[QUOTE=Raidyr;51545264]There is one person at a stretch I'd say this applies to, the rest of the people he interviewed gave completely accurate representations. Black people are less likely to have the ID required by most state ID laws. It's not a dramatically high number (the highest estimate for Winsconsin voters without state ID was 8.4%) but it is disproportionate. He used a tiny, insignificant sample size to arrive at the implied conclusion that this disparity doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Although most Americans possess a government-issued photo ID, those without ID may have trouble acquiring the proper credentials, lowering their turnout. A 2011 study by New York University's Brennan Center claimed that of the US population that is of voting age, 6-11% lack government-issued photo ID.[70] The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, disputed the methodology of the study, citing a question in which 14 percent of respondents said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.[71]
Some commentators have argued that strict voter ID laws reduce voter turnout, especially among the poor, blacks, elderly, disabled, and minority-language voters, and voters who have changed their names.[72] However, the results of studies assessing the effect (or lack thereof) of these laws on turnout have been inconclusive.[73]:945 For example, a 2012 study found that a stricter voter ID law in Georgia lowered turnout by about 0.4% in 2008 compared to 2004.[74] A 2006 study also found that voter ID laws decreased aggregate turnout by between 3 and 4 percent.[75] In contrast, several other studies have failed to demonstrate significant turnout reductions.[58][76] A 2010 study found that 1.2% of registered voters in three states with voter ID laws (Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi) lacked an ID that complied with the law.[77] In a 2014 review by the Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, five studies out of ten found that voter ID laws had no significant effect on overall turnout, four studies found that voter ID laws decreased overall turnout, and one study found that the laws increased overall turnout.[78]
A 2016 study argued that, although no clear-cut relationship exists between strict voter ID laws and voter turnout, the disenfranchising impact of voter ID laws may be hidden by Democratic voter mobilization. Strong negative reactions to voter ID laws among Democratic constituencies could, in theory, boost Democratic turnout enough to compensate for effects of the laws themselves.[79] A 2007 report found a small increase in Democratic turnout in places with new voter ID laws.[80][/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Push_for_photo_ID_requirements[/url]
There isn't really a definitive answer to the effect it has.
[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51545276][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Push_for_photo_ID_requirements[/url]
There isn't really a definitive answer to the effect it has.[/QUOTE]
Obviously it differs state to state, that's beside the point, your narrative for posting this video is completely wrong.
I think it's safe to say, this is just a really bad video.
Alright so I love that people are unironically still using this type of data collection process in order to push their agenda.
I think it's called "Cherry Picking."
Comedians and entertainers do this stuff all the time. Remember [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZE0TuKTpo4"]Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans[/URL]? All of those were cherry picked, not every American he went to said stupid shit. It's dishonest but it doesn't seem that bad because it's meant to be all in fun. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDbMEdLiCs"]Veritasium[/URL] does this sort of thing too. I think he got called out for it, actually, but I don't think it was that bad because it wasn't trying too hard to insult a group of people and prove a point. What Veritasium does is harmless cherrypicking, where he's not trying to prove that people don't know about thermal conductivity just that it exists, and uses those people so that his viewers can relate to them.
When someone who is trying to form an argument ("How Liberals Really Feel About Black People") using cherry picked responses based on a handful of people who've shown no clear indication of whether or not that they're liberal, then that's a shit fucking argument.
Honestly you might as well have just posted Alex Jones. It's not any better than what you posted.
This is yet another one of those videos that completely falls apart after 5 seconds of questioning.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
