25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI choose my position based on my weighing of evidence that shows both that formal convictions of voting fraud are rare and that many people would likely become ineligible to vote if voter ID restrictions go into effect.
Witty speaks in absolutes. He is absolutely sure that having to show a picture ID is disenfranchising voters.
I always leave open the possibility that I may choose to revise my opinions at a later time, particularly if you (or anyone else) can show me evidence that refutes either of the conclusions drawn by the studies on which I base my decision. If the government can devise a means to make voter fraud rarer while not hindering many people's abilities to vote, then I would be glad to support such a measure.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarI am not sick. I do not suffer paranoid delusions that without severe curtailment of civil rights there may be someone out there somewhere who might possibly cheat.
Freedom means making it easy to fix elections through voter fraud? You have a sick point of view.
There are basically two types of outcome:
One is the risk of allowing some extra fraud (controls are too weak)
One is the risk of losing the right to vote (controls are excessive)
In seeking a healthy balance, it is not helpful to be driven by delusions, or for the evidence to be a pile of politically cynical lies.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI can only speak to my own motivation. The motivation of others is only a guess for me (same as you).
What a joke. Whatever happened 50+ years ago, it is Republicans who are now championing voter suppression measures aimed primarily at people of color who have the good sense to overwhelming reject right wing ideology. You and the others can pretend it's just some amazing coincidence that requiring picture ID disenfranchises minorities at a much higher rate but you're not fooling anyone.
If you're trying to tell me what my motivation is, well you should recognize how much you discredit yourself by such an assertion.
If I can be motivated by wanting to ensure a fair election, then others can to. Lots of people.
Democrats act like they're noble. In their mind they're merely defending minorities. But one can easily see that this "cause" costs them nothing. The real heroes in defending minority rights risked their lives, and some were killed. When that was happening, democrats were the ones doing the killing. The only thing democrats risk today is allowing a few more fraudulent votes to come their way.
I recall a softball game in a community league. The other team thought we were using "ringers" who were not on our roster. Before our last game they requested an ID check. One can debate whether it's petty or necessary, but ultimately you have to say "fair enough". It is not an undue burden for softball and in spite of all the caterwauling from democrats, it's not an undue burden for something as important as voting.
Regardless of the extent that voter fraud is going on, requesting an ID is "fair enough".
Besides, as long as we don't request ID, who really knows how much voter fraud is going on? All we really know is nobody is getting caught. And since we don't check ID, how could they be caught.
But I'll go out on a limb. I don't think democrats are stuffing the ballot box for senate and presidential campaigns in California because it is not even in play. And I don't think they're cheating in Utah either (also not in play, but favoring the other side). The only time it really is going to matter is in a swing state in an already close race. If you wait until a few weeks before such an election to prepare for possible voter fraud, it will be too late. Each state needs to get its laws right beforehand, in case one day it has to run an election as crucial as Florida was in 2000. If it begins to dawn on the nation that the presidential election will hinge on a single state that is a toss up, there will be a lot more motivation to cheat and by then it will be too late to fix any voting laws.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by techsouthGreat post.
I can only speak to my own motivation. The motivation of others is only a guess for me (same as you).
If you're trying to tell me what [b]my motivation is, well you should recognize how much you discredit yourself by such an assertion.
If I can be motivated by wanting to ensure a fair election, then others can to. Lots of people.
Demo ...[text shortened]... e will be a lot more motivation to cheat and by then it will be too late to fix any voting laws.[/b]
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by finneganParanoid delusion when voter fraud actually exists? You are not paranoid when you say that having to provide ID prevents people from voting? I guess paranoid is in the eye of the beholder.
I am not sick. I do not suffer paranoid delusions that without severe curtailment of civil rights there may be someone out there somewhere who might possibly cheat.
There are basically two types of outcome:
One is the risk of allowing some extra fraud (controls are too weak)
One is the risk of losing the right to vote (controls are excessive)
In ...[text shortened]... helpful to be driven by delusions, or for the evidence to be a pile of politically cynical lies.
25 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthWhat is being risked is hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, being disenfranchised for partisan advantage. And it seems to be an amazing coincidence that such laws, never found necessary beforehand in the history of the Republic, have a discriminatory impact on minorities that tend to vote in a certain way the opposite of those passing such laws.
I can only speak to my own motivation. The motivation of others is only a guess for me (same as you).
If you're trying to tell me what [b]my motivation is, well you should recognize how much you discredit yourself by such an assertion.
If I can be motivated by wanting to ensure a fair election, then others can to. Lots of people.
Demo ...[text shortened]... e will be a lot more motivation to cheat and by then it will be too late to fix any voting laws.[/b]
Whether it is in the forefront of your mind to use the law to such advantage, I cannot say. But it is very convenient that it just so happens to aid a political party and an ideology you have an affinity for.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarResearch suggests that having such laws decreases turnout by 2%. That would equate to millions of less votes if such laws were adopted nationwide. What level of so-called voter fraud justifies that result?
Paranoid delusion when voter fraud actually exists? You are not paranoid when you say that having to provide ID prevents people from voting? I guess paranoid is in the eye of the beholder.
Spare me the "they're just lazy" BS.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSo called fraud? lol
Research suggests that having such laws decreases turnout by 2%. That would equate to millions of less votes if such laws were adopted nationwide. What level of so-called voter fraud justifies that result?
Spare me the "they're just lazy" BS.
Yes, losing 2% of voters so that the elections aren't rigged seems fair.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by EladarIt might be fair if the 2% were distributed randomly and not overwhelmingly in one particular direction, a direction that suits those making the relevant regulations, and some of those people have been recorded overtly choosing to impose regulations in order to selectively affect which party will benefit.
So called fraud? lol
Yes, losing 2% of voters so that the elections aren't rigged seems fair.
Anyway, there are many ways to seek ID. So it is reasonable to challenge the particular administrative method employed. Even if the argument in favour of ID is convincing, the method of implementing that seemingly reasonable idea can in itself be unacceptable because of its discriminatory and selective impact.
Your personal motives may be invisible but your evasion of the relevant issues is striking.
In any well functioning democracy, I would hope to see the state put its resources into maximising participation, not reducing it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI just so happens to aid one political party to prevent the other political party from cheating.
What is being risked is hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, being disenfranchised for partisan advantage. And it seems to be an amazing coincidence that such laws, never found necessary beforehand in the history of the Republic, have a discriminatory impact on minorities that tend to vote in a certain way the opposite of those passing such laws.
...[text shortened]... nient that it just so happens to aid a political party and an ideology you have an affinity for.
How convenient.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by finneganIf democrats spent 1/10th the effort they're spending to prevent voting ID laws from being passed on getting IDs for their hypothetical victims, the problem would go away.
It might be fair if the 2% were distributed randomly and not overwhelmingly in one particular direction, a direction that suits those making the relevant regulations, and some of those people have been recorded overtly choosing to impose regulations in order to selectively affect which party will benefit.
Anyway, there are many ways to seek ID. So it is ...[text shortened]... I would hope to see the state put its resources into maximising participation, not reducing it.
For each fraudulent vote cast, that is one valid vote invalidated. Allowing fraudulent voting effectively disenfranchises voters.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by techsouthWhat kind of effort do you suggest?
If democrats spent 1/10th the effort they're spending to prevent voting ID laws from being passed on getting IDs for their hypothetical victims, the problem would go away.
For each fraudulent vote cast, that is one valid vote invalidated. Allowing fraudulent voting effectively disenfranchises voters.
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by techsouthWhy should a political party have to spend their resources because the government chooses to pass laws that they know will have a discriminatory impact?
If democrats spent 1/10th the effort they're spending to prevent voting ID laws from being passed on getting IDs for their hypothetical victims, the problem would go away.
For each fraudulent vote cast, that is one valid vote invalidated. Allowing fraudulent voting effectively disenfranchises voters.
Is it really your claim that millions of fraudulent votes are being cast that will be prevented by these voter ID laws? Have you ANY empirical evidence supporting such a claim?
25 Mar 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraApparently the Democratic Party should have to pay for transportation, for certified birth certificates and all related costs so that people who have legally voted, some for decades, can overcome the discriminatory roadblocks passed by Republican dominated State legislatures in those States that have passed voter ID laws.
What kind of effort do you suggest?