Ok, so apparently some US states are now passing a law that you need to have an ID to vote.
And that's controversial. Because apparently the stupid and the lazy (who strangely enough in this case tend to vote Democrat) do not have an ID.
Martinus's most convoluted and elaborate solution: GET A FUCKING ID.
Is there something I'm missing here? :huh:
Well since it is you, of course you are.
Didn't we have this topic some time ago already?
So how can you vote without an ID?
I mean, how do they stop you from voting 586 times?
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 01:53:31 AM
So how can you vote without an ID?
I mean, how do they stop you from voting 586 times?
Because you are only registered to vote in one place. You show up at your polling place, and they find your name on the list. You vote, and they scratch it off. I took for granted that even you eastern Europeans could figure this shit out. My mistake.
How do they stop you from saying someone else's name and voting for them too?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2012, 02:15:30 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 01:53:31 AM
So how can you vote without an ID?
I mean, how do they stop you from voting 586 times?
Because you are only registered to vote in one place. You show up at your polling place, and they find your name on the list. You vote, and they scratch it off. I took for granted that even you eastern Europeans could figure this shit out. My mistake.
You are a retard.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2012, 02:20:51 AM
How do they stop you from saying someone else's name and voting for them too?
this.
My East European mind is puzzled by this idea of trusting people.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 01:53:31 AM
So how can you vote without an ID?
I mean, how do they stop you from voting 586 times?
You're on the voting roll at a particular polling place. When you vote, it's recorded in some manner that you have already voted in the current election.
In theory, without an ID being required, you could come back in an vote using the name of some other voter on the roll who hadn't voted yet. You might get by with voting 2 or 3 times, but any more than that the poll workers would likely recognize that you were there earlier.
In my hometown, it would have been really difficult for someone to vote multiple times like that. Fayette county had a population of around 45,000 and had 88 voting precincts IIRC. That's less than 500 voters per precinct (keep in mind that some of those 45,000 aren't going to be on the voting rolls--they're underage, non-citizens, people who just haven't bothered to register to vote, etc.). The poll workers were mostly elderly ladies who had lived locally for ages and likely had known most of the voters the voters' whole lives. Several poll workers would have had to conspire together to let me vote twice. Even if you were new to the area and they didn't know you personally, they dealt with few enough voters in each polling place that they were likely to notice if you tried to vote again under a different name.
Here in North Carolina, I guess it would be easier. In Wayne county, we have a population around 115,000 but only about a dozen voting precincts, so even with a relatively light turnout, the poll workers in each precinct are going to be dealing with over 4 figures in voters each election.
What about the large cities? Even here in Helsinki (population about 600k), there are thousands of voters per polling station, and there's no way the workers are going to remember by sight everyone who votes.
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2012, 02:31:51 AM
In theory, without an ID being required, you could come back in an vote using the name of some other voter on the roll who hadn't voted yet. You might get by with voting 2 or 3 times, but any more than that the poll workers would likely recognize that you were there earlier.
Err, what prevents you from going to a different place?
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2012, 02:38:52 AM
What about the large cities? Even here in Helsinki (population about 600k), there are thousands of voters per polling station, and there's no way the workers are going to remember by sight everyone who votes.
And there are several dozens of polling stations. So you could vote in each of them.
I don't know, maybe it's our Eastern European heritage but talking to Americans about this is like talking to flatlanders. :huh:
You don't need ID to vote in the UK. You register to vote, a card gets sent to your address and you bring it along and confirm your address so they can cross you off the list. Several of my nearest and dearest do not have a driving licence and their passports have expired so they therefore have no ID nor any need of one.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 02:39:44 AM
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2012, 02:31:51 AM
In theory, without an ID being required, you could come back in an vote using the name of some other voter on the roll who hadn't voted yet. You might get by with voting 2 or 3 times, but any more than that the poll workers would likely recognize that you were there earlier.
Err, what prevents you from going to a different place?
i can only speak from my experience of course but after living in 5 different states when I register to vote in that state I am given a local polling station based on my residence when registered.
When election comes around that polling station has print out of local registered voters and they check me off after seeing voter card and have me sign my name.
If I go to polling station not my own I'm given a provisional ballot to vote. They are suppose to verify that I'm not voting in multiple places but who knows :P
Yeah, same here. When you register to vote, you can only go to one particular polling station close to home. If you won't be there, you can register in advance for a postal vote or nominate a proxy. The electoral roll is also used for council tax and credit rating.
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:05:00 AM
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
And you live in a Marxist dictatorship where you are not allowed on the streets without your papers.
Quote from: Brazen on August 17, 2012, 04:08:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:05:00 AM
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
And you live in a Marxist dictatorship where you are not allowed on the streets without your papers.
How else are you going to identify terrorists??
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:10:08 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 17, 2012, 04:08:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:05:00 AM
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
And you live in a Marxist dictatorship where you are not allowed on the streets without your papers.
How else are you going to identify terrorists the Jews??
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 05:41:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:10:08 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 17, 2012, 04:08:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:05:00 AM
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
And you live in a Marxist dictatorship where you are not allowed on the streets without your papers.
How else are you going to identify terrorists the Jews??
With a big yellow star sewn onto their clothing. Duh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Syt on August 17, 2012, 05:50:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 05:41:18 AM
How else are you going to identify terrorists the Jews??
With a big yellow star sewn onto their clothing. Duh. :rolleyes:
Still had to show their papers, though. I YAM EEESSENTIAL VERKER
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:10:08 AM
Quote from: Brazen on August 17, 2012, 04:08:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 04:05:00 AM
Yeah but then again you live in an anarchy where not every single citizen has to have an ID. Fucking Madmax style hippies.
And you live in a Marxist dictatorship where you are not allowed on the streets without your papers.
How else are you going to identify terrorists??
They are the arabs looking ones.
So you do get a "voter card" sort of thing? Then it is okay, altough still somebody could steal it from you and vote in your place.
No, I've never had a voter card.
Okay so then let's get a run at this again.
I seriously admire the American take on this (and the British one, altough IIRC they do have voter cards?)
The question, which remains though: Do you have this system because indeed your politicans and people in general would not think to abuse this easily abuse-able system, or it is just a matter of being naive and thinking it works, while the select few abuse it to hell and make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:14:49 AM
So you do get a "voter card" sort of thing? Then it is okay, altough still somebody could steal it from you and vote in your place.
Why would someone steal a voter registration card and vote in your place, anyway? That doesn't make any sense.
To make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
Because widespread voter fraud would never be detected...
Not if you can just show up without any ID and get to vote under whatever name you say.
Also rather than do this again:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7301.0.html
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2012, 07:34:06 AM
Not if you can just show up without any ID and get to vote under whatever name you say.
And when the stories pile up of people who went to vote and then were told they already voted? :yeahright:
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
The question, which remains though: Do you have this system because indeed your politicans and people in general would not think to abuse this easily abuse-able system, or it is just a matter of being naive and thinking it works, while the select few abuse it to hell and make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
There are more problems with fraudulent absentee balloting than voter impersonation: it just doesn't happen.
re: Dubya and Florida; that was retroactive denial of the vote, in procedurally dismissing ballots that were already cast.
I'd worry more about hacking with so many places switching to computerized voting systems.
I suppose the Voter ID could keep the dead from voting. After all, we don't want Snowball casting a vote for Romney! :nelson:
Quote from: garbon on August 17, 2012, 07:35:38 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2012, 07:34:06 AM
Not if you can just show up without any ID and get to vote under whatever name you say.
And when the stories pile up of people who went to vote and then were told they already voted? :yeahright:
good point, altough I wonder what percentage of voters bothers to go
But, let's say it does happen that you go and are told you have already voted.
-what way do you have to prove that it is indeed you who have voted, supposedly? Your ID
-what is to be done to remedy it? You just lost your right to vote because of some goofball neighbor who wanted to be funny
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 07:36:16 AM
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
The question, which remains though: Do you have this system because indeed your politicans and people in general would not think to abuse this easily abuse-able system, or it is just a matter of being naive and thinking it works, while the select few abuse it to hell and make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
There are more problems with fraudulent absentee balloting than voter impersonation: it just doesn't happen.
re: Dubya and Florida; that was retroactive denial of the vote, in procedurally dismissing ballots that were already cast.
And interestingly enough, the Gore campaign's preferred method of recount would have guaranteed that they would have lost.
