Tuesday, September 12, 2006

P-Mac vs. Mr Plug-My-Ears

Folkbum rattles on about P-Mac(Ilheran)'s column which mentions John Lott's study.

Lott's study (which is clearly labeled 'not conclusive' BY THE AUTHOR) does show some interesting results: he maintains that the tougher the Voter ID requirements, the higher the voter turnout.

It's interesting. And it is antithetical to the Leftist position that there should be no Voter ID requirements whatsoever. It may expose folks like the "prominent lawyer-hospital administrator" who not only voted Democrat--he voted like a Democrat--more than once.

Here's a snippet from the column:

Mexico has required them since 1991. Turnout has risen since. In fact, Mexico is a harsh test. To vote, Mexicans must show a voter registration card, with photo, thumbprint and a magnetic strip with biometric data. It's got anti-counterfeiting measures, too, and you sign up by showing up at a registration office. They don't mail the card: You have to go pick it up later. Despite all this in a country with Third World stretches, Mexico's Federal Election Institute says 94.5% of eligible voters are registered. [. . .] The turnout, at about 60%, was uninjured.

Good turnout.

Folkie goes bananas:

So let's get this straight: Mexico's 60% turnout shows what a rousing success voter ID and strict registration requirements can mean. Wisconsin's turnout, despite not requiring strict registration or photo ID in 2004, was more than 25% higher than Mexico's, so . . . what, exactly?

Well, for starters, there are about 15 million Mexicans living in the USA illegally. Since they have to be physically present to vote in Mexico....

You do the math, Folkie.

And that super-duper Wisconsin turnout? Guess where those illegals ACTUALLY voted?

Beloit, Racine, Burlington, Milwaukee, Madison....


Jay Bullock said...

You need to retract parts of this.

For one, Donovan Riley's double-voting would not have been stopped by ID. He never pretended to be anyone else.

For two, Mexican nationals in the US are indeed allowed vote absentee; though apparently few took advantage of it, it is untrue to say, as you did, that you must be "physically present" to vote in Mexico.

Third, to assume that it's illegal immigrants making up the difference between Mexico's piddly turnout and Wisconsin's high turnout requires an utter suspension of disbelief. There are probably between 100,000 and 150,000 illegals living in Wisconsin. Even assuming every one of them voted--twice!--it would still mean a difference of less than 10% in turnout.

Wisconsin (and neighboring MN) has a high voter turnout because we put few barriers between the people and the franchise. Lott's assertion is belied by those data, and many others.

Dad29 said...

First off, Jay, the phrase is "suspension of belief," not "disbelief."

Glad you brought up the esteemed attorney's name. And you are right--only a Federal online database would prevent his activity. You agree with Belling here.

I'll stand corrected on "physical presence" in Mexico.

You have no sense of humor, Jay. Not good for a high-school teacher.

As to WI/MN voter turnout--that's Northern European stock, not "few barriers." We vote because it is a duty and a privilege.

Jay Bullock said...

So now you're contradicting yourself on why our turnout is so high?

And it is disbelief.

Dad29 said...

Give it a rest, Jay.