And I think that any public figure that argues for tactics that will stop opponents from reaching their polling places, that limits the ability of others to vote, or that attempts to discount or destroy the votes of others should be arrested and charged with treason.
Why?
Because a Democracy only works when we decide by the will of the people to a common course of action.
To manipulate people into not voting you are not removing their desire for or against that course of action, just their voice so that their opinion can not be heard. If you are elected, not because you have proven yourself worthy to the majority of the people who would elect you, but because you've forced some of the majority who would not elect you to remain silent then you have not really won. You are then not a product of the Democracy you claim to represent, but you are the enemy of it.
You or those who have polluted the election stream in your name, have voided the true democratic basis defined in our constitution, and hence have committed treason against that constitution and the government which for it stands.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's what is up on Digg right now. I'm sure there's examples of Democratic voter infringement techniques somewhere out there but I guess they're harder to come by.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm sure there's examples of Democratic voter infringement techniques somewhere out there but I guess they're harder to come by.
You can usually find links to those (Democratic) on Drudge Report Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Speaking of constitutions, the following might be familiar: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The reason for this quite restricted definition was that accusations of, and convictions for, treason had been thrown about quite a bit as political tools in England, and the founders didn't want any part of that. It's a point of view you might want to consider.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Amen, King of Men. As you said, the founders had very good reasons to curtail the bounds of treason. And there has been quite enough bogus charges of treason in the past 8 years.
It's still very wrong and should be stopped. Vote-caging and various other sleazy tactics have been practiced for years by Republicans, and it disgusts me.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*sigh* I don't understand why it's always necessary to point the finger at one party. I think it's much more accurate to say that sleazy tactics have been practiced for years by politicians. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dems have their own sleazy tactics, but vote-caging and other similar vote supression tactics are almost always done by Republicans.
For example:
quote:On October 5, 2008 the Republican Lt. Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties which trend Democratic. These purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_caging
There are many other examples from the past decade.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Imagine this: a Republican governor in a crucial battleground state instructs his secretary of state to purge the voting rolls of hundreds of thousands of allegedly ineligible voters. The move disenfranchises thousands of legally registered voters, who happen to be overwhelmingly black and Hispanic Democrats. The number of voters prevented from casting a ballot exceeds the margin of victory in the razor-thin election, which ends up determining the next President of the United States.
If this scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it happened in Florida in 2000. And twelve years later, just months before another presidential election, history is repeating itself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, Florida tries to do it again. See updates at the end of the article.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not counting them out till after the election. There is no evidence of significant voter fraud. There is an awful lot of voter suppression. Honestly, between this and hobbling the unions in swing states the odds are stacking against anything like liberals.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: *sigh* I don't understand why it's always necessary to point the finger at one party. I think it's much more accurate to say that sleazy tactics have been practiced for years by politicians.
While I'd be unsurprised to see Democratic leaders pursue similar tactics if they would be effective, the demographics of the groups mostly easily and effectively targeted by voter suppression ensures that it only makes sense for Republicans to attempt it so this tactic, with rare exception, is a sleaziness that is exclusive to Republicans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And Conservatives apparently
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
That's what is up on Digg right now. I'm sure there's examples of Democratic voter infringement techniques somewhere out there but I guess they're harder to come by.
The first case was a joke gone out of control. It doesn't indicate how widespread it was, its effect, or who perpetrated it (they aren't even being tired, which leads me to believe that it wasn't hardly a case worth mentioning except to rile liberals and "make news".)
The second case has nothing to do with voter suppression. The paid workers lied about being volunteers. It's fraudulent, sure, but no one's vote is being infringed upon.
Third case.. The link doesn't exists. Even google shows nothing.
Fourth case. Two of the instances could be considered spreading disinformation but to claim the remainder are cases of voter infringement isn't remotely accurate, let alone attributing them solely to the Republican party. It looks mostly like a problem of obtuse voting laws and incompetency of the system, include the people running it. Not every issue that comes up at a voting location has a political bent.
I'm sure there are better examples out there but those you listed were beyond weak.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Amen, King of Men. As you said, the founders had very good reasons to curtail the bounds of treason. And there has been quite enough bogus charges of treason in the past 8 years.
It's still very wrong and should be stopped. Vote-caging and various other sleazy tactics have been practiced for years by Republicans, and it disgusts me.
I agree. It isn't treason, it's a vile practice, but not treason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: The first case was a joke gone out of control. It doesn't indicate how widespread it was, its effect, or who perpetrated it (they aren't even being tired, which leads me to believe that it wasn't hardly a case worth mentioning except to rile liberals and "make news".)
Is this "the gullible take" on story number one?
Anyway, those four examples are exactly what I said they were; four examples that were on digg at the moment that I posted them for the thread. Literally in 2008. I don't know exactly what kind of example you expect them to be in a response years later, but I don't really care that you find them weak?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I suspect he didn't notice that the thread is 4 years old.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I resurrected this thread purposely to show that it is not a new, flash-in-the-pan problem.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
While I have generally not commented on it, the issue of our e-voting machines is just ridiculous. Stupid, but scary. You can't help but laugh. The weakness of certain machines (diebold, etc) is so .. profound, so unambiguously insecure and incompetently designed, that it really does lend credence to the theory that this is by design for the hijacking of elections via swing state manipulations. Not that we'll do anything about it, or anything.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: *sigh* I don't understand why it's always necessary to point the finger at one party. I think it's much more accurate to say that sleazy tactics have been practiced for years by politicians.
While I'd be unsurprised to see Democratic leaders pursue similar tactics if they would be effective, the demographics of the groups mostly easily and effectively targeted by voter suppression ensures that it only makes sense for Republicans to attempt it so this tactic, with rare exception, is a sleaziness that is exclusive to Republicans.
I made that comment four years ago, and I still stand behind it. Election years are full of "dems always do this" and "repubs always do that" and all this accomplishes is to make me think that the majority of American voters are voluntarily blind (and partially moronic.)
<-- 90% conservative and 0% Republican
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So... we don't complain about what their guys are doing as long as our guys are doing something bad too? Seems like we should be complaining about all the bad stuff and, people being people, we'll tend to complain loudest about the other guy.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I think what he's saying, and I would agree, is that rather than saying "dems suck because" and "pubs suck because" it should be "politicians suck because".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam: I think what he's saying, and I would agree, is that rather than saying "dems suck because" and "pubs suck because" it should be "politicians suck because".
Except Matt's right to say that there's a fundamental asymmetry on the issue in America today, and I say this as a (somewhat) proud Republican. Currently, the terrain is such that voter suppression efforts work better against low information Democratic voters than similar Republican voters (New Black Panthers notwithstanding).
