voter ID it would be difficult to pinpoint the cost (2). Her third reason to vote no was one that I had. The amendment would hurt a substantial number of citizens (3). 215,389 voters in Minnesota alone do not have proper identification (3). For these reasons I agree with Annika and if I could vote, I would also vote no.
1.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
2.http://www.twincities.com/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes
3.http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/stop_photo_id/91
In response to Sam—I agree with her stand on the issue of the Voter ID Amendment. I do not think that the Voter ID Amendment is a good idea and therefore, I would agree that I do not think it should go into our Minnesota Constitution. We both agree on several points. Both of us agree on the fact that hurting absentee voting is not something that seems smart. How can someone lose their right to vote just because they are away at college, a vacation, sick, or somewhere else where they cannot vote without that absentee ballot (1). Sam also touched on a point that I never discussed in my post but that I agree with. She talked about our troops and how “Deployed soldiers will face serious barriers to voting in Minnesota” (1). How is it fair to make voting harder for our troops who fight and defend our country? Without them keeping us safe, who knows, maybe we wouldn’t have the right to vote because we could have been taken over. Who knows? But how is that right to take away someone’s vote because they are out of the country, protecting us.
Also, I agree with Sam’s point about how it will only make voting harder for those who already struggle to get there and vote. This is most likely pointed at minorities. It will hurt minority votes. Why restrict their rights? It is found that “people in poverty who are highly mobile, homeless and lack the resources to obtain an ID will be forced to cast provisional ballots, many of which are never counted” (1) How is that fair? To allow someone to vote but by a different ballot that may not count. How is that democracy? I agree that we cannot restrict people of their basic voting rights. This may do that. I think that Minnesota will fall a drop in voting rates and a drop in satisfaction with these IDs and new restrictions to voting. Sam and I both had similar thoughts on this issue and I agree that this amendment should not be passed. It is not what is best for Minnesota.
1) http://blog-takeactionminnesota.org/2012/09/11/justin-terrell-defeating-voter-restriction-closing-the-racial-jobs-gap/
Storm is a great guy and I agree with his opinion that voter ID should not be passed. I don't agree just because he's super cool, but for various valid reasons. There is not actually that much voter fraud (1), so voter ID would end up excluding more honest people than it would crooks. Some important groups would be lost with the enactment of the amendment, such as the extremely elderly, students, and minorities (2). As Storm pointed out, many of these groups (students, minorities, etc.) are generally Democrats, so a voter ID would effectively shift votes towards the Republican side. Additionally, while ID would be free to obtain, according to the amendment, people in rural areas have more trouble reaching an ID office (2). In junction with the previous statement and Storms own paragraph, ID forms are doubling the hurdles that citizens must pass. Finally, voter ID goes against the years of struggle for suffrage (1) that America has experienced, from women to Black suffrage. People fought for the right to vote only to have that right quantified.
In response to Maddie Arpin’s post
Voter id has many pros and cons however I believe the cons outweigh the pros. Maddie presented both sides of the argument very accurately. I agree with Maddie that this amendment shouldn’t pass. One of the arguments that Maddie pointed out is that having voter id prevents voter fraud. The majority of American’s believe that identification should be required to prevent fraud (2). Another argument is that voter id is required for other things in Minnesota, like receiving welfare, and buying alcohol so why shouldn’t it be required for voting. After looking at both sides of the argument Maddie came to the conclusion that she didn’t support the amendment and I agree with her. Even though voter id is required for other things it still disenfranchises many (1). According to the Star tribune half of voters in Minnesota ages 18-34 use election-day registration and 2/3rds of them are democratic. The amendment would clearly favor Republicans and Democrats would lose 3 to 5 statewide percentage points (1). In the case of voter fraud, I said it in my previous post that is doesn’t make sense to go to extreme measures to prevent fraud if it doesn’t exist in Minnesota. There has never been a recorded case of voter fraud in Minnesota. Maddie presented both sides of the argument and gave a clear analysis of the amendment. I agree with Maddie and I do not support the amendment.
1. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/170770256.html?refer=y
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-concerns-about-voter-fraud-spur-broad-support-for-voter-id-laws/2012/08/11/40db3aba-e2fb-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In B. Hanson's post, Ben argues that this legislation disproportionally impacts the poor. This legislation, however, does cover this problem. In the line, "It guarantees that the state must make photographic identification available to eligible voters at no charge(1)," shows that this legislation is, in fact, not going to limit the number of poor that can vote in future elections. Although this is an extra step for some, this step is necessary in order to affirm the value of the vote of others. With this evidence, Ben's argument that this legislation is in some way eliminating part of the Democratic base is also disproven. His only link of loss of 10 million Hispanic voters is that voter i.d. has a cost and with the piece of legislation that says the government issued i.d. will be free, this point is shown as untrue. On the issue of the small chance of voter fraud, I would say that the sense that a person's vote actually counts is an important benefit that only comes with voter id. Voter id increases the efficacy of the people causing an increase in voter turn out. As John R. Lott, a renowned political commentator, writes "that confidence in the fairness of elections translates directly into higher voter turnout" which is "expected to be most pronounced for groups that tend to have less trust in the efficacy American democracy (2)." Instead of actually reducing voter turnout, voter id might actually increase it.
1.http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=90
2.http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf
Kangqiao’s blog post is a shining beacon of logic in a topic fraught with loopholes, half-truths and partisan politics. I agree with him wholeheartedly and congratulate him on his ability to sort through the slew of poor information available and come up with useful, reliable sources. Since his logic is obviously sound, I chose to play devil’s advocate and examine KQ’s sources.
Kangqiao begins his post by dropping a bombshell on the pro-amendment argument by stating that voter ID would not actually reduce voter fraud. Voter ID, by its very nature, can only prevent in-person voter fraud. As KQ’s post points out, such fraud has only occured 10 times in the US since 2000. Kangqiao found this fact at http://votingrights.news21.com/, and I can find 3 reputable news articles (and an article in a highly regarded peer-edited journal) to corroborate that fact (1,2,3,4). Similar examination of KQ’s sources and arguments have proven his argument to be sound- at no time does he ever misquote or manipulate information from any of his sources. I must also commend him for getting actual video evidence of the controversial comments made by Mike Turzai regarding the effect of voter ID on election results.
1. http://www.burntorangereport.com/upload/In%205-Year%20Effort,%20Scant%20Evidence%20of%20Voter%20Fraud%20-%20New%20York%20Times.pdf
2. http://truth-out.org/news/item/10981-new-nationwide-study-of-election-fraud-since-2000-finds-just-10-cases-of-in-person-voter-fraud
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html
4. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/wmitch34&div=19&id=&page=
In response to Kangqaio’s post, I found that we were pretty much entirely in agreement, almost down to our evidence in the original posts. The actual numbers of voter fraud in general, when it comes down to it, are infinitesimal. Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud of any kind in the last 10 years—only 4 of which could have been prevented by the voter ID law the state tried to pass (1, 4). According to another article, people are a whopping 3615 times more likely to report a UFO sighting than actually commit in-person voter impersonation, and 3 million times more likely to think well of North Korea (granted, this comes from MSNBC, so we’ll allow for some bias—but still) (2). To quote a Washington Post editorial: “…No one has found convincing evidence of any recent, significant level of voter fraud (3).” I personally think that really gets at the point; this is government trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. As the saying goes: why fix something that isn’t broken? Usually it proves costly and a waste of time in the long run, anyhow.
However, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that this isn’t sufficient information for someone. Well, all right, let’s take a look at the disenfranchisement Kangqaio mentioned, which would swing in favor of Republicans. Approximately 11 percent of United States citizens eligible to vote are without a photo ID, which makes for about 21 million (4). This is unacceptable, not to mention how incredibly against the founding principles of the nation this is. In the same article is mentioned the fact that the majority of these people are the non-college educated, Hispanics and the poor, who, as we have recently learned, all tend to lean toward the left side of the spectrum (4). And while it is difficult to calculate just how much such laws can skew results in Republicans’ favor, UC-Irvine professor Rick Hasen says that they certainly could make a difference in tight elections. I feel that these two arguments—entirely overlooking extraneous costs such a law would entail—are strong enough to demonstrate the negative effects and the irrelevance of voter ID frauds, and I stand by my conviction to vote no.
1.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-are/story?id=17213376#.UIn8O8UXOHw
2.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48098099/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/voter-fraud-rampant-youre-more-likely-report-ufo/#.UIn76sUXOHw
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/lets-play-voter-fraud-whack-a-mole/2012/08/08/99f9b66c-e18e-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_blog.html
4.http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
In Sara's evaluation of the Voter ID Amendment, I think that she has a decent argument, but presents it in a way that includes too much speculation. Her first argument begins with a quote from the New York Times saying"the real aim of the Voter ID requirements is to cut down on turnout, and to do it in a way that affects Democrats more than Republicans." I think it is a mistake to assume that the people who are voting yes on voter ID requirements are doing so for just partisan reasons, or even partisan reasons being a great factor in their reasoning. While it might be for some people, many people who vote yes are also genuinely concerned with what they feel to be a real and present problem in the United States. The opposite argument could be applied to Democrats: many could just be voting no because they are afraid that losing these voters would jeopardize the elections of their preferred candidates, but it is wrong to assume so without evidence.
The main essence of the second part of her post is that no evidence of the presence of voter fraud in the state of Minnesota exists, but using this as evidence is also making use of faulty reasoning. If voter fraud is so easy to commit (which is what those voting yes on the amendment believe), then there is only a small chance of voter impersonation ever being discovered. There could be many more instances of successful voter impersonation and fraud, since these will go unnoticed by officials and law enforcers.
Finally, she talks about the sheer number of voters that will be made ineligible by the amendment, giving 700,000 as the statistic. Such numbers as this one can be frightening when first read, but there are many important follow up questions that should be answered: how many of these voters, even if eligible, would vote in the election? It could be much lower than the statewide average because of the demographic of those who will become ineligible. Is the voting process unacceptably undemocratic if even one citizen who wants to vote is unable to? And if so, is this an unacceptable cost to further regulate the voting process, and thus conceivably have a truer picture of the votes of a state?
While I agree with Sara's position on the issue, I think that it can be argued in a much clearer and more assertive way; a way that people who support the amendment find it harder to ignore or counter. There are too many assumptions and holes in it as it is.
I am commenting on a post made by Marco about how ineffective the voter I.D. amendment will be. I would agree with this statement. As Marco pointed out felons and illegal immigrants, the main reason many people want this amendment to pass would not be excluded by this amendment as the I.D.s would not clarify that status. I think this takes a lot of the punch out of the arguments for it as well as the fact that it will disenfranchise people who are already voting. We don't need to place more restrictions on a right that is deemed so basic in the land of the free. Some people do not have the resources to get to an I.D. distribution center and are therefor disenfranchised by default. I agree that this is not fair to people who are constitutionally allowed to vote cannot. This amendment has already been passed in Florida and has been called racist and a tool of the conservative party. This is not the kind of partisanship we need right now, we need to be united against issue that matter like the economy and foreign policy. This is just another social issue being pushed and causing problems that doesn't actually matter its just a battleground for the parties.
Im responding to Storm and i agree with his statements about the voter ID amendment. It is true that the amendment will protect against voter fraud, but as Storm said voter fraud is not something that America needs to worry about because Americans understand the value of voting and people generally tend not to lie when it comes to the presidency of the United States. Another factor is that the amendment does not recognize the people who will be enable to get a voter Id due to their disabilities that renders them unable to attain a voter ID. The amendment as good in nature as it sounds makes it more difficult for a mass majority of people in the United States to have their voices heard by voting for president. Voting shouldnt be limited to those who have the ability to go get Id's it should be allowed to everyone
In response to Akorede,I agree with what he said. He said that "The voter identification bill assumes that everyone has and carries their identification with them." For that reason, I think that it would be to much of a pain to go and get them. What if you need to get a birth certificate and you couldn't find yours? Not only would it cost money to go get one of them, it might cost you money to get an ID as well. That makes it equally bad. That is why this amendment should not be passed. He also said The united states already has one of the worst voter turnout rate amongst all other democratic nations around the world." Imagine what this number would be if the voter ID amendment is passed :O
It would be even worse.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home