Quote from: Scipio on August 17, 2012, 07:51:26 AM
And interestingly enough, the Gore campaign's preferred method of recount would have guaranteed that they would have lost.
At least it would've been above board. And that was the point. So there.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:48:01 AM
good point, altough I wonder what percentage of voters bothers to go
But, let's say it does happen that you go and are told you have already voted.
-what way do you have to prove that it is indeed you who have voted, supposedly? Your ID
-what is to be done to remedy it? You just lost your right to vote because of some goofball neighbor who wanted to be funny
You'd complain to the board of elections. If this was being done in sizable enough quantities that it was changing the outcome of elections, I'm pretty sure that would be noted.
Unlikely that your goofball neighbor would do so to be funny considering that he could be facing felony charges for voter fraud.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:48:01 AM
But, let's say it does happen that you go and are told you have already voted.
-what way do you have to prove that it is indeed you who have voted, supposedly? Your ID
-what is to be done to remedy it? You just lost your right to vote because of some goofball neighbor who wanted to be funny
You'd be allowed to submit a provisional ballot anyway, and the Board of Elections would investigate afterwards. You still wouldn't lose your right to vote.
THe reason this is an issue in the states is that the Republicans have figured out that they can systemically remove huge numbers of voters from the voting pool by instituting these laws to force people to bring ID under the guise of combatting voter fraud.
It just so happens that the vast, vast majority of people who will end up NOT voting as a result of not having ID are in those demographics that heavily vote Democrat.
Absent any political agenda, I have no theoretical problem with insisting that people who vote prove they are who they say they are - sadly, this is not driven by any kind of actual concern about voter fraud (plenty of studies and common sense have shown that this simply is not a real issue in the US), but as a means to dis-enfranchise the poor and minorities.
It is as cynical and underhanded as politics gets, IMO.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
Okay so then let's get a run at this again.
I seriously admire the American take on this (and the British one, altough IIRC they do have voter cards?)
The question, which remains though: Do you have this system because indeed your politicans and people in general would not think to abuse this easily abuse-able system, or it is just a matter of being naive and thinking it works, while the select few abuse it to hell and make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
Keep in mind that the Americans are speaking in terms of generalities and we don't actually have a "system".
Elections are state and local affairs, and the feds just piggyback those for the president and congress (the presidential election in particular is put in the hands of the state: if a state wanted to, it could abolish the election and just have the legislature or governor or someone decide who gets the states votes).
Some places may require IDs, some may not but require voter cards, some may not require anything other than prior registration.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
Okay so then let's get a run at this again.
I seriously admire the American take on this (and the British one, altough IIRC they do have voter cards?)
The question, which remains though: Do you have this system because indeed your politicans and people in general would not think to abuse this easily abuse-able system, or it is just a matter of being naive and thinking it works, while the select few abuse it to hell and make Dubya win by a few votes in Florida?
We have this system because we are paranoid about a national identity card.
The voter registration card is just a reminder to you of where to vote; it's not legal proof of anything AFAIK.
The system essentially relies on a combination of honor, probability, and punishment. In order to cheat you need to find someone who is a) registered and b) not going to vote. That's why dead people voting is relatively popular.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
That's why dead people voting is relatively popular.
That is certainly the one example I have hear anecdotally, but if it is happening in significant numbers, it would seem like it would be pretty easy to detect, at least after the fact.
Simply cross check the voter lists of those who have voted against public death records.
Not really a good way to stop it (you likely cannot do it systemically with our current lack of records) but if you wanted to prove that voter fraud was actually happening, it should be pretty easy to investigate after the fact.
But nobody has done so - there is no study or report showing that in election X, there where Y examples of people voting who it turns out were dead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
That's why dead people voting is relatively popular.
Voter ID laws aren't designed to stop that, however. Not that that's been a concern for the last 50 years anyway.
But Voter ID laws are "designed" to prevent voter impersonation at the polling place, which does not happen. What it does do, however, is place an unnecessary burden on certain individuals for no compelling or documented reason.
Quote from: Brazen on August 17, 2012, 03:39:20 AM
You don't need ID to vote in the UK. You register to vote, a card gets sent to your address and you bring it along and confirm your address so they can cross you off the list. Several of my nearest and dearest do not have a driving licence and their passports have expired so they therefore have no ID nor any need of one.
That is what we do here.
Yep - the obvious set of people who would not have ID are those who do not drive.
And who doesn't drive? People who tend to live in urban areas.
And what is more, if you don't drive, why, that makes it a bit of a pain in the ass to get to were you may need to go to get an ID - so maybe you just don't bother. So you just don't vote.
Which is the entire point of this "movement". There is a reason it is a completely partisan effort, which gets put into place in states like Pennsylvania, with a Republican legislature, but which often goes to the Democrats in presidential elections due to the concentration of voters in urban areas.
Classic Languish thread, Marti sticks in the ground a big straw-man, channelling I presume the stereotypical republican.
And a whole bunch of posters come up with a range of modest, "this is how we do it here, and it seems to work" Others say voter impersonation isn't a problem and really this is about, as Berkut pointed out, a crude form of ballot rigging by disenfranchising certain types of voters.
I await Marti's reply; sits, popcorn.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 17, 2012, 02:38:52 AM
What about the large cities? Even here in Helsinki (population about 600k), there are thousands of voters per polling station, and there's no way the workers are going to remember by sight everyone who votes.
Well, we didn't have any large cities in WV, really. Charleston, though, had a larger population than all of Fayette county, so it had a lot of voting precincts just within city limits. Don't know the exact number, but the point is that there were enough that there are relatively few registered voters in each precinct, compared to what we have here in NC.
Quote from: mongers on August 17, 2012, 12:17:57 PM
Classic Languish thread, Marti sticks in the ground a big straw-man, channelling I presume the stereotypical republican.
And a whole bunch of posters come up with a range of modest, "this is how we do it here, and it seems to work" Others say voter impersonation isn't a problem and really this is about, as Berkut pointed out, a crude form of ballot rigging by disenfranchising certain types of voters.
I await Marti's reply; sits, popcorn.
Why? Like I linked to - we already did this is exact same thread except that it was derspeiss who started it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 12:16:17 PM
Yep - the obvious set of people who would not have ID are those who do not drive.
And who doesn't drive? People who tend to live in urban areas.
And what is more, if you don't drive, why, that makes it a bit of a pain in the ass to get to were you may need to go to get an ID - so maybe you just don't bother. So you just don't vote.
Which is the entire point of this "movement". There is a reason it is a completely partisan effort, which gets put into place in states like Pennsylvania, with a Republican legislature, but which often goes to the Democrats in presidential elections due to the concentration of voters in urban areas.
That is a pretty weak strawman you're trying to build. What happened to your normal standards?
Strawman?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Monsters from the ID!!
Since we're recycling and all...
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
Strawman?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You're attempting to refute a position by setting up a new position that is unproven and lacking any foundation so that you can hammer anyone who argues with you i.e. a strawman argument.
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:07:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
Strawman?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You're attempting to refute a position by setting up a new position that is unproven and lacking any foundation so that you can hammer anyone who argues with you i.e. a strawman argument.
I am attempting to refute a position (that hasn't even been articulated, since nobody here has argued against my position) by setting up a new position (and what would that new position be? I have't done anything of the kind, since I've made no claim about what this opposition that so far doesn't even exist has claimed - my point has been entirely about what the effects of the law will be) that is unproven (the new position I am setting up is unproven? But it is a strawman? So you think a strawman would be setting up a proven, new position?) and lacking any foundation (this would be the strawman that is unproven and doesn't exist setup to counter an opponent who doesn't exist that lacks foundation? Right?) so that I can hammer "anyone" who argues with me - but nobody is arguing with me?
So it is apparently a preemptive strawman? That is unproven and lacking a foundation?
Gotcha. You've totally figured me out, and you win the argument. The one nobody is having. I can't sneak anything past you.
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
Brings you to a jealous rage?
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:07:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
Strawman?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You're attempting to refute a position by setting up a new position that is unproven and lacking any foundation so that you can hammer anyone who argues with you i.e. a strawman argument.
I am attempting to refute a position (that hasn't even been articulated, since nobody here has argued against my position) by setting up a new position (and what would that new position be? I have't done anything of the kind, since I've made no claim about what this opposition that so far doesn't even exist has claimed - my point has been entirely about what the effects of the law will be) that is unproven (the new position I am setting up is unproven? But it is a strawman? So you think a strawman would be setting up a proven, new position?) and lacking any foundation (this would be the strawman that is unproven and doesn't exist setup to counter an opponent who doesn't exist that lacks foundation? Right?) so that I can hammer "anyone" who argues with me - but nobody is arguing with me?