I'm not sure if this is necessarily the case (i.e. I don't see why low information Republican voters would necessarily be less susceptible to voter suppression), but from what I can tell it's true. Republicans uniformly support legislation and rules that make voting more difficult and Democrats uniformly oppose same. To me, it's an odd and somewhat inexplicable dynamic, but it does seem to exist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam: I think what he's saying
She.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"your side does it too" or "there's no point in pointing fingers at either side" are completely useless narrative distractions from when one side is greatly more guilty of whatever is being talked about. Quite beloved by the institutions of propagating the whatever it is, too.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think people that are uninformed should be encouraged to refrain from voting. Don't know about the gubernatorial candidates stances are? Don't just vote for the handsome guy . . .leave it freaking blank!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but there is a d next to this name so
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I think people that are uninformed should be encouraged to refrain from voting. Don't know about the gubernatorial candidates stances are? Don't just vote for the handsome guy . . .leave it freaking blank!
Wouldn't that just give the election to whichever party had more voters with an inflated sense of their own knowledge?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The hard part about it is that they have a point at times. I don't want people who have no right to vote to be able to. I don't want the vote skewed, even if that helps the people I want in power to win.
The problem is that a lot of the support for theses types of measures are from normal, ordinary people who just want a fair election. You can't demonize them just because you disagree with them, it doesn't solve the problem.
All you can do is explain why there are problems with the way these things are implemented, and try to get them to understand that many people who DO have the right to vote will be blocked at the polls because of these types of voting barriers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't want people who have no right to vote to be able to.
Me neither, but so far there is no evidence that this is actually a problem anywhere near the scale necessary to justify measures that demonstrably disenfranchise a non-trivial number of people.
quote:The problem is that a lot of the support for theses types of measures are from normal, ordinary people who just want a fair election. You can't demonize them just because you disagree with them, it doesn't solve the problem.
The support? Sure. The impetuous to draft legislation and seek that support in the first place - not so much.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I think people that are uninformed should be encouraged to refrain from voting. Don't know about the gubernatorial candidates stances are? Don't just vote for the handsome guy . . .leave it freaking blank!
Wouldn't that just give the election to whichever party had more voters with an inflated sense of their own knowledge?
Maybe it would give the election to the party whose members have SOME level of knowledge. But I can understand if the Republicans might be threatened by this proposal.
Levity aside, keeping uninformed voters away from the poll both might turn the dialogue from idiotic soundbites to actual discussion of the issues (gasp!).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, are you suggesting some kind of current events quiz as a prerequisite of franchise?
I'm all for limited franchise, but more of a "Starship Troopers" type where you must prove your ability to put the needs of society above your own with difficult/dangerous service.
But I'm a realist that it will never happen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:keeping uninformed voters away from the poll both might turn the dialogue from idiotic soundbites to actual discussion of the issues
How in the world would you make the determination that someone was knowledgable enough? The attempts at doing this in the past were not even thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise minorities.
[ June 15, 2012, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
either disenfranchise minorities (helps conservatives) or disenfranchise the young however you can (becoming necessary for conservatives)
either way, yeah, the "requirements to vote" thing is the best way to breach upon the subject of "looks good in theory but would be horrific in real life" except in this case even "looks good in theory until you analyze it beyond a superficial level" — people would use these 'voting tests' in the same way that districting turned into gerrymandering; you would have republican think tanks and strategic groups trying to game the tests to empower their voting share within seconds. It's something they're very good at and have been doing pretty consistently in a lot of places across the country for a long, long time.
And no, no equivalence arguments here; it's a consistently majorly conservative trait in this country.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
South Park has become one of the worst things to happen to political discourse among the young; with the whole "Golden Means" South Park fallacy turning millions of people into smug idiots who claim the moral high ground by blaming both sides equally and yet doing nothing.
Every state should use the shortest split line method to fairly divide up the districts; it's not perfect but it should help solve the problem partially without needing constitutional changes.
Otherwise Mixed-Member proportional is the only method that makes everyone's vote matters worth a damn.
But yeah, overwhelmingly voter suppression is conducted by republicans; democrats in turn don't have the same incentive to do so because the demographics and geography isn't conductive to do. This is an overwhelmingly one sided issue gerrymandering aside which would be solved by shortest split line method.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:keeping uninformed voters away from the poll both might turn the dialogue from idiotic soundbites to actual discussion of the issues
How in the world would you make the determination that someone was knowledgable enough? The attempts at doing this in the past were not even thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise minorities.
Uhm . . . the answer was in my first post that you commented on. Instead of encouraging everyone to vote, like it's some sort of patriotic responsibility, the media should teach them to refrain from voting when they don't know what's going on or don't have an opinion on candidates. Trey Parker and Matt Stone did this in one of the previous elections (and they caught a bunch of flak for it).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm 32, and I've never voted. I try to avoid politics because it drives me insane with anger at the horrible job politicians do. I have meant to vote on the local measures, but never have. Feel kinda bad about that last part. Think I'll register and vote on the local initiatives this year...but not for -anyone-....I hate politicians. All of them. The good ones pave the road to hell, the bad ones line their pockets.
[ June 15, 2012, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:the media should teach them to refrain from voting when they don't know what's going on or don't have an opinion on candidates.
That's likely to backfire thanks to our old pal, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:keeping uninformed voters away from the poll both might turn the dialogue from idiotic soundbites to actual discussion of the issues
How in the world would you make the determination that someone was knowledgable enough? The attempts at doing this in the past were not even thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise minorities.
Uhm . . . the answer was in my first post that you commented on. Instead of encouraging everyone to vote, like it's some sort of patriotic responsibility, the media should teach them to refrain from voting when they don't know what's going on or don't have an opinion on candidates. Trey Parker and Matt Stone did this in one of the previous elections (and they caught a bunch of flak for it).
Cool video Blayne.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is this "the gullible take" on story number one?
Anyway, those four examples are exactly what I said they were; four examples that were on digg at the moment that I posted them for the thread. Literally in 2008. I don't know exactly what kind of example you expect them to be in a response years later, but I don't really care that you find them weak?
Gullible? Looks like it's you that read too much into that story.
Regardless of when they were first posted, it bears pointing out how specious the examples were. It's also telling that you made four claims of "voter infringement" and none of them were appropriately vetted. No wonder you find republicans overwhelmingly guilty of the charge; you're pinning every case of a mildly inconvinced voter on conservatives in general.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Saying Republicans are the ones that commit most voter fraud is just silly. Most of the media only reports the voter fraud if it is done by Republicans.
The 2009 primary election in Troy, NY attracted much attention for election shenanigans from Democratic officials who are associated with the Working Families Party. Well, yesterday, a grand jury issued indictments on 116 charges against a Democratic City Councilmember Michael LaPorto and Democratic Election Commissioner Edward McDonough. The Albany Times-Union and the Troy Record have been all over this.
Basically, those two Democratic officials have been indicted of forging absentee ballot applications and then actually voting those people in the Working Families Party primary. Almost everyone who was voted illegally by these officials were poor people living in housing projects.
Or numerous other examples, such as:
Over 2,800 dead people casting votes in the Al Franken race in Minnesota
or
Texas, where of 25,000 registrations submitted by Houston Votes, only 1,793 were allegedly legal. The same week the voter fraud allegations surfaced, a fire occurred at the Harris County Elections Center.
or
Mike Marshall, running a Get Out the Vote campaign to re-elect the Democrat mayor, was indicted on 65 counts of ballot fraud. This was in Indiana
or
Florida, where the Madison County Supervisor of Elections, a school board member and six others were arrested in connection with allegations of voter fraud.
