MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, October 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 48.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Comments on the paper, the website, the mobile site and all other Isthmus-generated products go here.

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby David Blaska » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:11 pm

While you're still hemming and hawing about the crux of the matter, I'll address your little diversions:

ilikebeans wrote: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?


Five states passed the laws this year so we'll have to await the statistics but former Elections Board commissioner Hans von Spakovsky points out
Some opponents have tried to narrow down the argument, claiming that voter ID can stop only impersonation fraud, and that this particular type of fraud is rare or nonexistent. But as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in the Indiana case, the relative rarity of prosecutions for impersonation fraud can be “explained by the endemic underenforcement” of voter-fraud cases and “the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator” without the tools — a photo ID — needed to detect such fraud.

One of the most egregious examples was revealed by a Brooklyn grand jury in 1984, a case the New York Times conveniently ignores whenever it rails against voter ID. The grand jury detailed a widespread conspiracy that operated without detection for 14 years, involving not only impersonation of voters at the polls, but also voting under fictitious names that had been successfully registered. Thousands of fraudulent votes were cast in state and congressional elections.

David Blaska wrote:Placing a mark on drivers licenses denoting felon is under consideration.

ilikebeans wrote:Q2: What is your source on this?
Q3: Assuming this plan passes, how would the law prevent felons from voting if they presented an ID other than their driver's license?


It is something I heard directly from a legislator. It is not difficult to replicate the requirement on the few other forms of I.D. Wisconsin recognizes. For instance, I do not believe passports are issued to felons. The certificate of naturalization must be issued within 2 years of an election so that pretty much precludes felon status. Or do you think felons should be able to vote? That's a question, Beans.

ilikebeans wrote:Q4: Please cite numbers to show that prosecuting the current low numbers of fraudulent voters (11 charged in 2010) is more expensive to state taxpayers than the estimated $6 million this year and $4 million/year after this law will cost.


These are largely one-time start-up costs, if accurate. Now, I ask you, what is the dollar cost of a crooked election? Why did Joanne Kloppenburg ask for a recount in 72 counties when only Waukesha County was (arguably) in question. Furthermore, you continue to make the illogical leap that 11 fraudulent voters is the sum total of voter fraud in WI. That is the number adjudicated.

Now, Beans, why did the Democrat-majority Rhode Island legislature and governor sign its own voter I.D. law. As Von Spakovsky writes,

Von Spakovsky wrote: State senator Harold Metts, a black Democrat whose support of Rhode Island’s voter-ID bill angered the ACLU and other leftist organizations, said he was “more interested in doing the right thing and stopping voter fraud.”


Numerous studies — including those by the Heritage Foun­dation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln — have looked at data from many states and several elections and concluded that voter ID does not depress turnout. In fact, the Delaware/Nebraska study said that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby wack wack » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:17 pm

David Blaska wrote:Please support your supposition that there is no voter fraud in the U.S.


Please support your assertion that beans or anyone else in this thread supposes that there is no voter fraud in the U.S.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby David Blaska » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:27 pm

Now, Beans, I want proof that Voter I.D. depresses voting.

Hans Von Spakovsky wrote:The Indiana and Georgia voter-ID laws were upheld by state and federal courts. In the Georgia case, the federal court pointed out that after two years of litigation, none of the plaintiffs, including the NAACP, could produce a single otherwise eligible voter who did not have a photo ID or could not easily obtain one. That failure was “particularly acute,” the court wrote, “in light of the Plaintiffs’ contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable photo ID.” Similarly, in the Indiana case, the federal court noted that “despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disen­franchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting.” 8/29/11 The National Review]


And lest you cite NYU's flawed Brennan Center study, understand that this crew opposed voter I.D. before it did the research. Of that study (of 987 people), Von Spakovsky says:

By neglecting to ask whether respondents were actual or likely voters, registered voters, or even eligible voters, the study ignored the most relevant data: the number of eligible citizens who would have actually voted but could not because of voter-ID laws. All pollsters know that the only really accurate polls are of likely voters, not of the voting-age population. Surveys of registered voters have shown the exact opposite of the Brennan Center study: American University found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi lacked a government-issued ID. A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only 23 people in the entire sample would be unable to vote because of an ID requirement.


Show me that voter I.D. reduces voter turnout you temporizer!
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby ilikebeans » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:21 pm

Wow. I go away for a few hours to get some actual work done (some of us craaazy libruls do have jobs and contribute to the GDP, you know), and come back to see Mr. Blaska has taken an ill-advised ride on the Tilt-o-Whirl of Partisanship and vomited GOP talking points all over the Forum.

Careful what you wish for, I guess.

I've even now got a thread with my username included to grab my attention! Although I can see David's point: It had been a full hour and fifteen minutes since I last posted. Clearly I had abandoned the thread!

Except, oops, I'm back. Oh well, I'll take the thread title as a compliment.

Now, let's address the, ahem, substance of your replies.

David Blaska wrote:Source: The Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky writes in this week’s National Review... former Elections Board commissioner Hans von Spakovsky points out... As Von Spakovsky writes... Hans Von Spakovsky wrote... Von Spakovsky says...

And then in the new thread dedicated to me, apparently:

David Blaska wrote:Hans Von Spakovsky wrote:

Ok, sigh, obviously you weren't paying attention the first time around. I already addressed why Hans von Spakovsky is inadmissible for a reference: He's a well-known right-wing hyper-partisan, and as such his testimony is fatally biased. Similarly, I ignore all links to the Heritage Foundation or the The National Review.

Let me put it in a way you might understand: It would be like me referencing opinion pieces by Michael Moore or Mother Jones. These sources are all fine places to start your research, but by no means usable citations on their own. Besides, as DCB pointed out, Senator Al Franken blew a pretty big hole in Mr. von Spakovsky's testimony on the Senate floor.

So let's see what other, non-von Spakovskyness you've got.

David Blaska wrote:Please cite your initial claim that Voter I.D. discourages turnout among minorities.

Already did. You'll need someone other than von Spakovsky to declare the the Brennan study flawed.

David Blaska wrote:Please support your supposition that there is no voter fraud in the U.S.

Please show me where I said this.

David Blaska wrote:
David Blaska wrote:Placing a mark on drivers licenses denoting felon is under consideration.

ilikebeans wrote:Q2: What is your source on this?
Q3: Assuming this plan passes, how would the law prevent felons from voting if they presented an ID other than their driver's license?

It is something I heard directly from a legislator. It is not difficult to replicate the requirement on the few other forms of I.D. Wisconsin recognizes. For instance, I do not believe passports are issued to felons. The certificate of naturalization must be issued within 2 years of an election so that pretty much precludes felon status. Or do you think felons should be able to vote? That's a question, Beans.

So the answer to Q2 is "hearsay," but ok, fine, I believe it. Q2 is now closed.

As to Q3: So now all schools will need to run background checks on potential students to mark their student IDs? That seems both expensive and time-consuming.

Also, passports are good for 10 years before renewal is required. No chance of someone committing a felony during that time period, is there? Or of a current student committing a felony, and then using his (non-marked) student ID after he gets out on parole?

To answer your question: I'm fine with Wisconsin's policy of allowing those with felony records to vote after completion of all supervised release. I feel the vast majority of supervised felons that try to vote are caught after the fact. We do have lists of felons on supervised release, after all.

David Blaska wrote:Now, I ask you, what is the dollar cost of a crooked election? Why did Joanne Kloppenburg ask for a recount in 72 counties when only Waukesha County was (arguably) in question.

That recount was due to suspected vote mishandling and vote counting AFTER the polls closed, not due to ID issues.

David Blaska wrote:Furthermore, you continue to make the illogical leap that 11 fraudulent voters is the sum total of voter fraud in WI. That is the number adjudicated.

No, no I am not. I am saying that the problem of fraudulent voting is so small as to be negligible, and certainly not worth the millions of taxpayer dollars we're throwing at it. "We're broke, we're broke, we're broke!"

You're making the illogical leap that large numbers of voters are doing so illegally and not getting caught. As I've pointed out before, there would be other indications of this happening on a larger scale, most notably exit polls. This has not been the case.

Ok, so you've sort of addressed Q's 2-4. Sort of. At any rate, I'll consider those closed.

Now about that first question, the real heart of why we're spending all this cash:

David Blaska wrote:I will grant you one point, Mr. Beans: Voter I.D. does reduce turnout among fraudulent voters.

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?

And, since we're back to questions of opinion, these two questions have been around for weeks now, Mr. Blaska:

Q5: Mr. Blaska, what is your opinion of the campaigns by Americans for Prosperity and Wisconsin Family Action to send absentee ballots with false submission dates and return addresses to AFP to solidly Democratic voting blocs?

Q6: Mr. Blaska, please comment on the following quote by Paul Weyrich, noted conservative and founder of The Heritage Foundation and ALEC, among many others:

"I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."


David Blaska wrote:you temporizer!

Oo, someone got a Word of the Day calendar for Christmas! But hey, I'll admit I have to look this one up:

1. To act evasively in order to gain time, avoid argument, or postpone a decision.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh that is RICH coming from the guy that is just now addressing questions I posed to him a month and a half ago. Here are a couple for you to look up: hypocrisy and projection.

Man, I need something to dab my tears of mirth...
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2819
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby David Blaska » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:18 pm

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 quotes court decisions, university studies, police department investigations, mainstream news media reports -- not good enuff!

You say you're worried about spending money to assure clean elections -- except when liberals ask for recounts in all 72 counties.

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.)

Do I agree with the Weyrich quote? No. 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.)

We've already shown that Georgia's voting participation increased after passage of Voter I.D., even among minorities. Now, address once and for all the question: show where voter I.D. reduces turnout.

In any event, this horse has left the barn. It is law and, like Indiana and Georgia, will be upheld in the courts.

Which means, you lose.
David Blaska
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Stately Blaska Manor

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby acereraser » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:25 pm

David Blaska wrote:
And lest you cite NYU's flawed Brennan Center study, understand that this crew opposed voter I.D. before it did the research. Of that study (of 987 people), Von Spakovsky says:


So, the Brennan Center study is flawed, and should be ignored, because they were biased? Then, we must do the same with the conclusions of Hans von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation mouthpiece, who formerly led the battle for voter ID during the Bush administration.
acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby acereraser » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:42 pm

David Blaska wrote:
Lightning round question: Why have five states gone to photo I.D. within the past year?


Well, some still believe von Spakovsky to be a resource as we study the current upsurge in voter suppression efforts, so...

Under questioning from [Senator] Durbin, von Spakovsky did admit that the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative advocacy group funded in part by the Koch brothers, was a major player behind the new photo ID laws. “Senator, they have a lot of model bills they recommend to their legislators,” von Spakovsky said.

“I’ll take that as a yes,” Durbin responded.


...from this article.
acereraser
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:42 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby rabble » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:09 pm

David Blaska wrote:Which means, you lose.

The thing is, so do you. I understand it's a lot easier to understand this stuff when you're wearing heavy duty blinders, but damn. The lengths you wingnuts will go to in your quests to make rich people richer while paying them for the privilege is amazing to me.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby snoqueen » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:02 pm

And the capacity of wingnuts to distort and disregard the basic principles that all adult citizens (apart from felons) deserve the right to cast their ballot; and that this right should be vigorously defended, not chipped away; and that in order to practice and defend democracy we should be making it easier, not harder, for citizens to vote...

It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country. We could be moving toward the mail-in ballots they use in the state of Oregon, not a Wisconsin-style voter ID plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec31.html
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11628
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby bdog » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:46 am

snoqueen wrote:It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country.

"Surreal"? Are you serious?

Voter id has pros and cons. To suggest that it is a slam dunk either way is just stupid.

It's surreal (and very very scary) that people like you think you have all the answers.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby rabble » Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:44 am

bdog wrote:
snoqueen wrote:It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country.

"Surreal"? Are you serious?

Yes. Extremely.

bdog wrote:Voter id has pros and cons. To suggest that it is a slam dunk either way is just stupid.

Yeah, just like Global Warming and Evolution have their pros and cons.

bdog wrote:It's surreal (and very very scary) that people like you think you have all the answers.

I also think it's very scary that we are even having this conversation. That there are persons, who appear to have a couple of working brain cells, who think there might be a very good reason we should spend millions of dollars to restrict voting rights in a bankrupt country to fix a problem we can't prove exists. That goes beyond surreal and scary, actually.
Last edited by rabble on Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby wack wack » Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:49 am

bdog wrote:
snoqueen wrote:It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country.

"Surreal"? Are you serious?

Voter id has pros and cons. To suggest that it is a slam dunk either way is just stupid.

It's surreal (and very very scary) that people like you think you have all the answers.


Yeah, dbag, 10 pages of lies and evasions from Blaksa, but it's sno's very simple statement of one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy that is scary.

Your post nailed "surreal" and "ironic" in one fell swoop, congrats!
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby Bad Gradger » Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:32 am

David Blaska wrote:In any event, this horse has left the barn. It is law and, like Indiana and Georgia, will be upheld in the courts.

Actually it won't, because instead of crafting a law like those that would've easily withstood a challenge, your side got too cute and made it far more restrictive, complete with this bizarre "let's make the IDs free but only if they ask for it" component. Genius move there.
Bad Gradger
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby bdog » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:04 pm

rabble wrote:
bdog wrote:
snoqueen wrote:It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country.

"Surreal"? Are you serious?

Yes. Extremely.

bdog wrote:Voter id has pros and cons. To suggest that it is a slam dunk either way is just stupid.

Yeah, just like Global Warming and Evolution have their pros and cons.


you think global warming is a slam dunk??? That's surreal.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Unanswered questions posed to David Blaska

Postby bdog » Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:09 pm

wack off wrote:
bdog wrote:
snoqueen wrote:It's getting more surreal by the minute in this country.

"Surreal"? Are you serious?

Voter id has pros and cons. To suggest that it is a slam dunk either way is just stupid.

It's surreal (and very very scary) that people like you think you have all the answers.


Yeah, dbag, 10 pages of lies and evasions from Blaksa, but it's sno's very simple statement of one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy that is scary.

Your post nailed "surreal" and "ironic" in one fell swoop, congrats!

nice try wack off. Not a fundamental principal for voting to include fraud, and not make any effort to combat it.
bdog
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Comments on Isthmus & isthmus.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheBookPolice and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar