Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

rjs330 · Monday at 10:39 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd much rather have the "Clinton v. Dole" era than the "Trump v. Harris" era.

And with regards to house reps, some of these goofballs that are making it into office wouldn't have stood a chance in 1990-2009.

Totally true. The left has gotten more and more radical as time has gone on as voting rolls have increased. And unfortunately the right has responded to this by choosing people like Trump feeling like hes the type that is needed to combat the lefts Radicalization. And its become a combat. Neither side is willing to compromise and come to a reasonable solution. Neither side can see ANY reasonableness in the other sides thought.

And we see more and more extremists being chosen as representatives.

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 10:42 AM

rjs330 said:
Lol, no its not. Teenagers of 18 have no clue how the issues they care about really affect them and others. Most of them have never really been affected by these issues. They operate on pure emotion at that point and do NOT think through the consequences of their desires. They are easily manipulated by the emotional appeals of the Democrats. This is a FACT. Thats ehy Democrats want teens even younger than 18 to vote.

Calling something a fact does not make it one. This is your opinion, and you have not supported it.

rjs330 said:
We are. Ever heard of Turning Point? It is a challenge thats for sure. All the Democrats have to do is toss out emotional tripe and the kids suck it up. Where as we have to debate with facts and logic in order to CHANGE minds. Minds that are already set in fire of emotional reaponse and emotional beliefs which the Democrats pour fuel on. The Republicans do have an uphill battle and have often abandoned the attempt because it IS difficult to counter the educational systems that indictinate kids into leftist ideologies and beliefs.

Ah, so this is just sour grapes.

rjs330 said:
So? Its life experience of living a life, being responsible for yourself, paying your own bills. Being responsible for your family your health, your own work and learning what it means to be a responsible adult makes a difference in how you see things. Thats why people generally move to the right as they get older.

I'd argue that people tend to get more conservative as they get older because - by and large - they like the way things are and don't want them to change. It's kind of parallel to what you said, but I wouldn't put it so high-handedly. Humans like to be comfortable, and when they're comfortable, they don't want to change things. Someone with a house, a family, and a job that pays the bills is generally going to be pretty comfortable. It doesn't really have to do with experience, per se - and it's why people who are young and wealthy/privileged tend to be more conservative as well.

Linda426 · Monday at 12:06 PM

Valletta said:
This is a constitutional and commonsense security measure. Over 80% of Americans agree with Voter-ID laws. If you have to show ID in order to buy alcohol or rent a car, you should have to show ID in order to vote.

Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN), an original sponsor of the SAVE America Act, called for the passage of the legislation to require proof of citizenship to register to vote and mandate photo ID at the ballot box.

www.breitbart.com

People also have to show ID to get on an airplane or to receive government benefits. It is time.

Definitely ppl must show proof of ID
With an address to match.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 12:16 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Again, not sure where you're getting your numbers. One of the links I posted has number of registered voters, as well as VAP (voting age population) and VEP (voting eligible population). If we use VEP, there's 4 points of variation between the highest and lowest registration years, with a maximum of 71% (1980 and 2024) and a minimum of 67% (2000). If we use VAP, the range is from 64% to 70% (ignoring the outlier of 59% for 1960, as that was the first year the data exists, and numbers just generally seem wonky that year), with 2024 actually being one of thee lowest years at 65%.

But percentage registered isn't really a relevant statistic - the main thing that matters is the percentage of the eligible population that actually casts a vote.

U.S.: Number of Registered Voters, by year | Statistico

The number of registered voters in the United States consistently fluctuates as it is influenced by various factors such as population growth, public interest in politics, and efforts to encourage or discourage voter registration.

www.statistico.com

Or if you want the more tedious excel versions to download

Historical Reported Voting Rates

The historical time series tables present estimates alongside various demographic characteristics for each national level election between 1964 and the present.

www.census.gov

In 1996, there was 127.7 million registered voters, and the US adult population was around 210 million. (roughly 62%)

In 2020, there was 168.3 million registered voters, and the US adult population was around 257 million (roughly 70%)

For 2024:

2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available

In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% of the voting-age population was registered to vote and 65.3% voted according to new voting and registration tables.

www.census.gov

--73.6%

Hans Blaster · Monday at 12:53 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I figured that was largely a hollowed out entity now with some of the key players leaving office

You could have not replied...

The Freedom Caucus controls Speaker Johnson's rise to and maintenance of power. He would not be speaker if they objected.

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 1:21 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
U.S.: Number of Registered Voters, by year | Statistico

The number of registered voters in the United States consistently fluctuates as it is influenced by various factors such as population growth, public interest in politics, and efforts to encourage or discourage voter registration.

www.statistico.com

Or if you want the more tedious excel versions to download

Historical Reported Voting Rates

The historical time series tables present estimates alongside various demographic characteristics for each national level election between 1964 and the present.

www.census.gov

In 1996, there was 127.7 million registered voters, and the US adult population was around 210 million. (roughly 62%)

In 2020, there was 168.3 million registered voters, and the US adult population was around 257 million (roughly 70%)

For 2024:

2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available

In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% of the voting-age population was registered to vote and 65.3% voted according to new voting and registration tables.

www.census.gov

--73.6%

Having reviewed the "tedious Excel version (which isn't the least bit tedious beyond requiring you to download the file and open a spreadsheet viewer)," your numbers don't line up with the Census Bureau. See Table A-10 on the page that you linked; it covers the exact figures you're trying to calculate. I'd recommend leaving the demographic calculations to the experts in the future.

ETA: the 73.6% from 2024 is specifically the citizen VAP, so you can't compare that to percentages of the full adult population, because the census does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. The source I used calculated 71% for the same figure, but some variation is expected because it's an algorithmically-adjusted figure, and different groups may calculate it differently.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 1:29 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Having reviewed the "tedious Excel version (which isn't the least bit tedious beyond requiring you to download the file and open a spreadsheet viewer)," your numbers don't line up with the Census Bureau. See Table A-10 on the page that you linked; it covers the exact figures you're trying to calculate. I'd recommend leaving the demographic calculations to the experts in the future.

View attachment 376593

That's not my fault then if the same source is reporting two different number is it?

2024 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available

In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% of the voting-age population was registered to vote and 65.3% voted according to new voting and registration tables.

www.census.gov

APRIL 30, 2025 — In the 2024 presidential election, 73.6% (or 174 million people) of the citizen voting-age population was registered to vote and 65.3% (or 154 million people) voted according to new voting and registration tables released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. These data come from the 2024 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration Supplement for the November 2024 presidential election, which surveyed the civilian noninstitutionalized population in the United States.

The source for both is Census . gov

Is perhaps the difference (and where we're getting our lines crossed) between the citizen voting age population (CVAP) and the voting age population? It's quite possible that if the total voting age population is including people who are non-citizens, it could knock that down to the 66.8 you're seeing.

A person over 18 would be of voting age, but if they're a non-citizen, they wouldn't be part of the CVAP...just a potential theory as to the difference in numbers.

Edit:

Yes, turns out my theory is correct

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 1:48 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
That's not my fault then if the same source is reporting two different number is it?

See my edit.

ThatRobGuy said:
Is perhaps the difference (and where we're getting our lines crossed) between the citizen voting age population (CVAP) and the voting age population? It's quite possible that if the total voting age population is including people who are non-citizens, it could knock that down to the 66.8 you're seeing.

I'm not getting anything crossed up - I've been very clear about whether I'm talking about voting age population (VAP) or voting eligible population (VEP). As I said, the source I linked provided numbers for both the voting-age population and voting-eligible population (which removes non-citizens and disenfranchised felons from the pool). It's calculated by the Elections Lab at the University of Florida - see here for more info.

Your other math is just straight up wrong. The US adult population in 1996 was ~193 million, not 210 million. And 168.3 million is about 65% of 257 million, not 70% (also the adult population was 252 million in 2020 - 168.3 is ~67% of 252).

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 2:00 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
See my edit.

I'm not getting anything crossed up - I've been very clear about whether I'm talking about voting age population (VAP) or voting eligible population (VEP). As I said, the source I linked provided numbers for both the voting-age population and voting-eligible population (which removes non-citizens and disenfranchised felons from the pool). It's calculated by the Elections Lab at the University of Florida - see here for more info.

And I notated before that I was discussing registration rates among the CVAP, since being registered is what ultimately determines who has access to the polls.

But even your source still backs up my original assertion.

Voter turnout rates (by your your source/metrics were pretty stagnant in the low-mid 50's from 1970-2000. (and in the 30's for midterms)

And from 2004-present day, the turnouts have jumped up into the mid-60's for presidential elections and into the high 40's for midterms.

So my original question from pages ago is still worth asking (regardless of if we look at CVAP, VAP, or VEP)

Has the increase in voting participation corresponded with better or worse outcomes in terms of legislative or candidate quality?

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 2:08 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Has the increase in voting participation corresponded with better or worse outcomes in terms of legislative or candidate quality?

