Oregon governor signs sweeping automatic voter registration into law

[Ed Anger]

Eh he feels particularly strongly on this issue.

But this is hilarious since Seedy denounced him recently for his racist views.

Seedy influences through intimidation.

It keeps the local systems in line

[Berkut]

Seedy influences through intimidation.

Meh Berkut was saying this in the exact same way when we originally had this discussion way back in....whenever it was the voter ID laws went into effect.

I think there's a big difference between a voter ID law that's passed at a time well away from a major election, and one on the eve of the presidential election.  If there's plenty of time for people to get the documentation/registration done to the new requirements then that's a better situation than saying "oops, sorry, just passed a law, you can't vote even though you could before".

But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.

Well, that isn't strictly true - there is ample evidence that there is a problem they are intended to solve. The problem is minorities don't vote for Republicans, and hence Republicans would like to if they just didn't vote at all. Which is the entire and complete purpose of these laws, as is clear from the people pushing for them.

And you've become Seedy-lite.

I've been completely consistent on my views on Republican attempts to limit voting from the very start.

And if Dems thought up some way to pass a law to discourage white males from voting, I would be against that as well, even if they had some "theoretical" justification for it...

[frunk]

But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.

Agreed, but I don't necessarily have a problem with tightening up voter ID to head off future issues.  The Republicans are being way too aggressive and ham handed about it, but at least it is a semi-useful desire and shouldn't be flatly rejected.  Make sure it is done in a way to avoid disenfranchising legal voters (which admittedly is hardly ever done in these changes) and it should be fine.  Hand out information/guides on getting IDs at each election for a full cycle beforehand, rather than treat it like some panicky thing that needs to be done right now.

[Admiral Yi]

But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.

The only way there could be abundant evidence that there is a problem is if there were already a system in place to prevent the problem.

[derspiess]

But again, the reality is that there is no evidence that there is a problem that these voted ID laws are intended to solve.

The only way there could be abundant evidence that there is a problem is if there were already a system in place to prevent the problem.

Or if we actually dedicated real resources to investigate it.

[alfred russel]

In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.

Berkut, here is the thing...there are hardly any black people in Oregon. You hear a republican from Oregon argue for tighter voting requirements and cite it as evidence of republican racism and go on to say the practical effect is to keep black people from voting.

This is why people are accusing you of becoming seedy lite. It isn't evidence of racism, it is probably more than anything evidence that the republican push for tighter registration laws isn't racist. Ie, republicans are trying to frustrate poor marginal voters from voting even in places they aren't mostly black. Which of course makes since, because such voters are probably disproportionately democrat regardless of race.

[sbr]

Change blacks for Hispanics.

[Berkut]

In theory, of course. Sure, one could support all kinds of laws for all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

In practicality, when it is pointed out that in fact there is no actual problem "more rigid identification" needs to address, and the actual practical effect is to simply keep black people from voting so much, then no, I don't accept that there is a legitimate reason to support such laws - at least not once the actual facts become clear.

Berkut, here is the thing...there are hardly any black people in Oregon. You hear a republican from Oregon argue for tighter voting requirements and cite it as evidence of republican racism and go on to say the practical effect is to keep black people from voting.

This is why people are accusing you of becoming seedy lite. It isn't evidence of racism, it is probably more than anything evidence that the republican push for tighter registration laws isn't racist. Ie, republicans are trying to frustrate poor marginal voters from voting even in places they aren't mostly black. Which of course makes since, because such voters are probably disproportionately democrat regardless of race.

The fact the the people the Republicans are setting out to disenfranchise in this case are not black doesn't make it any better. It is still despicable, and supporting it shows that you have at best a passing actual interest in liberty, rather than in just making sure your side wins at whatever cost.


And "people" don't accuse me of being seedy lite, that is just you. It is a kind of funny dig though, given that I just broke Seedy on his histrionics about racism, I will give you taht.

[garbon]

Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls?

[Eddie Teach]

Change blacks for Hispanics.

The strategy is not targeted at hispanics or blacks, it's targeted at unmotivated voters of all colors.

[The Brain]

How do I tell Berkut from CdM?

[Berkut]

Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls?

If this was the only time they took this stance in regards to voting laws, that cop out might have some legs.

[Berkut]

How do I tell Berkut from CdM?

Employment?

[dps]

Ok, if one of the major problems with voter ID laws is that minorities are less likely to have a driver's license or other approved form of ID, doesn't it stand to reason that automatically registering anyone with a driver's license to vote isn't going to increase minority participation in voting?

[garbon]

Wait Republicans are disenfranchise people in this case because they don't think everyone who gets a license should automatically be put on the voting rolls?

If this was the only time they took this stance in regards to voting laws, that cop out might have some legs.

Cop out? You called out this specific instance as one of disenfranchisement. Is it?

Also, on your wider claim, do you have proof that the Republicans noted in the article have been involved in disenfranchisement moves?