Yep, its TOTALLY only Republicans that do it.
Interesting that not requiring some sort of identification is what enabled these people to commit voter fraud in the first place.
I don't really see an issue with requiring some sort of identification when you go to vote. It doesn't have to be a drivers license; a birth certificate, marriage certificate, or other legal document would be fine. I'd even be fine with a current phone, electric, or gas bill being used as a form of identification.
A lot of the argument is that requiring ID would prevent poor people from voting. I can see that being a problem for a very, very small minority of the poor. So let them use a different form of identification. To receive welfare or other government benefits people have to prove who they are. They should have SOME sort of identification available to them.
As I said. A bill of some sort or even a copy of any paperwork they receive from government assistance they receive would be fine.
Enabling everyone to vote is important. Preventing voter fraud is just as important.
Would anyone have a problem if the form of ID was something like a bill, marriage/birth certificate, or social security card?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would anyone have a problem if the form of ID was something like a bill, marriage/birth certificate, or social security card?
Not a few Republican politicians for one;)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A bill of some sort or even a copy of any paperwork they receive from government assistance they receive would be fine.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Saying Republicans are the ones that commit most voter fraud is just silly. Most of the media only reports the voter fraud if it is done by Republicans.
Do you have something beyond a handful of anecdotes that presents convincing proof that voter fraud is not more widespread among certain groups than others? Or is the handful of stories you posted actually the body of proof that convinced you that what you've said is true? And if so, how on Earth do you expect to be taken seriously? Or do you not expect that at all?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
Enabling everyone to vote is important. Preventing voter fraud is just as important.
See, it's stuff like this that makes your type scary. You think this makes sense. You think this follows the spirit of our constitution. You don't see how this could possibly be a cockeyed philosophy. In taking two things int account: the franchise, and defending against fraud, you actully think tha defending against fraud is *just as important* as upholding the franchise.
Do you realize that, logically, if the franchise and security are of equal importance, then the franchise could only be upheld with the assurance of security? You understand what that entails? It means that if the two were actually equally important under our laws, we would have to deny the franchise, that is, not count votes, if we reasonably suspected fraud. Of any kind. There is a very good philosophical and practical set of reasons why we do not equally balance security and freedoms. I'll try and let you figure out what that reason is.
Here, try it with different terms: "the right to walk down the street freely is important. But catching fugitives from justice is *just as important*. Or maybe: the rights of the accused are important, but locking up criminals is *just as important.* but see, actually, under our laws, this just isn't so. Personal freedoms and entitlements outweigh considerations of security, and even justice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A bill of some sort or even a copy of any paperwork they receive from government assistance they receive would be fine.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Well, I mean, who's really going to deny the right to vote to that nice middle aged white man in a suit who forgot his ID in the office oh wait we're talking about black people...
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Orincoro:
It's dickish to treat someone with such little consideration and to respond to them in a demeaning way. I know it's impossible for you to hide the disdain you have for us "scary" conservatives but when your arguments become blatantly dishonest I'm not going to give you a free pass. Your "examples" aren't even remotely the same as enabling voting/preventing voter fraud. You should show Geraine some courtesy and quit acting like you're responding to a child. Being arrogant and dismissive isn't an argument and it doesn't increase your credibility. And you should produce your own lists of honest-to-god voter fraud committed by both the left and right, as you seem to quickly dismiss those others bring up. Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Matt: What do you think he's saying in that clip?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yep, its TOTALLY only Republicans that do it.
We're talking about a few different things here - registration fraud, vote fraud, and vote suppression. It's vote suppression that is the specialty of right-leaning groups. Registration fraud is almost a non-issue as it usually represents overzealous volunteers who are trying to pad their numbers - those bogus registrations don't end up in bogus votes.
Vote fraud does surface on both sides and possibly even more on the left but all the instances we know about so far have been pretty minor compared to the widespread affect of the organized suppression campaigns that have been discussed as well as the legislative efforts to make it more difficult in general to vote. From what we know now about the extent of actual vote fraud, the remedy of strict voter ID laws and related activities are likely disenfranchising an order of magnitude or two more people than are being prevented from voting illegally.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Matt: What do you think he's saying in that clip?
The most generous interpretation is that he's saying that vote fraud is so pervasive in Pennsylvania that illegal voters would have swung the election and that these illegal voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama.
As far as I can tell there's absolutely no evidence for these implications, so I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he and his audience understand that these laws tend to result in fewer legitimate Democratic votes.
Or, perhaps more pragmatically, with a voter ID law fewer Democratic votes, regardless of their validity, are likely to be cast and they don't really care whether it's because they were illegitimate to begin with or because the law dissuaded legitimate voters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:From what we know now about the extent of actual vote fraud, the remedy of strict voter ID laws and related activities are likely disenfranchising an order of magnitude or two more people than are being prevented from voting illegally.
This right here. While fraud in voting is certainly a serious concern, when it comes to our attention to voting and regulations, there has simply got to be one priority, and it's not 'stop fraud'. It's to make voting as simple and accessible as possible while also minimizing fraud and error. If measures to prevent fraud or error actually keep more people away from the polls that were already voting than they do keep fraudulent or flawed votes out, we've messed up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Orincoro: . And you should produce your own lists of honest-to-god voter fraud committed by both the left and right, as you seem to quickly dismiss those others bring up. Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
No, i'm rather more interested in the fact that conservatives have demonstrably less respect for personal freedoms than democrats- as proven by statements such as the above, that stopping fraud is "just as important" as the right to vote.
The convenient fact that non-white, non middle and upper class people are usually effected by efforts to curb voter fraud is interesting. It's interesting that their rights are seen as disposable in the face of possible voter fraud.
But i'm sure, as a conservative freedom lover, you'd be against a few things like: issuing photo-ID for free to all citizens. Holding special days each year at post offices, schools and other public places to print and distribute ID and other documentation. And I'm sure as a freedom lover, you'd encourage a police presence at the polls, and ID checks for bench warrants, so that anybody with unpaid parking tickets will be too scared to come in. I'm sure that fits with your conception of justice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is it they say about a gaff being when a politician actually tells the truth? They aren't even bothering to hide it anymore.
quote: "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done," Mr. Turzai told the gathering of party activists. "First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
The list you still didn't even remotely understand the context and time of? Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Matt: What do you think he's saying in that clip?
The most generous interpretation is that he's saying that vote fraud is so pervasive in Pennsylvania that illegal voters would have swung the election and that these illegal voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama.
As far as I can tell there's absolutely no evidence for these implications, so I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he and his audience understand that these laws tend to result in fewer legitimate Democratic votes.
Or, perhaps more pragmatically, with a voter ID law fewer Democratic votes, regardless of their validity, are likely to be cast and they don't really care whether it's because they were illegitimate to begin with or because the law dissuaded legitimate voters.
Last presidential election there was some pretty high profile (to people on the right, anyway) voter fraud allegations going on in PA, mostly involving ACORN if I remember right. At a guess, he's referencing that.
In general, most pro-voter-ID conservatives really do believe that Democratic voter fraud is dangerous and rampant, despite the lack of lots of clear evidence.
...And most people who talk about voter suppression feel the same way, despite a similar lack of clear evidence.
Both groups have amazing conviction that their problem is the real one, and the lack of evidence for it is actually perfectly explainable you see because you can't prove a negative and...
No.
I think that taking the position that Republicans support voter ID to disenfranchise minorities is about as logical as saying Democrats are opposing voter ID because it will damage their ballot-stuffing endeavors. In both cases some people might really feel that way, but going after that is barking up the wrong tree.
Seriously. Discussions are way more productive when you don't assume the other guy is the devil.
Example: I used to be tentatively supportive of voter ID laws. Now I'm tentatively opposed to them. I didn't change my mind from people accusing me of trying to suppress the poor.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
The list you still didn't even remotely understand the context and time of?
Ah, yes. Ignore the weakness of the information you use to back your opinion and instead claim it's a contextual and chronological error on my part. That ought to suffice..
As I said previously, it's always pertinant to point out the specious nature of the news stories that inform your opinion. It further highlights your bias. The context need be nothing more than that. But you're welcome to provide what you believe the context to be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan,
There is plenty of evidence of voter suppression. Just look at the eligible voters "accidentally" taken off the voter roles in Florida, for example.
The ACORN stuff amounted to a few ACORN volunteers that submitted fake registrations in order to get paid for them. ACORN reported them and those fake registrations didn't get any further. Additionally, it wouldn't have made any difference as the fake people wouldn't have showed up to vote - because they are fake.
Of course, none of those types of allegations have been made toward the very respectable League of Women Voters which, after generations of registering voters, can no longer do their good work in Florida. That makes it considerably harder for eligible voters to be registered - a burden that fall disproportionally on the poor and working class.
Also, tell me how shortening the period for early voting guards against fraud?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate, how about you try to think of a way someone might think that shortening the period for early voting could guard against fraud?
Seems to me that you're very deeply invested in the idea that Republicans have nefarious ulterior motives based on racism/stealing power etc. I really think it might benefit you to just, as a thought experiment, genuinely try to see if you can understand what their argument might be if they didn't have hidden evil motives.
If nothing else, being able to restate your opponent's position in a way that they would agree with is a really vital step to being able to dismantle it in a way they can't refute.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
It's no longer an anecdotal list (I didn't add to those Geraine had compiled. I just provided links):
quote:No, i'm rather more interested in the fact that conservatives have demonstrably less respect for personal freedoms than democrats- as proven by statements such as the above, that stopping fraud is "just as important" as the right to vote.
Stopping voter fraud is just as important to democracy as the right to vote. See, I don't view a full ballot box as proof a of a successful democracy. Just look at certain arab countries. What good are legal votes when they are negated by fraudulent votes? A vote is to hear the voice of legal citizens, not dead, illegal, or fake people.
quote:The convenient fact that non-white, non middle and upper class people are usually effected by efforts to curb voter fraud is interesting. It's interesting that their rights are seen as disposable in the face of possible voter fraud.
It's possible to curb voter fraud and maintain their rights. I'm for issuing photo-ID for free to all citizens. It wouldn't be free, in that all citizens pay taxes and it would be a service they pay for. We already have an institution as massive and powerful as the IRS. It shouldn't be too difficult a task to coordinate. You wouldn't have to issue an ID every year and it could be taken care of at the place of registration and/or voting. Plus, everyone with a current, valid government-issued ID wouldn't need anything more. A police presence at the polls would be unwarranted. That fits my conception of democracy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
The list you still didn't even remotely understand the context and time of?
Ah, yes. Ignore the weakness of the information you use to back your opinion and instead claim it's a contextual and chronological error on my part. That ought to suffice..
When it is, it does indeed suffice!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Stopping voter fraud is just as important to democracy as the right to vote.
No, it's not. It's not even close. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't see how stopping voter fraud is as important as the right to vote-that right is utterly foundational to democracy, after all.
But I do see what you mean: preventing fraud is as important to democracy as ensuring everyone who is eligible and desires to can vote. They're equally important ideals, but where you're rather badly slipping up is that in practice, we are doing much, much better at the former than the latter. There is simply no evidence that vote fraud is a comprehensive problem in the system.
The same cannot be said about problems which work to ensure everyone who is eligible and desirous will be able to vote. The poor and minorities are traditionally underrepresented at the polls, and there's just no way around that. Now unless you want to say, "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," then you simply must acknowledge that there is a problem-and it slants mostly in one way, whereas vote fraud doesn't.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you agree with all of that. Personally I don't think there's much there that can be reasonably disagreed with, but that's my opinion, obviously. Given all of that, exactly which mainstream political group would you trust to take steps to increase the voter turnout of their opposition, before all future campaigns even begin?
For example, suppose there was a tradition of underrepresentation of socially conservative Baptist voters and interest in this country: exactly how far would you trust the Democratic party to work hard to take measures that would streamline the process for socially conservative Baptist voters?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The same cannot be said about problems which work to ensure everyone who is eligible and desirous will be able to vote. The poor and minorities are traditionally underrepresented at the polls, and there's just no way around that. Now unless you want to say, "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," then you simply must acknowledge that there is a problem-and it slants mostly in one way, whereas vote fraud doesn't.
I think I agree with most of what you were saying in this post, but I have a question/clarification on the quoted passage.
Do you think there's any reason not to say "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," exactly? Or put another way, do you think there is actually any compelling reason to think that a discrepancy in turnout really is attributable to widespread suppression? As opposed to myriad other cultural/social/economic/etc. causes?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you think there's any reason not to say "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," exactly? Or put another way, do you think there is actually any compelling reason to think that a discrepancy in turnout really is attributable to widespread suppression? As opposed to myriad other cultural/social/economic/etc. causes?
Calling it suppression implies a level of intent I'm not claiming here. The word suggests that rules about voting were put in place with the design of restricting poor and minority votes-something I'm not claiming. Most laws are written, for example, by people for whom acquiring the appropriate ID and getting to the polling place in single day's weekday window is no problem at all-at most a substantive inconvenience, but not something where they have to ask, "Alright, so do I vote this Tuesday or take an overdraft fee when the utilities are billed because I clocked two fewer hours that day?" Or, for example, replacing ID if lost or expired and you don't, say, have Internet access at home. Then perhaps you have to *call* the DMV and make an appointment which is quite likely to run over.
Another reason I don't think we should just say, "Eh, if they wanted to vote, they would," is that traditionally, when services are offered to the poor and minorities in such a way that they actually know about them-*not* just what the middle and upper class thinks they know-and can access them, they go ahead and do so.
Still another reason I don't think that is because our current system isn't set up to prevent fraud with its primary motive, it's set up as a compromise: none of the forms of ID required are especially hard to fake, and if we were really serious about cleaning up the voting process we would take a good, hard look at much of its infrastructure rather than its security.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Stopping voter fraud is just as important to democracy as the right to vote.
No, it's not. It's not even close.
That's not a very insightful response... Maybe you could elaborate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, I think I misunderstood you, then. I thought you were going further in that passage than just saying that voter ID laws are bad. I thought you were saying that we need to make special additional efforts to help/encourage specific groups to vote. My bad.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In this day and age where -anyone- (even the poor and minorities) can get access to the net by visiting their local library for free, we should simply have voting be an online function. There are plenty of security protocols that are well established, such as military, law enforcement, banking, shopping, etc to demonstrate that it can be done in a safe way.
And we should ditch the electoral college. I am durn tired of my (theoretical) presidential vote not counting if I don't want to vote Dem (I live in Cali).
(Yes rivka, I said Cali, live with it!)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you might say that I am: what I am saying is that we need to make sure it is as available, as easy, for the bottom of the ladder as we do the middle and top. We're not doing that right now, and most of it is due to an understandable lack of imagination. You gave a head nod to other reasons, but when it comes down to it the typical reaction really IS, "If they wanted to, they would," without ever considering that when something stops or inhibits us from doing what *we* want to do, we typically don't just shrug and bull through-we try and change things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are all kinds of issues with online voting. Why don't you consider why it's very different than anything that involves an institution that has a fiduciary or similar obligation to you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
While you're doing that, Stone Wolf, you may also want to brush up on the reasons for the Electoral College in the first place.
And learn how to spell "CA."
Hint: There are only two letters.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't see the big difference...whether it's votes or money, the tech is there to do it securely. I mean, if you can file your taxes online, why couldn't you cast your vote?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dan, I have two other letters in mind...
Hint: the first one is F...can you guess the second?
I remember from college the reason for the Electoral College, and it is invalid these days...unless they taught me wrong, which is possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Libraries often close early, or are closed entirely for at least a day on the weekend, and even when open Internet access isn't simply an easy given in all of them. Of the three county libraries I frequent, not for Net access but for books, more often than not every computer is taken, and many times there are people waiting in line for the short access ones.
It's not a given that everyone who wants it will be able to access the Internet.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sure if not enough public access was available that there would be fine people who would allow their computers to be used as a ballot box just like right now they allow their homes to be used as a polling place.
Such problems as libraries not being open 24/7 can easily be overcome...they can extend their hours during voting time.
Sure it isn't a -given-, but it's hardly an insurmountable problem either.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Then you're just trading the current system for something equally or more confusing. Not good for elderly voters either, or the computer illiterate. I think online voting is ok as a concept, but it should be like absentee balloting. O,d fashioned polling places still serve a purpose.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is no reason why we couldn't have both.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
It's no longer an anecdotal list (I didn't add to those Geraine had compiled. I just provided links):
Do you know what anecdotal means? Because you don't seem to, based on this response.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Cap, pay Orincoro no mind.
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I don't think everyone is going out saying "I wonder how I can suppress voters so my side wins!"
I am sure it happens, but I don't think it is an epidemic like some people claim.
Where we are in this country right now is this. The right or the left has an idea that has good intentions. The other side doesn't agree with it, and they see political profit in disagreeing with it. So they come out publicly and tell everyone what the other sides intentions are, even if it is totally the opposite. Instead of looking at the merits of the idea and working together, they just write it off.
I think most of you complaining about "voter suppression" do not believe that falsifying voter registration is right. I don't think you believe that having people vote in the place of dead people or voter fraud is right. But instead of trying to come up with solutions and work together, all everyone does is complain about the other side and about how wrong they are.
I don't agree with removing people off of the voter rolls unless they are literally unable to vote. If someone is dead or has lost the right to vote, they should be removed. Otherwise, they should be left alone.
To vote in this country, we require that one registers to do so. Should we consider this a form of voter suppression? If not, then what the hell is the problem with requiring some sort of proof when you actually go to vote?
Interestingly enough, if you register to vote in person you don't need to show ID, but if you do by mail then you have to show proof of identification. A picture ID as well as utility bills are needed.
I really don't see a problem in requiring some sort of documentation in order to vote. When you register you get a voter registration card. That should be fine! A picture ID, EBT paperwork, or a utility bill would be fine too.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Cap, pay Orincoro no mind.
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I noticed that a while ago yet still I try. Once I saw that he didn't mean anecdotal in the (common) sense of "substantiated" I realized I was being sucked into a word game and that real conversation had been shut down. For him, no amount of substantiated and credible claims will suffice. The quantity will always be too small.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Interestingly enough, if you register to vote in person you don't need to show ID, but if you do by mail then you have to show proof of identification. A picture ID as well as utility bills are needed.
This varies state by state.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anecdotal does not mean substantiated. Anecdotal means, surprisingly enough, means that it is made up of one or several anecdotes.
No one thinks that falsifying voter registration is a good thning. But actual data shows that it isn't a significant problem.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Cap, pay Orincoro no mind.
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I noticed that a while ago yet still I try. Once I saw that he didn't mean anecdotal in the (common) sense of "substantiated" I realized I was being sucked into a word game and that real conversation had been shut down. For him, no amount of substantiated and credible claims will suffice. The quantity will always be too small.
Seriously? Anecdotal, in this context, refers to a small sample of sources, presented to lend weight to a claim. In this particular case, the question: who does what more, and to what degree more (or less), is a large scale question. Answering it requires that you examine the systematic processes and trends within the parties that indicate which, if either, tends towards a certain behavior. a list of cases, even a long list, does not answer this question.
I find it interesting that you feel "anecdotal" means something like "substantiated". In this context, again, statistics are substantive. Particular stories, many of which you could collect and represent as "proof," of some level of equivalency are not very useful in divining the answer to the question. We assume, when talking about a nationwide trend, encompassing many years and many different people and groups of people, that we can and will find individual accounts of all manner of behaviors, from many sources. This does not help us much in divining the relevance of these stories to the trend. Are they exceptional? Are they typical? We do not know.
In Samps earlier post, from last year, he gave a list of stories that do not strongly substantiate the thesis he has about Reublicans. You countered with a longer list of similar stories. The effect was the same- this was not effective substantiation of *your* thesis, that the two groups are equally guilty of these behaviors. It is also a poor challenge to the claim that Republican political culture is geared towards disenfranchisement of undesirable voters- evidence of Democratic malfeasance does not address that claim in the slightest. It has no bearing on an argument about Areubkicsn political culture, except to establish an equivalency in degree of culpability for perceived rings (which it fails to do).
As for geraine, you are crossing a line in telling others to pay me no mind. You can disagree with what I have to say, but I have every right to be heard, and others can decide for themselves whether they care to interact. You have no business saying otherwise.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Seriously? Anecdotal, in this context, refers to a small sample of sources... I find it interesting that you feel "anecdotal" means something like "substantiated".
As I alluded to above, the context in which you used the word wasn't clear. You can see in my response that I understand anecdotal to mean (correctly, according to one definition of the word) "un-substantiated." Yes, anecdotal, in the sense you intended it, can refer to a small sample of sources, which is a different argument than the one it appeared you were making.
quote:...the question: who does what more, and to what degree more (or less), is a large scale question. Answering it requires that you examine the systematic processes and trends within the parties that indicate which, if either, tends towards a certain behavior. a list of cases, even a long list, does not answer this question.
Answering the question requires a reversal in the procedure you stated. One must build a set of data out of a substantial collection of a certain behavior and then identify systemic tendencies and trends which correlate with that behavior. A list of cases, especially a long list, would greatly increase one's chance of accurately identifying trends and patterns within a nationwide group of individuals.
The list wasn't presented as some bomb-proof, definitive answer to the the question. The point of presenting a list with a small selection of examples was to show that there have been cases of Democrats engaging in voter fraud in recent years. No one claimed the list was comprehensive or statistically significant. In fact, no one, on either side of this discussion, has presented any scientific research or information on the subject.
quote:In Samps earlier post, from last year, he gave a list of stories that do not strongly substantiate the thesis he has about Reublicans. You countered with a longer list of similar stories.
This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
You're changing your story. You contended additionally that the first story seems like it is intended to rile liberals and make news. And you even admitted that the fourth article seems to have the spread of voter misinformation in it. I guess over time your view has evolved from "I'm sure there are BETTER examples" to "why, those aren't examples at all!"
I guess we could check back in four additional years — if all of the links have died by then, you can change your position again to say "Samprimary only gave us four dead links!"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Last presidential election there was some pretty high profile (to people on the right, anyway) voter fraud allegations going on in PA, mostly involving ACORN if I remember right. At a guess, he's referencing that.
If he's referencing that then he doesn't understand what happened with ACORN or is hoping that his constituents don't.
*All* of the ACORN-related allegations were regarding registration fraud (NOT vote fraud) - the submission of false or duplicate names for registration. This was generally done by overzealous canvassers trying to boost their numbers and it was often ACORN that reported the offenders.
Registration fraud does not lead to vote fraud. It leads to unscrupulous canvassers stealing money from organizations like ACORN.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
You're changing your story. You contended additionally that the first story seems like it is intended to rile liberals and make news. And you even admitted that the fourth article seems to have the spread of voter misinformation in it. I guess over time your view has evolved from "I'm sure there are BETTER examples" to "why, those aren't examples at all!"
I guess we could check back in four additional years — if all of the links have died by then, you can change your position again to say "Samprimary only gave us four dead links!"
My bad. Let me rephrase it. My only contention was that most of the cases you claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't. So I called the list weak. But good job, man. Way to be fastidious and catch my "changing story"... And I'm sure the one broken link was an incredible case of serious, serious voter suppression on the part of Republicans. God help us if your other amazing examples disappear..
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:House Republican leader Mike Turzai acknowledged the law's political implications at a Republican State Committee meeting last month.
"Voter ID - which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," Turzai told the crowd, which burst into applause, as he listed legislative accomplishments under GOP control.
See at least they're straightforward and honest about it. I am sure this will curb all the no issues of voter fraud that Pennsylvania has, so as to keep it from being any more transparent. Oh!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In her 2010 book, The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine Minnite tracked down every single case brought by the Justice Department between 1996 and 2005 and found that the number of defendants had increased by roughly 1,000 percent under Ashcroft. But that only represents an increase from about six defendants per year to 60, and only a fraction of those were ever convicted of anything. A New York Times investigation in 2007 concluded that only 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud during the previous five years. Many of those appear to have simply made mistakes on registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, and more than 30 of the rest were penny-ante vote-buying schemes in local races for judge or sheriff. The investigation found virtually no evidence of any organized efforts to skew elections at the federal level.
quote: In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP.
There are some mumblings that this may backfire, as a large portion of those with expired IDs are likely to be elderly - pretty reliable voters that tend to lean Republican.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Tuesday that the state would not comply with a court ruling and restore early voting in the final weekend before the election until an appellate court rules on the matter.
How is this man still in office?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When would the appelate court hear the case and likely issue a ruling?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd be happy to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt and assume they're seeking nothing more than fair and legal voting. Except...
- They only seem to care about it in swing states, where most of those laws were passed (and are being fought, and often overturned or blocked, in the courts).
- They don't seem to be working nearly as hard, or really at all, to increase voter education measures or to make sure every legal voter has the ID demanded.
- Limiting early voting hours and shutting down early voting locations has no justifiable reason other than limiting access to voters. In my state (Florida) in the last presidential election, 54 percent of black voters voted early, twice the number of white voters who did so. The last governor increased the early voting times to handle the crowds; this one severely cut them back.
- The harsh anti-registration law which required a mountain of paperwork and a strict 48-hour turnaround for voter registration (and heavy fines for missing the deadline) seemed almost comically aimed at discouraging groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote. This was also blocked in Florida.
- Oddly enough, voter purge laws seem to happen most often when a presidential election rolls around and a Republican governor is in charge. Florida's recent voter purge attempt was opposed by the Justice Dept. and many of the local elections officials, about half of whom are Republican.
- I'd also be more open to the idea if politicians like Mike Turzai didn't open state that these laws would help Romney win. I notice none of the defenders here have addressed that quote yet.
Registration fraud involves thousands of cases. Voter fraud much less than that.
Voter suppression may keep millions of legal voters from exercising their constitutional right. Laws passed in Pennsylvania may prevent up to 750,000 legal voters -- almost 10% of the population -- from voting. Number of incidents of voter fraud? 0, according to the state of Pennsylvania.
And in-person voter fraud is a stupid way to rig an election. Much easier is sending in fraudulent absentee ballots, but I don't see any laws targeting those. And I won't, since that might impact military voters who might be inclined to vote GOP.
No. If these laws were intended to improve the electoral process, rather than just making sure one side won, they would be focused on increasing the legal vote. Not a single one of these laws does that.
[ September 08, 2012, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
An (intentionally anecdotal) personal comment about Voter Registration:
I ended up finally registering to vote again, after moving, mostly because I had an app that allowed me to fill out the information, which then sent me the registration form that I could print out.
Even still, it took me well over a week and a half to print it out, sign it, do the folding, and get it to the post office, along with my wifes. Part of the issue was that after you print it out, you have to tape the bottom so it can be mailed in its own "envelope" that it turns into.
Now while there is obviously nothing difficult about what I mentioned, the truth is, it took so long simply because we didn't have scotch tape in our house. Scotch Tape.
If I didn't care so much to go out and vote, I would have probably just put it off like I do other things if they're not deemed "That important." (Even still, I live in a state that isn't a swing state, will vote heavily for Romney, and my vote won't even show up as a blip on the 1000 people in Oklahoma that vote for Obama.)
So the point of this story: Anything that adds an impediment to make it more difficult to vote will "Suppress" the vote. You can argue all day on whether or not it's intentional, but the fact remains - it will suppress it. My story is not unique to how people tend to act.
If I had to go get a new ID, pay $10, sit around for an hour or more at the DMV.. Even though I want to vote, I would probably deem that it was too much of a waste to go down and waste an entire afternoon + money so I can vote in an election. And I have a car, and the extra money to pay, and time to "Waste." There are many many people that don't.
There are a lot of people that vote that don't drive, don't use Credit Cards (Or only use them at small shops that don't ID) etc. and don't carry around a Valid State ID. A percentage won't be able to afford it, a percentage won't be able to get to the DMV, a percentage can't take off work.
The "early voting" restrictions are just asinine as early voting is only set up to make it easier to vote, but it appears when people noticed only minorities really utilize it, they wanted to get rid of it. That's just sad. Many working class people can't take off work to run down to the voting center on a specific day, early voting allows them a way around that.
You can say this is all baloney if you want, but I do remember in my days in the Military, I didn't vote "Absentee" mostly because it was a hassle. But also, because I was younger - not very political, and didn't have any candidates I actually liked anyways. But I knew lots of military that didn't vote for the same reason. I also have a friend living in Japan that won't vote in this election, just because to him it's too much trouble to get his Absentee ballot and send it in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Conservative anti–voter fraud fervor first arose around the same time as two turning points in American politics. The first was John F. Kennedy’s narrow presidential win in 1960, which many Republicans attributed to voter fraud in Illinois and Texas. The second was the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, by banning discriminatory voting practices, stoked fear in some quarters about the rising power of black voters. During the run-up to the 1964 presidential election, the Republican National Committee launched Operation Eagle Eye, the nation’s first large-scale anti–voter fraud campaign. As part of the program, the RNC recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to show up at polling places, mostly in inner cites, and challenge voters’ eligibility using a host of tools and tactics, including cameras, two-way radios, and calls to Republican-friendly sheriffs.
After this, anti-fraud campaigns became commonplace, but they could backfire, as the RNC learned in 1981. That year, the party hired a swashbuckling 29-year-old named John Kelly to organize “ballot security” for New Jersey’s gubernatorial election. Kelly, who turned up in the state wearing cowboy boots and a 10-gallon hat, arranged to have hundreds of thousands of sample ballots mailed to voters in black and Latino neighborhoods. His team then compiled a list of people whose ballots were returned as undeliverable, and allegedly tried to have them struck from the rolls. This technique, known as caging, is controversial because it can purge eligible voters. In this case, an outdated address roster was used—meaning that an unusually large share of the people on Kelly’s list may have been wrongly targeted.
Kelly and his associates also recruited squadrons of men—many of them off-duty police officers—to descend on black and Latino precincts around New Jersey on Election Day. Wearing National Ballot Security Task Force armbands, walkie-talkies, and in some cases guns, the men posted signs warning in large red letters that the areas were being patrolled. They then stationed themselves around polling places and allegedly tried to stop those whose names appeared on the caging list from voting.
According to a Republican Party lawyer who was on the scene that day, before the polls closed, Kelly hightailed it out of the state in a Chevy Impala, armbands and signs stuffed in the trunk. When the Essex County prosecutor’s office launched a statewide criminal investigation the following week, he was nowhere to be found.
In the end, prosecutors didn’t bring charges—no would-be voters stepped forward to say they had been blocked from casting ballots—but the Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit accusing Kelly and the RNC of violating the Voting Rights Act. To settle the case, in 1982 the RNC signed a consent decree, agreeing to end all “ballot security” programs targeting minority precincts. Four years later, the RNC was caught caging minority voters in Louisiana, an effort that was intended to “keep the black vote down,” according to an internal RNC memo. The DNC filed suit again, and a chastened RNC agreed to a modified decree requiring it to submit all plans for anti–voter fraud campaigns to the court for approval.
At which point, the RNC mostly abandoned its anti–voter fraud programs. While state parties and individual candidates continued to launch scattered ballot-security efforts, national attention to voter fraud faded. That is, until the 2000 presidential election. Tova Wang, who was on the staff of the 2001 National Commission on Federal Election Reform and is now a fellow at the public-policy think tank Demos, says that after Bush v. Gore, political strategists took a new interest in the mechanics of elections. “Partisan activists began trying to alter the rules and tinker with election administration to gain partisan advantage,” she told me recently.
Some liberals began pushing for measures (such as Election Day registration) that would lower barriers to voting. Conservatives, on the other hand, took a renewed interest in fighting voter fraud. A raft of new state legislation followed, including voter-ID laws (now on the books in 33 states) and laws requiring people to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote. It’s not clear what problem these measures solve, however. Several exhaustive studies have found that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.
Meanwhile, the RNC has tried to get back into the ballot-security game. In 2008, the party asked Dickinson Debevoise, the New Jersey federal judge who presided over the two 1980s cases, to abolish or modify the decades-old consent decree barring certain anti–voter fraud activities. The RNC argued that the ban had outlived its purpose, but Debevoise was not persuaded, and denied the RNC’s request. (The party appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed Debevoise’s ruling.) “Minority voters continue to overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates,” Debevoise wrote in his 2009 decision. “As long as that is the case, the RNC and other Republican groups may be tempted to keep qualified minority voters from casting their ballots, especially in light of the razor-thin margin of victory by which many elections have been decided in recent years.”
Or at least having folks committing registration fraud--in many ways similar to what ACORN was doing, except that ACORN officials admitted their mistakes and reported themselves, while this Republican group said "Its just one guy and we fired him." which doesn't explain the multi-county wide fraudulent forms.
Of course what might explain it was that the Republicans hired the same guy who, in 2008, led their registration drive organization that was caught illegally disposing of Democratic registration forms.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't get too fussed about extra registration forms as the incentive for that is generally that people get paid by how many people they register. It is not generally about skewing elections. The only "victim" of the ACORN problem was ACORN.
Disposing of registration forms is serious voter fraud with the intent of denying someone their vote. Much like the voter "purges" that continue to go on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Literally the only thing about this that surprises me is that they actually fired Strategic Allied Consulting this time around.
Like, I remember them. They have been shady evil dicks since forever. when their founder guy fled state in a loaded car, and all that, that was tops
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anybody have any good idea about what to do about voter suppression and voter fraud? Would volunteering to poll watch help?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There needs to be rules against that sort of thing Samprimary. There would be a fire storm if President Obama was investing in or had family that were board members of a company producing voting machines, no matter how hard they worked to ensure impartiality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
my god, could you imagine? There would be outrage defying hyperbole.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Seriously? How much more of this crap are they going to do?
Ohio County Gets Election Date Wrong In Notices To 2,200 Voters
quote: The notice also included an incorrect listing for the location of a polling place. Election board director JoAnn Friar, a Republican, blamed the mistake on a computer glitch and told the Washington Post that new notices would be sent out to the voters affected. The county is on Lake Erie near Toledo and voted 52 percent for Barack Obama in 2008
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Seriously? How much more of this crap are they going to do?
I'm assuming by "they" you meant, in this case, the computer glitch. Well, it's hard to say. Computers are complex machines and prone to the occasional error. Plus, their output is affected by the input received.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You want to explain the computer glitch that changed Tuesday to a Thursday and Nov 6 to Nov 8? Do you think it was sthe same glitch that glitched just the Spanish voter cards in AZ?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Whether or not there was a computer glitch (which, frankly, just sounds like plausible deniability to me), someone should have checked the notice before it was sent out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmm. The problem in question-actually there are two-is that a single digit was used incorrectly-an 8 instead of a six. It didn't, for example, say 'Thursday November 8th', which would be tougher to swallow.
But there was also an incorrect location given, which I'm not sure is being defended as a 'glitch'. Some unanswered questions would seem to be: why did only about 7% of the county's 30,000 voters get these incorrect postcards? Was there some reason why these particular postcards were, in the usual course of creating and posting them, their own group and thus potentially subject to glitch? How likely *is* it that a computer glitch would misplace a digit like that and what is the reasoning for the incorrect location? If that too is a glitch, how likely is it that a glitch would swap a digit and then select an entirely wrong address, presumably chosen from a list of addresses?
Here's one thing that's straightforward, though: it's unwise to simply credit a politician's excuse of unforseen random accident when that politician stands to benefit from said accident. Those who assume she is telling the truth are thus partisan hacks.
Conveniently, this story *does* further illustrate that problems with voting are hugely unlikely to be the sort that could be thwarted by greater ID requirements. It's past time the GOP establishment stopped treating people like they were freaking idiots with that line of bull, though I suppose that won't happen until their base insists upon it.
An anecdotal sign of hope for me: my father, who has never ventured closer to voting Democrat in a Presidential election than leaving it blank (that is, only once-the last election) is seriously considering voting Democrat this time, he who has voted Republican on that at least 8 times. He's willing like many Americans to stomach a lot in terms of the usual political truth-stretching, but this particular decades-long Republican voter sees more than he can stand in Romney. It's nice.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just looked at the postcard, and I'm wondering how a glitch could produce that error. I edit and lay out documents for a living, and I've never seen a digit randomly change itself between layout and printing. Careless typo? Absolutely. "Computer glitch"? I highly doubt it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Glitch, I think, is a convenient way for the Director of the Board to waylay blame for an error on the part of his staff. I'm not credible of the idea that such a person would risk a federal prison term for organizing such a scheme as sending false reminder postcards to voters (voters of all parties, it seems)- particularly given that it would be likely to be covered in the news, and would present more risk than reward for whomever organized it.
It is reminiscent of the deeply cynical "reminders," that do circulate among voters giving them incorrect information intentionally, but it doesn't seem to be in that vein.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
goddamnit, I really try not to be a vote fraud tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist type,
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Anybody have any good idea about what to do about voter suppression and voter fraud? Would volunteering to poll watch help?
Is this a serious question? I can't tell.
If it is, I'd just like to point out that there were only like eleven known cases of voter fraud last election. The sentence for getting caught is jail time and a lofty 500 dollar fee (or more, depending on the state). And for what? A single extra vote? I don't think people are generally stupid enough to waste their time. The benefit simply doesn't outweigh the risk. Not by a long shot.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Are any of this year's "glitches" in favor of more votes being counted, or in favor of Obama? Any of them?
The GOP was right: voter fraud is rampant. Just not in the direction they were pointing...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Anybody have any good idea about what to do about voter suppression and voter fraud? Would volunteering to poll watch help?
Is this a serious question? I can't tell.
If it is, I'd just like to point out that there were only like eleven known cases of voter fraud last election. The sentence for getting caught is jail time and a lofty 500 dollar fee (or more, depending on the state). And for what? A single extra vote? I don't think people are generally stupid enough to waste their time. The benefit simply doesn't outweigh the risk. Not by a long shot.
It was a serious question. I am not concerned with the kind of voter fraud you are talking about. I am concerned with the kind of voter fraud and suppression as practiced by folks like Jon Husted in Ohio (illegal purges, shortening polling hours, sending out incorrect information, throwing out absentee ballots). What can be done to stop this kind of thing?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
bring your cameraphones, document everything, coordinate with advocacy groups
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ATTENTION HATRACKERS. IF YOU INTEND TO VOTE REPUBLICAN ESPECIALLY IN A SWING STATE: Please know that your vote date has been changed to November 8th in order to alleviate overworked ballot areas. Straight-ticket and primarily conservative voters will receive their own polling locations on that date after everyone else has voted. Free coffee and pastries will be provided. Failure to vote appropriately on the 8th rather than national election day based on your straight-ticket post-polling analysis is a federal offense and can result in fines and jail time.
MEMBERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH: Your votes have been moved to the 9th and will take place at a temple closest to your place of residence. Please do NOT contact church officials for information about this change, they are very overburdened with making sure that they have ballot equipment and staff for these events and cannot field information calls. Poll instructions will be provided by mail.
LIBERTARIANS: please vote for gary. He totally stands a chance and will actually hand his position over to ron paul the second he is elected. Ron paul revolution 2012 end the fed.
REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL OTHERWISE: Unskewedpolls.com has the right of it and Romney is totally a shoo-in for the election, don't worry about it. You all have jobs anyway right, don't lose your coveted status of Productives just to go vote in a silly election, its okay don't worry about it you got this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Glitch is credit to team
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I recently read "The Stainless Steel Rat For President". It was written in the early 80's. It described how computerized voting machines would be sold as "cheaper and more accurate" to the voting public, and would then be used to steal elections. Sometimes the Sci-fi guys get it right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Literally everything in Stainless Steel Rat is non-fiction.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ahahahahahaha
Clearly the computer has become sentient.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Former GOP leader with an axe to grind:
quote:A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.
Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
"The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates. It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us.’ They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue. It’s all a marketing ploy."
quote:Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.
Another GOP consultant, who did not want to be named, also confirmed that influential consultants to the Republican Party of Florida were intent on beating back Democratic turnout in early voting after 2008.
In 2008 Democrats, especially African-Americans, turned out in unprecedented numbers for President Barack Obama, many of them casting ballots during 14 early voting days. In Palm Beach County, 61.2 percent of all early voting ballots were cast by Democrats that year, compared with 18.7 percent by Republicans.
In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.
Do tell me who here still believes that these measures were there to combat the Looming Menace of Voter Fraud.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No kidding!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:epublican campaign consultant Scott Tranter appeared on a panel Monday hosted by the Pew Center on the States to discuss the long lines and voter ID controversies that plagued the 2012 election. In his comments, Tranter seemed to imply that he believed these issues were helpful to Republicans and should be pursued for that reason.
"A lot of us are campaign officials -- or campaign professionals -- and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that's voter ID, sometimes we think that's longer lines -- whatever it may be," Tranter said with a laugh.
Can we take this as given from now an and lose the notion that voter ID is about fraud?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and the same republicans will gleefully and racistly pack minorities into minimum-damage districts while gerrymandering
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Crist testifies in Senate that there was voter suppression in Florida
quote:It showed that the Republican attorney who engineered the 2000 Florida felons list, which African American leaders said purged thousands of eligible blacks from voter rolls, drafted Florida’s controversial law that restricted early voting and voter registration campaigns in 2012. Nelson also included into the Congressional record a story by The Palm Beach Post on so-called voter suppression efforts. In a written statement to the committee, he said: “For me it’s pretty straight-forward: Florida’s 2011 election law changes were politically motivated and clearly designed to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters – and, not, as its Republican sponsors contended, to prevent voter fraud.”
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And I'm sure the one broken link was an incredible case of serious, serious voter suppression on the part of Republicans. God help us if your other amazing examples disappear..