I don't think either of us is old enough to make that assessment. The last three elections have been worse, for sure, but is that down to increased voter participation or one particular candidate who happened to be in all three of those elections? And, honestly, I'd argue that 2016 wasn't even that bad of an election. Yeah, Trump ended up being an awful president, but the country elects a stinker every once in a while. What matters is the response when that happens.

DaisyDay · Monday at 2:21 PM

rjs330 said:
You also know goid and well that the youth vote based on their emotions because they haven't really experienced life yet.

Almost everyone does vote based on their emotions (desire, fear, compassion, anger, greed, concern) whereas logic and reason only kick in as means to achieve emotional goals. It's funny how some people think their emotions are more valid than those of other people, particularly when they think they're better than (older, wiser, more experienced) said other people.

DaisyDay · Monday at 2:29 PM

stevevw said:
I am talking about how every social-service (government) agency will ask you to qualify yourself before you get welfare. You can;t just send a letter and say I want welfare. You have to show ID and qualify yourself.

Just curious, does this mean that homeless folk without proper ID are just out of luck as far as social services go in your country?

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 2:38 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Has the increase in voting participation corresponded with better or worse outcomes in terms of legislative or candidate quality?

I'd say that access to high-speed internet and social media has a stronger correlation to poor election outcomes, and is a far more reasonable explanation than a relatively minor increase in the percentage of people voting.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 3:19 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
I'd say that access to high-speed internet and social media has a stronger correlation to poor election outcomes, and is a far more reasonable explanation than a relatively minor increase in the percentage of people voting.

Even if we look at the Turnout as percentage of VEP, and prorate it to make it the proportionate 90's equivalent to adjust for the population growth.

That difference of 55% to 65% isn't minor when talking about a VEP of 240M.

...we're talking about 20 million people. Depending on the region, you don't need a large headcount to change outcomes.

Especially when you consider the demographic groups that are driving the increases. They come from the more hyper polarized ends of the political spectrum , and can make the difference between a more moderated traditional candidate winning vs. the more polarized one.

Do you think these sort of primary results happen without the (previously dormant, much more radical) portions of the respective basis getting activated?

AOC even directly referenced it being a case of new voters, in her Face the Nation interview following her first victory:
Ocasio-Cortez, who ran a campaign on a platform that included Medicare for all and free college tuition, said a populist-style approach "absolutely" brings out new voters.

"In fact -- we found this here in New York, back home. We expanded the electorate 68 percent over the last off-year midterm primary,"

And do you think the "temperature" would perhaps be a little lower if those two elections (among many others) had gone the other way?

RocksInMyHead · Monday at 3:59 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Do you think these sort of primary results happen without the (previously dormant, much more radical) portions of the respective basis getting activated?

Do you think that, without the internet or social media, anyone would have cared about Greene or Cortez? I'd wager that most people in the '90s couldn't have named any House reps beyond the Speaker and possibly their own.

ThatRobGuy said:
And do you think the "temperature" would perhaps be a little lower if those two elections (among many others) had gone the other way?

The outrage machine would have just settled on other people.

Don't get me wrong - I agree 100% with the idea that the American electoral system is fundamentally broken. I just disagree with you on why - as well as with your approach to "fixing" it (preventing people you don't like from voting).

Hans Blaster · Monday at 5:27 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Even if we look at the Turnout as percentage of VEP, and prorate it to make it the proportionate 90's equivalent to adjust for the population growth.

That difference of 55% to 65% isn't minor when talking about a VEP of 240M.

...we're talking about 20 million people. Depending on the region, you don't need a large headcount to change outcomes.

And once you divide by a district/size its still back to percentages.

ThatRobGuy said:
Especially when you consider the demographic groups that are driving the increases. They come from the more hyper polarized ends of the political spectrum , and can make the difference between a more moderated traditional candidate winning vs. the more polarized one.

Do you think these sort of primary results happen without the (previously dormant, much more radical) portions of the respective basis getting activated?

Let's see how this turns out...

ThatRobGuy said:
View attachment 376599

A very red district with 10% of the population voting in the primary. I don't know anything about "John Cowan" to understand why he might have lost.

ThatRobGuy said:
View attachment 376600

About 3% of the district population voted in a very blue district.

ThatRobGuy said:
AOC even directly referenced it being a case of new voters, in her Face the Nation interview following her first victory:
Ocasio-Cortez, who ran a campaign on a platform that included Medicare for all and free college tuition, said a populist-style approach "absolutely" brings out new voters.

"In fact -- we found this here in New York, back home. We expanded the electorate 68 percent over the last off-year midterm primary,"

She found voters who hadn't voted in a Dem House primary. Given that Crowley was leadership he likely hadn't even been challenged in years in the Dem primary. (Wikipedia: "She was the first person since 2004 to challenge Crowley in a primary")

Now let's take her math and work backward... a +2/3 increase means that the the 2018 voters were about 5/3 * the number of vote in the 2016 Dem primary in the 14th district. This corresponds to about 18000 voters in 2016 and 30,000 voters in 2018 -- an increase of about 12,000 voters. If those were mostly for AOC (see her claim), then those 12,000 votes go a *long* way to beating a guy who only got 13,000 votes.

To make that kind of move she needed to find about 10000 voters who didn't vote in the previous Dem primaries, but do vote for Dems. Given that she got 110,000 votes in the general election, that's not such a feat and nothing about it demonstrates "increased registration" had anything to do with it.

ThatRobGuy said:
And do you think the "temperature" would perhaps be a little lower if those two elections (among many others) had gone the other way?

I didn't dig into the MTG election, but the AOC election seems to be entirely about a new voice engaging in retail politics in a low turn out election.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 6:11 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Do you think that, without the internet or social media, anyone would have cared about Greene or Cortez? I'd wager that most people in the '90s couldn't have named any House reps beyond the Speaker and possibly their own.

Yes... albeit to a lesser degree.

Some of the more radical movements were coming into fashion prior to the current ubiquitous nature of social media.

And even the conventional media outlets recognized that it made for great "attention-grabber" headlines and coverage.

Case in point, the Tea Party movement and Occupy movement were household names (with a lot of media coverage) and already playing some influential roles in shaping certain election outcomes back in 2010. The massive explosion of social media usage came a little later

The rise of social media

Social media sites are used by more than two-thirds of Internet users. How has social media grown over time?

ourworldindata.org

And even then, the early incarnations of social media from that time weren't nearly as politically saturated as they are now.

RocksInMyHead said:
Don't get me wrong - I agree 100% with the idea that the American electoral system is fundamentally broken. I just disagree with you on why - as well as with your approach to "fixing" it (preventing people you don't like from voting).

Has nothing to do with whether or not I like people. I have numerous family members that I love (not just like) who span the political spectrum, and I will be the first to suggest that they're extremely low-information voters and aren't adding any value to our electoral system given their stated reasons for voting for who they do.

I think there are people in both camps who have well thought out positions and reasons for who/what they vote for/against. Likewise, there are people in both camps who vote for stupid reasons, or vote simply to emulate someone they admire (be it a fam member, friend, or celeb)

The latter waters down the process.

In addition, it opens the door for "low brow" politics by way of finding the dumbest person from the other team a pundit can find, and using that to broad-brush "the other side", which becomes a race to the bottom.

ThatRobGuy · Monday at 6:21 PM

Hans Blaster said:
A very red district with 10% of the population voting in the primary. I don't know anything about "John Cowan" to understand why he might have lost.

Hans Blaster said:
About 3% of the district population voted in a very blue district.

Yes... and primaries are what determines whether the team is running the more moderate candidate, or the more extreme candidate. So it does have an impact.

Hans Blaster said:
And once you divide by a district/size its still back to percentages.

And a lot of elections are decided by margins smaller than that.

Answer me this...
Based on what your own personal definition of "low information voter" is, if the 20 million least informed voters had stayed home for the 2024 elections, do you think some outcomes would have changed?

Hans Blaster · Monday at 7:22 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Yes... and primaries are what determines whether the team is running the more moderate candidate, or the more extreme candidate. So it does have an impact.

What has an impact? The number of registered voters? (I should note that both MTG and AOC ran away with the general election race their first time around.

ThatRobGuy said:
And a lot of elections are decided by margins smaller than that.

They are rarely decided on margins larger than the 20M you brought up.

ThatRobGuy said:
Answer me this...
Based on what your own personal definition of "low information voter" is, if the 20 million least informed voters had stayed home for the 2024 elections, do you think some outcomes would have changed?

I don't have the information to determine an answer to the question. The exit polls don't (to my recollection) have questions about how uninformed the voters are. If you think they do, you could go find that data.

I also don't know why you are assuming that the apparent increase in registered voters and actual voters reflects less informed voters. You haven't presented that data yet.

ViaCrucis · Monday at 8:15 PM

They can't bring back poll taxes, but they really, really, really want to bring back Jim Crow anyway they can.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Jim Banks Calls for Passage of SAVE America Act to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Active Member

Part of the IT crowd

Call Me Al

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Call Me Al

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Call Me Al

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads