Does your state require a photo ID to vote? Don't vote!

[jp1]

Aye Aye, Captain. Sorry to any offended parties.

[dsheinem]

Ethnocentric? Really? It isn't as if anyone is talking about foreign policy here.

ethnocentrism [eth-noh-sen-triz-uh m]

noun
1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

You are telling me that there is a large segment of the voting population that can't scrape up $50 or so (assuming extra fees) every 4-8 years? Give me a break.

It doesn't matter how large the segment of the population is (but it is certainly larger than the percentage that are caught for fraud) or what the cost is (which can range from $20-$200 or more). According to the Department of Justice and various Civil Rights groups, requiring IDs to be purchased to vote (even if "free" for the specific card itself) is essentially a poll tax. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/14 ... -fr/184318

[jp1]

Ok, last and I'm out. You're claiming we are not privy to the culture that we are surrounded by? It doesn't fit the bill IMHO. You are the professor though, so I defer (sincerely, no shark).

[marurun]

Simply put, data speaks louder than words. Voter ID laws DO reduce voting rates, especially among certain groups. Which is to say, people who are otherwise eligible to vote cannot due to a technicality or are dissuaded from trying.

It doesn't matter whether you think getting an ID isn't really burdensome at all. It does bring down voter turnout. It does serve more to reduce voter turnout than to combat fraud.

From that perspective, the laws are a failure. If the stated reason is to reduce fraud, and the side-effect is to disenfranchise voters in greater number than the effects of the hypothetical fraud, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the voter ID laws really serve a different purpose than actually reducing fraud.

[dsheinem]

Ok, last and I'm out. You're claiming we are not privy to the culture that we are surrounded by? It doesn't fit the bill IMHO. You are the professor though, so I defer (sincerely, no shark).

America has many cultures, not one culture. I know lots of people who live their life almost exclusively in the inner city or in the country and have very little if any understanding of how things work in the other culture...and some of them hold ethnocentric views about the practices and culture of the other.

[jp1]

Ok, last and I'm out. You're claiming we are not privy to the culture that we are surrounded by? It doesn't fit the bill IMHO. You are the professor though, so I defer (sincerely, no shark).

America has many cultures, not one culture. I know lots of people who live their life almost exclusively in the inner city or in the country and have very little if any understanding of how things work in the other culture...and some of them hold ethnocentric views about the practices and culture of the other.

Fair enough, happy to continue in pm if you like since Ack shut her down.

[dsheinem]

Ok, last and I'm out. You're claiming we are not privy to the culture that we are surrounded by? It doesn't fit the bill IMHO. You are the professor though, so I defer (sincerely, no shark).

America has many cultures, not one culture. I know lots of people who live their life almost exclusively in the inner city or in the country and have very little if any understanding of how things work in the other culture...and some of them hold ethnocentric views about the practices and culture of the other.

Fair enough, happy to continue in pm if you like since Ack shut her down.

Ack didn't shut anything down, he was responding to the stream of hashtags and insults (of which I am guilty of using as well). I assume if we continue to have more reasoned discussion (e.g. citing sources and responding to arguments in good faith), that the public debate will continue.

[ninjainspandex]

Simply put, data speaks louder than words. Voter ID laws DO reduce voting rates, especially among certain groups. Which is to say, people who are otherwise eligible to vote cannot due to a technicality or are dissuaded from trying.

It doesn't matter whether you think getting an ID isn't really burdensome at all. It does bring down voter turnout. It does serve more to reduce voter turnout than to combat fraud.

From that perspective, the laws are a failure. If the stated reason is to reduce fraud, and the side-effect is to disenfranchise voters in greater number than the effects of the hypothetical fraud, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the voter ID laws really serve a different purpose than actually reducing fraud.

Just goes to show how lazy some people are doesn't it? if it takes any added effort then they decide why bother. I bet everyone would vote if they could anonymously text in their vote from their couch.

[ZeroAX]

I can imagine the OP right now

[dsheinem]

I bet everyone would vote if they could anonymously text in their vote from their couch.

On their Obamaphones!