So it is apparently a preemptive strawman? That is unproven and lacking a foundation?
Gotcha. You've totally figured me out, and you win the argument. The one nobody is having. I can't sneak anything past you.
*yawn*
Your position is that the Republicans want a Voter ID to prevent masses of Democrat voters from casting ballots. Your strawmen is that the Republicans are backdooring the Democrats by creating a system that unfairly targets urban aka inner city people who usually vote largely for Democrats. You attempt to prop up this strawman with a fairy tale about the lack of proper ID that urban aka inner city people as compared to suburban dwellers. You than reinforce the strawman with a fallacy about people without licenses being unable to get to the DMV (or similar place) because they don't drive.
:moon:
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
Is a fleshlight like a skin flute? :secret:
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2012, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
Brings you to a jealous rage?
:mad:
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:32:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:07:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
Strawman?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You're attempting to refute a position by setting up a new position that is unproven and lacking any foundation so that you can hammer anyone who argues with you i.e. a strawman argument.
I am attempting to refute a position (that hasn't even been articulated, since nobody here has argued against my position) by setting up a new position (and what would that new position be? I have't done anything of the kind, since I've made no claim about what this opposition that so far doesn't even exist has claimed - my point has been entirely about what the effects of the law will be) that is unproven (the new position I am setting up is unproven? But it is a strawman? So you think a strawman would be setting up a proven, new position?) and lacking any foundation (this would be the strawman that is unproven and doesn't exist setup to counter an opponent who doesn't exist that lacks foundation? Right?) so that I can hammer "anyone" who argues with me - but nobody is arguing with me?
So it is apparently a preemptive strawman? That is unproven and lacking a foundation?
Gotcha. You've totally figured me out, and you win the argument. The one nobody is having. I can't sneak anything past you.
*yawn*
Your position is that the Republicans want a Voter ID to prevent masses of Democrat voters from casting ballots.
Correct. That is my position, and one that is pretty well established by the facts.
Quote
Your strawmen is that the Republicans are backdooring the Democrats by creating a system that unfairly targets urban aka inner city people who usually vote largely for Democrats.
That is not a strawman. Look up the word.
That is an argument - it cannot be a strawman because it is MY argument. I am not creating an argument for anyone else.
Quote
You attempt to prop up this strawman with a fairy tale about the lack of proper ID that urban aka inner city people as compared to suburban dwellers.
Wait - pointing out that urban dwellers tend to not have DLs more than suburban dwellers would prop up MY argument, so how could I be using it to prop up the strawman argument that I have created for someone else?
Oh right - you have no idea what the term "strawman" means.
Quote
You than reinforce the strawman with a fallacy
I reinforce the strawman with a fallacy. Really?
Quote
about people without licenses being unable to get to the DMV (or similar place) because they don't drive.
Again, how.....
Oh Christ, never mind.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
I am not sure what that means.
I will assume you are mocking me for bothering to actually argue with Strixgovory, in which case I am duly shamed.
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:32:08 PM
Your position is that the Republicans want a Voter ID to prevent masses of Democrat voters from casting ballots. Your strawmen is that the Republicans are backdooring the Democrats by creating a system that unfairly targets urban aka inner city people who usually vote largely for Democrats. You attempt to prop up this strawman with a fairy tale about the lack of proper ID that urban aka inner city people as compared to suburban dwellers. You than reinforce the strawman with a fallacy about people without licenses being unable to get to the DMV (or similar place) because they don't drive.
A Strawman = a position Strix doesn't like? :lol:
People really shouldn't use terms they aren't familiar with. :(
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
I am not sure what that means.
I will assume you are mocking me for bothering to actually argue with Strixgovory, in which case I am duly shamed.
I was going for the rape analogy. However, in this case, this isn't just any rape; this is a rape where the victim is just so unable to fight back that it's comical. Hence a monkey raping a frog. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k
Sigh, sometimes my analogies are too refined for the boorish audience here. :(
Isn't it really necessary to use the term rape in this instance?
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
Isn't it really necessary to use the term rape in this instance?
Well, Strix was asking for it in this thread, so maybe you have a point. :hmm:
Having ID is pretty much required for taking part in modern society in so many ways beyond just voting, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2012, 03:29:35 PM
Watching Berkut and Strix debate is like watching that video where a monkey is using a frog as a fleshlight.
I am not sure what that means.
I will assume you are mocking me for bothering to actually argue with Strixgovory, in which case I am duly shamed.
Strix should be equally ashamed to argue with you.
I'm ashamed I'm not bothering to argue in this thread. But it's quittin' time on a Friday, so I'm going to get started with whatever the hell I'm doing this weekend...
Quote from: derspiess on August 17, 2012, 04:31:08 PM
I'm ashamed I'm not bothering to argue in this thread. But it's quittin' time on a Friday, so I'm going to get started with whatever the hell I'm doing this weekend...
Pretty sure we captured your opinion when you started the same thread in April.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 17, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
Having ID is pretty much required for taking part in modern society in so many ways beyond just voting, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
That is actually why it is a pretty clever move on the part of the Republicans. At first glance, it seems like such a perfectly reasonable position to take - after all, it doesn't seem all that onerous to ask someone to prove they are who they say they are when it comes time to cast a ballot, and really, who in the hell does not have ID anyway?
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 17, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
Having ID is pretty much required for taking part in modern society in so many ways beyond just voting, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
That is actually why it is a pretty clever move on the part of the Republicans. At first glance, it seems like such a perfectly reasonable position to take - after all, it doesn't seem all that onerous to ask someone to prove they are who they say they are when it comes time to cast a ballot, and really, who in the hell does not have ID anyway?
My experience has been that while urban residents are much more likely to not drive, and therefore not have driver's licenses, they mostly do have state-issued non-driver's IDs.
If you really want to cut down on voting fraud via IDs, don't require them to vote--require them to
register to vote.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 07:36:16 AM
There are more problems with fraudulent absentee balloting than voter impersonation: it just doesn't happen.
I read somewhere last week that there had only been a handful of voter impersonation charges in all the elections so far conducted in the US. The ID thing is a solution in search of a problem. The absentee ballot fraud issue is real, though; there have been documented cases of partisan election officials destroying thousands of absentee ballots.
Quote from: Strix on August 17, 2012, 03:32:08 PM
*yawn*
Your position is that the Republicans want a Voter ID to prevent masses of Democrat voters from casting ballots. Your strawmen is that the Republicans are backdooring the Democrats by creating a system that unfairly targets urban aka inner city people who usually vote largely for Democrats. You attempt to prop up this strawman with a fairy tale about the lack of proper ID that urban aka inner city people as compared to suburban dwellers. You than reinforce the strawman with a fallacy about people without licenses being unable to get to the DMV (or similar place) because they don't drive.
:moon:
:lmfao: You should probably find out what a strawman argument is before you use the term again.
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2012, 08:05:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 17, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
Having ID is pretty much required for taking part in modern society in so many ways beyond just voting, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
That is actually why it is a pretty clever move on the part of the Republicans. At first glance, it seems like such a perfectly reasonable position to take - after all, it doesn't seem all that onerous to ask someone to prove they are who they say they are when it comes time to cast a ballot, and really, who in the hell does not have ID anyway?
My experience has been that while urban residents are much more likely to not drive, and therefore not have driver's licenses, they mostly do have state-issued non-driver's IDs.
If you really want to cut down on voting fraud via IDs, don't require them to vote--require them to register to vote.
For Alaska you need one of the following to register.
Quote
If you are not already registered to vote in Alaska and you are initially registering to vote by mail, fax or email, please submit a copy of one of the below types of identification with your voter registration application:
current and valid photo identification;
driver's license;
passport;
state identification card; or
birth certificate.
Quote from: Tamas on August 17, 2012, 07:23:30 AM
I seriously admire the American take on this (and the British one, altough IIRC they do have voter cards?)
You don't need your polling card to vote though. There's almost no incidences of voter fraud. The one's that have come up in recent years have been through postal voting/absentee ballots.
My view is simple, if you have compulsory ID laws this is fine. If not, then it's not. Right now I've no valid ID.
Aside from that I agree with Berk and think it's a disgrace.
I got yelled at once by the old lady polling nazi for using 'Chris' instead of 'Christopher'. Damn old people.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2012, 06:52:33 PM
I got yelled at once by the old lady polling nazi for using 'Chris' instead of 'Christopher'. Damn old people.
You know, for a guy who's concerned about revealing private information on the net, you've been dropping your name a lot lately.
Chris is a pretty common name.
His name is Sulla anyway.
Quote from: PDH on August 18, 2012, 08:33:10 PM
His name is Sulla anyway.
You can call me Lucius.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2012, 06:51:20 PM
Aside from that I agree with Berk and think it's a disgrace.
I do have to commend the Republican Party in these specific swing states for their ability to maintain such a disciplined script. They do the Evil Mastermind thing very well.
I was watching an interview with Tom Brokaw the other morning, and he was saying how an election as tightly contested as this, it doesn't even come down to a handful of states, but a handful of specific counties within those states: 13 of them. The voter turnout in 13 specific counties spread over 4 states could very well determine the election.
That's why the Pennsylvanian voter ID law is going to be so impactful; with over three quarters of a million registered voters in Pennsylvania that are, as of this moment, no longer in compliance with proper ID, that will impact 20 electoral votes. In a race as tight as this, that may be all that's needed.
In Pennsylvania, you need your birth certificate to get a driver's license, but you need a driver's license to request a birth certificate--and you can only get a certified copy of your birth certificate in person in 6 offices; 6 offices in the entire state of Pennsylvania. Never mind the bullshit you've got to go through to get a birth certificate from the state you were born in. Wonderful plan they've designed, specifically to lock certain demographics out.
At least the ACLU, National Action, League of Women Voters and other civil rights groups have the ineligibility lists too, and are fanning out to make sure these people have the documentation they need to in order to vote.
Never figured that the civil rights movement would have to come back to the Union to get this shit done, from helping people get their birth certificates from other states to driving them to PennDOT locations. It's a fucking disgrace.
But it's 20 electoral votes for Mittens, and that's all that really matters.
Where'd you get 750,000 voters from?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 18, 2012, 08:59:12 PM
Where'd you get 750,000 voters from?
The motherfucking Commonwealth of motherfucking Pennsylvania. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CFIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portal.state.pa.us%2Fportal%2Fhttp%3B%2Fwww.portal.state.pa.us%3B80%2Fportal%2Fserver.pt%2Fgateway%2FPTARGS_0_879406_1265323_0_0_18%2Frls-DOS-VoterIDConfirm-070312%2520(2).pdf&ei=WEowUILfEKPL6wGL0IG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGCA4tjlPtaRfyGivIPoH9qmiS_LA)
QuoteThe Department of State announced July 3 there are roughly 758,000 registered voters statewide who do not appear on PennDOT's photo ID list, with some 98,000 of them in Allegheny County. On Monday, the AFL-CIO received another data set from the department that adds those with voters carrying PennDOT IDs that have expired since Nov. 6, 2011, rendering them invalid under the law for voting this fall: that number is 1.64 million statewide, with 218,000 in the state's second-largest county.
That would mean up to 25 percent of voters in the heavily Democratic county could be without acceptable licenses, and 33 percent of all its seniors. In Philadelphia, the number is 437,000, covering 43 percent of total voters and 48 percent of its seniors.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/expired-licenses-muddle-voter-id-numbers-646210/?print=1
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 08:53:47 AM
THe reason this is an issue in the states is that the Republicans have figured out that they can systemically remove huge numbers of voters from the voting pool by instituting these laws to force people to bring ID under the guise of combatting voter fraud.
It just so happens that the vast, vast majority of people who will end up NOT voting as a result of not having ID are in those demographics that heavily vote Democrat.
Absent any political agenda, I have no theoretical problem with insisting that people who vote prove they are who they say they are - sadly, this is not driven by any kind of actual concern about voter fraud (plenty of studies and common sense have shown that this simply is not a real issue in the US), but as a means to dis-enfranchise the poor and minorities.
It is as cynical and underhanded as politics gets, IMO.
That was my point in the OP - I don't think a measure is bad only because it inconveniences the lazy and the stupid, even if they happen to predominantly vote Democrat.
Is Berkut OK with not letting prisoners vote?
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2012, 02:57:39 AM
That was my point in the OP - I don't think a measure is bad only because it inconveniences the lazy and the stupid, even if they happen to predominantly vote Democrat.
That's why, when it comes to the law, nobody listens to you. Stick to your shitty eastern continentalism, at least you have a frame of reference.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 19, 2012, 04:08:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2012, 02:57:39 AM
That was my point in the OP - I don't think a measure is bad only because it inconveniences the lazy and the stupid, even if they happen to predominantly vote Democrat.
That's why, when it comes to the law, nobody listens to you. Stick to your shitty eastern continentalism, at least you have a frame of reference.
:yes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 19, 2012, 04:08:12 AM
That's why, when it comes to the law, nobody listens to you. Stick to your shitty eastern continentalism, at least you have a frame of reference.
I disagree with the implication that someone listens to Martinus when the issue isn't the law. His problem isn't "shitty eastern continentalism," it's that he is otnay ootay ightbray.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 08:53:47 AM
THe reason this is an issue in the states is that the Republicans have figured out that they can systemically remove huge numbers of voters from the voting pool by instituting these laws to force people to bring ID under the guise of combatting voter fraud.
It just so happens that the vast, vast majority of people who will end up NOT voting as a result of not having ID are in those demographics that heavily vote Democrat.
Absent any political agenda, I have no theoretical problem with insisting that people who vote prove they are who they say they are - sadly, this is not driven by any kind of actual concern about voter fraud (plenty of studies and common sense have shown that this simply is not a real issue in the US), but as a means to dis-enfranchise the poor and minorities.
It is as cynical and underhanded as politics gets, IMO.
Agreed 100% except I think it's fine, because I honestly feel like if you can't get your shit together enough to get some form of government issued ID I don't really want you voting either. What I find hilarious is the Democrats are making all kinds of crazy claims about how tons of poor people have absolutely no way to ever get to a DMV office so can never get ID, and when they get there they have no money whatsoever to pay for an ID. However virtually everywhere I've ever lived, DMV offices, even in rural counties that just have county-wide buses running a few times a day, have bus routes that go to a DMV office. Additionally, every State that has done voter ID to prevent it being a "poll tax" have stipulations on how the indigent can get free ID.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2012, 09:10:25 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2012, 09:03:12 AM
That's why dead people voting is relatively popular.
That is certainly the one example I have hear anecdotally, but if it is happening in significant numbers, it would seem like it would be pretty easy to detect, at least after the fact.
Simply cross check the voter lists of those who have voted against public death records.
Not really a good way to stop it (you likely cannot do it systemically with our current lack of records) but if you wanted to prove that voter fraud was actually happening, it should be pretty easy to investigate after the fact.
But nobody has done so - there is no study or report showing that in election X, there where Y examples of people voting who it turns out were dead.
Not if you're talking historically, after reconstruction tons of Southern politicians were elected after thousands of dead people voted for them. Another common tactic in the South was for white politicians to have most of the blacks vote for them, since blacks were routinely driven away from polling places via violence there was no real chance of the actual black voters showing up and trying to cast a vote that had already been cast for them. This is actually why Alabama, in an early 20th century constitution, outright prohibited black voting--the logic was it was a progressive move because it stopped whites from stealing votes from blacks.
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2012, 08:28:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 07:36:16 AM
There are more problems with fraudulent absentee balloting than voter impersonation: it just doesn't happen.
I read somewhere last week that there had only been a handful of voter impersonation charges in all the elections so far conducted in the US. The ID thing is a solution in search of a problem. The absentee ballot fraud issue is real, though; there have been documented cases of partisan election officials destroying thousands of absentee ballots.
There is a case working its way through the Federal courts I read about a few weeks ago in the WaPo about a very rural county in West Virginia where one of the county commissioners and the county sheriff were going door to door to "help" elderly residents fill out absentee ballots. In addition, I guess that was too much leg work so near election day they just filled out a bunch of absentee ballots for people and dropped them into the box. (Not that it matters, but these were Democrat officials.)
The county in question had elections that might have 900 votes going to the winner and 600 votes going to the loser, so with low numbers like that it's very easy to rig the elections that way.
This (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/west-virginia-sheriff-fal_n_1242248.html) was the case I was talking about:
QuoteBy Steven Adams
CHARLESTON, W.V., Jan 30 (Reuters) - A West Virginia sheriff pleaded guilty to voter fraud in the state's 2010 primary election including illegally filling in some absentee ballots out of fear he might lose a close election, authorities said on Monday.
Lincoln County, West Virginia Sheriff Jerry Bowman admitted falsifying absentee ballots in a case stemming from an investigation by federal authorities, the U.S. Attorney's office said.
Also pleading guilty to lying to investigators was Lincoln County Clerk Donald Whitten, the U.S. Attorney said.
"I want the case to send a simple message: you cannot steal election in southern West Virginia," said U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin. "Honest elections are worth fighting for."
Bowman, 58, admitted falsifying more than 100 absentee ballots, was illegally in the same room as voters marking absentee ballots and sometimes marked the ballots himself, authorities said.
He was running for circuit clerk at the time and concerned about a close election, court documents said.
Bowman appeared to have won the primary but about 200 contested absentee ballots were later thrown out, making incumbent Circuit Clerk Charles Brumfield the victor.
Whitten, 62, admitted to making a false statement about his roll in the conspiracy, in which he provided absentee ballots. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Both men, who are Democrats, also agreed to resign from office and never seek office again.
The pair also agreed to cooperate as the U.S. Attorney's office and West Virginia Secretary of State continue their investigation into the southern West Virginia elections.
Neither man has been arraigned yet.
Several years ago, Lincoln County's Circuit Clerk and Assessor were convicted of felonies for vote buying after tampering with the 2004 Democratic primary. That same assessor, Jerry Weaver, is running for sheriff, despite being a felon.
Absentee ballots as opposed to voter impersonation at the polling place. Yeah, Voter ID requirements will certainly address those concerns. Damned West Virginny Democrats.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 19, 2012, 09:40:30 AM
Absentee ballots as opposed to voter impersonation at the polling place. Yeah, Voter ID requirements will certainly address those concerns. Damned West Virginny Democrats.
Right, it has nothing to do with voter ID.
But West Virginia is basically a hell hole, it's like driving in a time machine back to the South in the 1970s or so. Great hunting though. And if you own property in western VA that abuts the state line, you can easily take deer on the West Virginia side and bring them back to Virginia without having to tag them in West Virginia or pay for the expensive West Virginia out of state hunting license. :whistle:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 19, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
But West Virginia is basically a hell hole, it's like driving in a time machine back to the South in the 1970s or so. Great hunting though. And if you own property in western VA that abuts the state line, you can easily take deer on the West Virginia side and bring them back to Virginia without having to tag them in West Virginia or pay for the expensive West Virginia out of state hunting license. :whistle:
Considering how there are still ways you can drive from Huntington to Charleston without ever getting onto a paved road, I don't doubt it.
Everything south and west of Clarksburg, with the exception of Kanawha County, is the Wild West with trees.
Oregon doesn't have polling places anymore, everything is vote by mail.
A few weeks before the election the Block Supervisor stops by every apartment and you tell him how you vote and he notes it on his list. At election day he goes to the polling station and delivers the list to the local Election Leader. It's pretty efficient.
Forget needing a physical ID, just use our SSNs.
Problem solved. Unless someone steals your SSN.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 19, 2012, 06:29:24 PM
Forget needing a physical ID, just use our SSNs.
Problem solved. Unless someone steals your SSN.
Not everyone has a sub.
Quote from: PDH on August 19, 2012, 07:01:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 19, 2012, 06:29:24 PM
Forget needing a physical ID, just use our SSNs.
Problem solved. Unless someone steals your SSN.
Not everyone has a sub.
Not to mention the SSBNs thinking they're vote should count more. :mad:
If I had an SSBN, I can assure you that you would no longer need worry about the registration of voters.
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
You could wear your best heels and matching handbag.
Guys, I know all the "arguments" against the voter ID requirement - I watch the Daily Show. The thing is, they are just not convincing. The fact that voting fraud is so rare is not a good argument, really - I find it surprising but in itself it's as good an argument as the one saying you shouldn't get health insurance if you have never been sick before. And the inconvenience for the too stupid or too lazy to get a free ID card is not really convincing either.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
Guys, I know all the "arguments" against the voter ID requirement - I watch the Daily Show. The thing is, they are just not convincing. The fact that voting fraud is so rare is not a good argument, really - I find it surprising but in itself it's as good an argument as the one saying you shouldn't get health insurance if you have never been sick before. And the inconvenience for the too stupid or too lazy to get a free ID card is not really convincing either.
Who cares?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
You could wear your best heels and matching handbag.
No handbag. :(
I'd love to get one of those church lady hats though.
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
Guys, I know all the "arguments" against the voter ID requirement - I watch the Daily Show. The thing is, they are just not convincing. The fact that voting fraud is so rare is not a good argument, really - I find it surprising but in itself it's as good an argument as the one saying you shouldn't get health insurance if you have never been sick before. And the inconvenience for the too stupid or too lazy to get a free ID card is not really convincing either.
The vast majority of the civil rights organizations fully support voter ID card initiatives, believe it or not, and they have since the 1960s; hell, a lot of the southern states have enacted voter ID laws since 2011 have done so with several years' run-up, preparation and education. Nobody has a problem with that. However, some of these recent legislative initiatives are designed to impact this year's election in a real fucking hurry, designed specifically to cause havoc and administrative nightmares for voters, and that's where the problem is.
Too stupid or lazy to get a free ID card? The fact that this nation does not, nor has it ever, required anybody to have an "ID card" shows how fucked up you eastern Europeans think. Now, I know your concept of democracy is less than a generation old, and you fucking eastern bloc retards can be forgiven for knowing very little about it, so we'll just go ahead and ignore your Jew-hating opinions.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
You could wear your best heels and matching handbag.
No handbag. :(
I'd love to get one of those church lady hats though.
I'd have mentioned it, but I figured you had one already. :P Modestly wide brim, with a fall bouquet. Understated for the season.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
Guys, I know all the "arguments" against the voter ID requirement - I watch the Daily Show. The thing is, they are just not convincing. The fact that voting fraud is so rare is not a good argument, really - I find it surprising but in itself it's as good an argument as the one saying you shouldn't get health insurance if you have never been sick before. And the inconvenience for the too stupid or too lazy to get a free ID card is not really convincing either.
The vast majority of the civil rights organizations fully support voter ID card initiatives, believe it or not, and they have since the 1960s; hell, a lot of the southern states have enacted voter ID laws since 2011 have done so with several years' run-up, preparation and education. Nobody has a problem with that. However, some of these recent legislative initiatives are designed to impact this year's election in a real fucking hurry, designed specifically to cause havoc and administrative nightmares for voters, and that's where the problem is.
Too stupid or lazy to get a free ID card? The fact that this nation does not, nor has it ever, required anybody to have an "ID card" shows how fucked up you eastern Europeans think. Now, I know your concept of democracy is less than a generation old, and you fucking eastern bloc retards can be forgiven for knowing very little about it, so we'll just go ahead and ignore your Jew-hating opinions.
Hey now, he watches the Daily Show. He is well informed on everything.
If nothing else this thread shows how tenuous democratic principles are in former communist countries.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:22:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
You could wear your best heels and matching handbag.
No handbag. :(
I'd love to get one of those church lady hats though.
I'd have mentioned it, but I figured you had one already. :P Modestly wide brim, with a fall bouquet. Understated for the season.
No, I've only a small hat with black netting to cover part of the face. :(
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:32:34 AM
No, I've only a small hat with black netting to cover part of the face. :(
Well, you always need one for a funeral.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 09:29:54 AM
If nothing else this thread shows how tenuous democratic principles are in former communist countries.
Or former capitalist countries, for that matter. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:22:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:15:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:08:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
Got a letter on Saturday asking me to apply to be a election day poll worker.
You could wear your best heels and matching handbag.
No handbag. :(
I'd love to get one of those church lady hats though.
I'd have mentioned it, but I figured you had one already. :P Modestly wide brim, with a fall bouquet. Understated for the season.
Bullshit, grabon needs to go full Frederica Wilson.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehayride.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Ffrederica-wilson.jpg&hash=316dddf19d71bb03aed1961003f23f9daf377685)
Do we really need to point out that getting health insurance, which is something that a private individual does to protect themselves against a risk, is not really similar to passing laws, which is something society does in order to protect individuals from other individuals?
I hesitate to say this may be your worst analogy yet, but only because that just seems like a challenge to you to come up with something even more missing the point next time.
It is a law that does not address a problem - well, at least it doesn't address a problem that those who are passing it are using to jsutify it - it DOES address the problem of Democrats getting elected more than the Republicans would like.
The intent of those passing the law is simply to keep people they don't want to vote from voting. Pointing out that people can get around that intent doesn't make the law any more justified. Pointing out that people are stupid and lazy doesn't either - stupid and lazy people are not barred from voting, last I checked.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 09:29:54 AM
If nothing else this thread shows how tenuous democratic principles are in former communist countries.
Considering these laws are being passed right here in the USA, I don't think we should work too hard trying to feel superior.
Of course, this is just example 45,876 that even people who claim to understand and respect liberty mostly do not.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 09:44:43 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehayride.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Ffrederica-wilson.jpg&hash=316dddf19d71bb03aed1961003f23f9daf377685)
No, a cowboy hat would be inappropriate.
Dunno, garbon is for me more like
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrendrabbit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FChris_Tucker_Fifth_Element.jpg&hash=1612442807ece47d7b8c8bf7c8b9cb92ca3eef43)
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 09:29:54 AM
If nothing else this thread shows how tenuous democratic principles are in former communist countries.
Considering these laws are being passed right here in the USA, I don't think we should work too hard trying to feel superior.
Of course, this is just example 45,876 that even people who claim to understand and respect liberty mostly do not.
The fact that these laws are being passed in the US does not at all diminish my ability to feel superior. Quite the opposite actually. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 10:26:25 AM
The fact that these laws are being passed in the US does not at all diminish my ability to feel superior.
Women's Olympic soccer, however, seems to be the magic bullet :lol:
Abby Wambach scored that penalty shot fair and square!
Calling a spade a spade.
QuoteA top Ohio Republican Sunday stood by his comment that the state's voting procedures shouldn't be "contort[ed] to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine."
In an interview with BuzzFeed, Franklin County GOP Chairman Doug Preisse, a close ally of Governor John Kasich, said his comment — which provoked Democratic outrage — was simply straight talk.
Democrats "are trying to say that I had somehow consciously constrained hours for that purpose," Preisse said. "No, I am saying the opposite, that I am asking the question, and I am indeed questioning how far this process of democratic, small 'd', democratic voting process should be contorted to favor a political operation. I don't think we should go overboard in doing that."
Preisse's comment to today's Columbus Dispatch were taken as a smoking gun by Democrats and progressives, who said — as one liberal Ohio blogger wrote — that Preisse had acknowledged an effort to "suppress black voters."
Preisse scoffed at the criticism, telling BuzzFeed of a disputed voting plan put forth by Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, "I believe it should be easy to vote, and I believe that under this plan it is.
"I believe that Republicans and Democrats of good will can have a difference of opinion, an honest difference of opinion here, but I also believe that there is no question that the forces of Obama and the other side of the aisle would love to just throw the barn doors open and have 24-hour voting and just go too far in the other direction," Preisse said. "It seems to me we can have a reasonable discussion about this."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 20, 2012, 09:12:31 AM
Guys, I know all the "arguments" against the voter ID requirement - I watch the Daily Show. The thing is, they are just not convincing. The fact that voting fraud is so rare is not a good argument, really - I find it surprising but in itself it's as good an argument as the one saying you shouldn't get health insurance if you have never been sick before. And the inconvenience for the too stupid or too lazy to get a free ID card is not really convincing either.
The vast majority of the civil rights organizations fully support voter ID card initiatives, believe it or not, and they have since the 1960s; hell, a lot of the southern states have enacted voter ID laws since 2011 have done so with several years' run-up, preparation and education. Nobody has a problem with that. However, some of these recent legislative initiatives are designed to impact this year's election in a real fucking hurry, designed specifically to cause havoc and administrative nightmares for voters, and that's where the problem is.
Too stupid or lazy to get a free ID card? The fact that this nation does not, nor has it ever, required anybody to have an "ID card" shows how fucked up you eastern Europeans think. Now, I know your concept of democracy is less than a generation old, and you fucking eastern bloc retards can be forgiven for knowing very little about it, so we'll just go ahead and ignore your Jew-hating opinions.
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:07:04 AM
Dunno, garbon is for me more like
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrendrabbit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FChris_Tucker_Fifth_Element.jpg&hash=1612442807ece47d7b8c8bf7c8b9cb92ca3eef43)
Exactly my image.
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Well, Tamas can post too. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Well, Tamas can post too. :hmm:
:(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Well, Tamas can post too. :hmm:
Is that supposed to be a counterpoint? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 09:13:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Well, Tamas can post too. :hmm:
Is that supposed to be a counterpoint? :huh:
Are counterpoints generally punctuated with smilies showing uncertainty?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 09:15:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2012, 09:13:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 20, 2012, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:51:01 PM
We exterminated cities full of Nazis and expended around 15% of our GDP every year over half a century, and our grand achievement is that Martinus can post on the Internet.
Well, Tamas can post too. :hmm:
Is that supposed to be a counterpoint? :huh:
Are counterpoints generally punctuated with smilies showing uncertainty?
:hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2012, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 10:26:25 AM
The fact that these laws are being passed in the US does not at all diminish my ability to feel superior.
Women's Olympic soccer, however, seems to be the magic bullet :lol:
If the price of living a real democracy means I have to put up with you banana republics cheating at the Olympics then so be it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2012, 10:49:38 PM
If the price of living a real democracy means I have to put up with you banana republics cheating at the Olympics then so be it.
:rolleyes: You're saying that a referee from a socialist petro state would conspire in favor Americans over Canadians? Seriously?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Try checking out a movie called The Terminator.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:25:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Try checking out a movie called The Terminator.
Is that the one where George Clooney goes around firing people?
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:25:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Try checking out a movie called The Terminator.
I always thought it was a Clockwork Orange reference. to rabit = работать = to work.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 20, 2012, 10:07:04 AM
Dunno, garbon is for me more like
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrendrabbit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FChris_Tucker_Fifth_Element.jpg&hash=1612442807ece47d7b8c8bf7c8b9cb92ca3eef43)
Exactly my image.
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Don't see garbon that way. I see him as urbane, cold, and callous. He's everything that Marty wants to be but laughably fails at.
Quote from: Syt on August 21, 2012, 12:23:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 11:25:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2012, 08:52:47 PM
What the hell is "rabbiting"?
Try checking out a movie called The Terminator.
I always thought it was a Clockwork Orange reference. to rabit = работать = to work.
You thought wrong
It happens. Unlike some other posters I don't mind admitting it, though.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
Ok, so apparently some US states are now passing a law that you need to have an ID to vote.
And that's controversial. Because apparently the stupid and the lazy (who strangely enough in this case tend to vote Democrat) do not have an ID.
Martinus's most convoluted and elaborate solution: GET A FUCKING ID.
Is there something I'm missing here? :huh:
I agree with you.
It would be unthinkable to live in Israel without an ID.
Quote from: Siege on August 21, 2012, 07:16:48 PM
It would be unthinkable to live in Israel without an ID.
You people are used to wearing too much flair.
Nah, is that half of us look like arabs, and without the ID....
QuoteTexas voter ID law is blocked
A federal court on Thursday blocked a controversial new voter ID law in Texas, ruling that the state failed to show that the law would not harm the voting rights of minorities.
The three-judge panel in the historic case said that evidence also showed that costs of obtaining a voter ID would fall most heavily on poor African Americans and Hispanics in Texas.
Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was "unpersuasive, invalid, or both," wrote David. S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in the panel's 56-page opinion.
The ruling will likely have political implications in the coming elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether increasingly tough voter ID laws discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.
Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott said that the state will appeal Thursday's ruling to the Supreme Court, which is the next stop in a voting rights case.
"Today's decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are employed by Georgia and Indiana — and were upheld by the Supreme Court," Abbott said in a statement.
Texas is the largest state covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires federal approval or "preclearance" of any voting changes in states that have a history of discrimination. Because of Texas's discrimination history, the voter ID law signed last year by its Republican governor, Rick Perry, had to be cleared by the Justice Department. The department blocked the law in March, saying it would endanger minority voting rights. Texas sued the department, leading to a week-long trial in July.
Tatel was joined in the Texas decision by U.S. district judges Rosemary Collyer, appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush and Robert L. Wilkins, who was nominated in 2010 by President Obama.
Earlier this week, a separate three-judge panel in Washington threw out Texas's redistricting plans saying the maps drawn by the Republican-led legislature undermined the political clout of minorities who are responsible for the state's population growth.
The Obama administration opposed both laws because it says they threaten to disenfranchise millions of Latino and African American voters.
The challenges are part of an escalating national legal battle over voter ID laws that has become more intense because it is an election year. Eight states passed voter ID laws last year, and critics say the new statutes could hurt turnout among minority voters and others, many of whom helped elect Obama in 2008. But supporters of the measures — seven of which were signed by Republican governors and one by an independent — say that requiring voters to show specific photo IDs would prevent voter fraud.
Republican lawmakers have argued that the voter ID law is needed to clean up voter rolls, which they say are filled with the names of illegal immigrants, ineligible felons and the deceased. Texas, they argue, is asking for no more identification than people need to board an airplane, get a library card or enter many government buildings.
In a courtroom just down the hallway from where judges heard arguments over the Texas voter ID statute, lawyers for the Justice Department and South Carolina are squaring off this week over a similar measure passed by the state's legislature last year.
The Justice Department rejected the South Carolina voter ID law in December, the first time that a voting law was refused clearance by Justice in nearly 20 years. South Carolina sued the government to overturn the decision.
The law would require South Carolina voters to show one of five forms of photo identification to be permitted to cast a ballot: a state driver's license, an ID card issued by the state's department of motor vehicles, a U.S. military ID, a passport, or a new form of free photo ID issued by county election officials. Lawyers for South Carolina say the law was needed to prevent election fraud and to "enhance public confidence in the integrity of the law."
"No one disputes that a state must have a system for identifying eligible registered voters who present themselves to vote," Chris Bartolomucci, a lawyer for South Carolina, told the three-judge panel on Monday. "That is just common sense."
The Justice Department and attorneys representing civil rights groups, including the NAACP and ACLU, countered in court that the law did discriminate against minority voters and cannot pass muster under the Voting Rights Act.
"A disproportionate number of those individuals are members of racial minority groups," said Bradley Heard, a Justice Department lawyer, in describing how the law would affect South Carolina voters.
Last month, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. gave a speech in Texas and referred to voter ID laws as "poll taxes," referring to fees in some states in the South that were used to disenfranchise blacks during the Jim Crow era. Under the Texas law, the minimum cost to obtain a voter ID for a Texas resident without a copy of his birth certificate would be $22, according to the Justice Department.
Yeah, how the fuck can you live in the US without an ID?
I got my military ID (CAC card), my driver license, and my social security card, which I don't think counts as an ID.
I mean, how can you not have a driver license?
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Yeah, how the fuck can you live in the US without an ID?
Easy. Don't need one.
QuoteI mean, how can you not have a driver license?
If you don't drive, why should you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:02:18 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Yeah, how the fuck can you live in the US without an ID?
Easy. Don't need one.
QuoteI mean, how can you not have a driver license?
If you don't drive, why should you?
Employers have to fill out an I-9 for every newly-hired employee. If you don't have a passport (and few Americans do), then to establish your identity, while there are are a few other acceptable documents, a drivers license or state-issued non-drivers ID are the most common. So you need an ID just to get a job.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 09:06:26 PM
Employers have to fill out an I-9 for every newly-hired employee. If you don't have a passport (and few Americans do), then to establish your identity, while there are are a few other acceptable documents, a drivers license or state-issued non-drivers ID are the most common. So you need an ID just to get a job.
Yeah, there are quite a few other acceptable documents, so an ID isn't mandatory. A voter registration card and a SSN card are not IDs.
I'm pretty sure I've gotten a job without showing a picture ID before.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:13:16 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 09:06:26 PM
Employers have to fill out an I-9 for every newly-hired employee. If you don't have a passport (and few Americans do), then to establish your identity, while there are are a few other acceptable documents, a drivers license or state-issued non-drivers ID are the most common. So you need an ID just to get a job.
Yeah, there are quite a few other acceptable documents, so an ID isn't mandatory. A voter registration card and a SSN card are not IDs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:13:16 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 09:06:26 PM
Employers have to fill out an I-9 for every newly-hired employee. If you don't have a passport (and few Americans do), then to establish your identity, while there are are a few other acceptable documents, a drivers license or state-issued non-drivers ID are the most common. So you need an ID just to get a job.
Yeah, there are quite a few other acceptable documents, so an ID isn't mandatory. A voter registration card and a SSN card are not IDs.
A voter registration card or SS card doesn't establish ID. To get a job legally, you have to establish both that you are who you claim to be, and that you have a legal right to be employed in the US. A US passport does both, as does a green card if you're a legal alien. If you have either of those, the information goes in column A of the I-9, and you don't need any other documents.
If you don't have a document that gets recorded in column A, then you need 2 separate documents. A voter registration card or a SS card will establish that you can be legally employed, but not your identity--as you say, they're not IDs. Information from them goes in column C of the I-9. You also need a document that gets recorded in column B--one that establishes your identity. As I mentioned, there are other forms of ID that are acceptable on an I-9, but a driver's license or state-issued non-driver's ID are by far the most commonly used.
(I may have gotten what information goes in column B and what goes in column C reversed--it's been a while since I've filled out an I-9.)
Quote from: IdeologueI'm pretty sure I've gotten a job without showing a picture ID before.
If you did, then your employer didn't follow the legal requirements to hire you, which frankly wouldn't shock me. During the time that I was involved in making hiring decisions and in making sure that personnel paperwork was filled out and maintained properly, it was pretty clear that a lot of my fellow managers either didn't understand how the I-9s were supposed to be filled out, were too lazy to be bothered to fill them out correctly, or just didn't give a shit. During the time I was with Magic Mart, it wasn't too bad, because a copy of the I-9 went to the home office along with the other new hire paperwork, so if we didn't fill them out right at the store, we heard about it. But with Burger King, the I-9s were kept on file at the store, and didn't go into the home office with the W-4s and other paperwork, so it was a lot easier for some of my more useless co-workers to be lazy, stupid shits when it came to filling them out.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 09:44:15 PM
If you don't have a document that gets recorded in column A, then you need 2 separate documents. A voter registration card or a SS card will establish that you can be legally employed, but not your identity--as you say, they're not IDs. Information from them goes in column C of the I-9. You also need a document that gets recorded in column B--one that establishes your identity. As I mentioned, there are other forms of ID that are acceptable on an I-9, but a driver's license or state-issued non-driver's ID are by far the most commonly used
Right. And an I-9, which is the doc you insist on using as an example of required ID, simply establishes that you can be legally employed. It's not a document used to establish your identity. So what if they're commonly fucking used? It's still not fucking mandatory.
The Voter registration card is good for Column B, and the SSN card is good for Column C. Congrats, you are now employed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 09:52:24 PM
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2012, 09:44:15 PM
If you don't have a document that gets recorded in column A, then you need 2 separate documents. A voter registration card or a SS card will establish that you can be legally employed, but not your identity--as you say, they're not IDs. Information from them goes in column C of the I-9. You also need a document that gets recorded in column B--one that establishes your identity. As I mentioned, there are other forms of ID that are acceptable on an I-9, but a driver's license or state-issued non-driver's ID are by far the most commonly used
Right. And an I-9, which is the doc you insist on using as an example of required ID, simply establishes that you can be legally employed. It's not a document used to establish your identity. So what if they're commonly fucking used? It's still not fucking mandatory.
The Voter registration card is good for Column B, and the SSN card is good for Column C. Congrats, you are now employed.
Like I said, it's been a while, so I double-checked, and you're right. The voter registration card can be used to establish identity--as you said, it goes in column B, not column C. Which is stupid, because, as you and I agree, it's not an ID, but oh well.
Don't worry; way things are going, we'll all be barcoded eventually.
Oh shit, Deeps, I remember now. I had to fill out my own I-9 for my current gig, and get it notarized, and I remember having to explain at length the column system because the idiot employee kept telling me I needed a column A document in addition to my driver's license and SS card for him to seal it, so I could mail it off to Boston. I politely kept myself from going home, getting my passport, and shoving it up his ass.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 30, 2012, 10:08:34 PM
Oh shit, Deeps, I remember now. I had to fill out my own I-9 for my current gig, and get it notarized, and I remember having to explain at length the column system because the idiot employee kept telling me I needed a column A document in addition to my driver's license and SS card for him to seal it, so I could mail it off to Boston. I politely kept myself from going home, getting my passport, and shoving it up his ass.
Yeah, thinking that a new hire needed a document from column A as well as one from both column B and C is a common mistake. Another is to think that instead of one from column B and one from column C, 2 different documents from the same column is OK.
Whenever I'd offer someone a job and they accepted, I'd tell them when to report to start and tell them to bring their SS Card and driver's license. If they said they didn't have one or the other, I'd ask, "Uhm, do you have a passport?" and when they told me that they didn't (I think only 1 person in the 20-some years I was involved in hiring ever didn't have both a SS Card and driver's license but
did have a passport) then I'd start reading from the list of acceptable documents (which is printed right on the back of the I-9) and asking if they had any of them.
I can't recall anybody ever not having a column B document of some kind, but a few times I ran across someone who somehow didn't have a SS Card or any other column C document. Usually it was someone who had lost their SS Card and hadn't bothered to get a replacement (which was a problem if I needed someone to start right away because technically the I-9 has to be filled out within 72 hours, and it can take a week or so to get a replacement SS Card) but once or twice I had someone who had somehow managed to slip through the cracks in the system and had never had a SS Card.
What is the point though dps?
The fact that you have to establish identity to get a job has nothing to do with voting. I don't think the US Constitution includes "must be employable" as a voting requirement.
The entire argument based on "Hey, it isn't hard to get ID/everyone should have one anyway" is irrelevant. The point of these laws is simply to keep some people who Republicans know tend to vote Democrat from voting. Pointing out that the law can be complied with, or that people too lazy to get an ID are SOL misses the point.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 11:19:47 PM
What is the point though dps?
The fact that you have to establish identity to get a job has nothing to do with voting. I don't think the US Constitution includes "must be employable" as a voting requirement.
No, it doesn't really have anything to do with voting--it was a response to the question of why have a DL if you don't drive. Which, if you don't drive, there is no reason to have. OTOH, if you don't drive, a state-issue non-driver's ID is a good thing to have.
As far as the voting part, I think all the Americans here are pretty much in agreement that voter impersonation isn't really a problem when it comes to voting fraud.
Quote from: Berkut on August 30, 2012, 11:19:47 PM
What is the point though dps?
The fact that you have to establish identity to get a job has nothing to do with voting. I don't think the US Constitution includes "must be employable" as a voting requirement.
The entire argument based on "Hey, it isn't hard to get ID/everyone should have one anyway" is irrelevant. The point of these laws is simply to keep some people who Republicans know tend to vote Democrat from voting. Pointing out that the law can be complied with, or that people too lazy to get an ID are SOL misses the point.
Since when ar uo a demoncrt?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2012, 12:40:56 AM
Don't see garbon that way. I see him as urbane, cold, and callous. He's everything that Marty wants to be but laughably fails at.
I'm not sure whether I should be happy or sad. Also, I'm not nearly as unfeeling as I'm made out to be. :Embarrass:
Can we talk about passports? How dreadful is it that you either have to spend the fee and then wait to get a copy of your birth certificate (which in living memory I know of individuals who didn't really have proper ones / didn't even know their exact age) or pay an extra $145 to have the passport agency verify your citizenship?
Getting a passport is a breeze in civilized countries.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Can we talk about passports? How dreadful is it that you either have to spend the fee and then wait to get a copy of your birth certificate (which in living memory I know of individuals who didn't really have proper ones / didn't even know their exact age) or pay an extra $145 to have the passport agency verify your citizenship?
I'm reasonably sure that there are still living people in the US who don't have proper birth certificates. I haven't been able to find out exactly when the registration of all live births became legally required everywhere in the US (sources vary), but it certainly wasn't before 1930, and there are still plenty of people 82+ around. And beyond that, just because it's legally required doesn't mean that it's always actually done in practice. And then there are people who lose their birth certificates, and when they go to get a copy, find out that all the birth records in the county they were born in were lost when the county courthouse burnt down 7 years ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 10:00:51 PM
Don't worry; way things are going, we'll all be barcoded eventually.
MARK OF THE BEAST.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 02:48:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Can we talk about passports? How dreadful is it that you either have to spend the fee and then wait to get a copy of your birth certificate (which in living memory I know of individuals who didn't really have proper ones / didn't even know their exact age) or pay an extra $145 to have the passport agency verify your citizenship?
I'm reasonably sure that there are still living people in the US who don't have proper birth certificates. I haven't been able to find out exactly when the registration of all live births became legally required everywhere in the US (sources vary), but it certainly wasn't before 1930, and there are still plenty of people 82+ around. And beyond that, just because it's legally required doesn't mean that it's always actually done in practice. And then there are people who lose their birth certificates, and when they go to get a copy, find out that all the birth records in the county they were born in were lost when the county courthouse burnt down 7 years ago.
Yeah I just wasn't sure about now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2012, 07:11:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2012, 10:00:51 PM
Don't worry; way things are going, we'll all be barcoded eventually.
MARK OF THE BEAST.
I was thinking more along the lines of purchasing preferences, but yeah, that works too.
I'd hate to see my purchases in a database. RPG's and the Hustler store.
YOUR MOVE MARKETING DEPARTMENT.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Can we talk about passports? How dreadful is it that you either have to spend the fee and then wait to get a copy of your birth certificate (which in living memory I know of individuals who didn't really have proper ones / didn't even know their exact age) or pay an extra $145 to have the passport agency verify your citizenship?
Took me about fifteen minutes to get my birth certificate.
And State even gave it back when they were done. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on August 31, 2012, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Can we talk about passports? How dreadful is it that you either have to spend the fee and then wait to get a copy of your birth certificate (which in living memory I know of individuals who didn't really have proper ones / didn't even know their exact age) or pay an extra $145 to have the passport agency verify your citizenship?
Took me about fifteen minutes to get my birth certificate.
And State even gave it back when they were done. :P
California said they'd mail in 4 weeks. Thankfully one was on hand, I just had to get it from my mother.
Quote from: The Brain on August 31, 2012, 12:52:48 AM
Getting a passport is a breeze in civilized countries.
No shit, I got mine earlier this month in 20 minutes tops.
Another state, another judge, another victory for democracy.
QuoteOhio Early Voting Ruling: Court Orders State To Restore 3 Days Of Voting Before Election Day
A federal judge sided with the Obama campaign and ruled Friday to order Ohio to restore three days of early voting before Election Day, a decision that could affect the outcome of the 2012 election in a key battleground state.
Judge Peter C. Economus of the Southern District Court of Ohio granted an injunction in favor of Obama For America, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party, which sued Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to restore in-person voting in the last weekend before the election.
"On balance, the right of Ohio voters to vote in person during the last three days prior to Election Day -- a right previously conferred to all voters by the State -- outweighs the State's interest in setting the 6 p.m. Friday deadline," ruled the court. "The burden on Ohio voters' right to participate in the national and statewide election is great, as evidenced by the statistical analysis offered by Plaintiffs and not disputed by Defendants. Moreover, the State fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA [Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act] voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."
The dispute over military voting spilled into the presidential campaign earlier this month, when the Mitt Romney campaign falsely accused the Obama campaign of trying to curtail rights for military voters, characterizing the lawsuit as an "outrage" and an effort to deprive military voters of extra days to vote.
The Obama campaign lawsuit seeks to expand the voting period for all voters, not to deprive military voters of that opportunity. The judge sided with the Obama camp, calling the early voting restrictions "arbitrary."
The Romney campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After a chaotic 2004 election, Ohio passed a law allowing early in-person voting on the weekend before the election. In 2008, some 93,000 Ohioans cast votes in that period. Those who did so were more likely to be African-American. A study by Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates found blacks accounted for 56 percent of all in-person early votes in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, while they accounted for 26 percent of votes overall. In Franklin County, which includes Columbus, African Americans cast 31 percent of early votes and 21 percent of votes overall.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs would suffer "irreparable injury" if early voting was not restored in the three days before election day. The judge also noted the plaintiffs' statistical evidence that low-income and minority voters would be disproportionately affected, which the defense did not counter.
Early voting was curtailed in 2011, when Ohio passed H.B. 194, cutting the number of early voting days and disallowing weekend voting except for military voters. (Subsequent legislative actions have left the weekend voting restrictions in place.) Husted ordered all Ohio counties to allow early voting during weekdays until 7 p.m. in the last two days before the election, but not over the preceding weekend. All voters were given the option of sending in an absentee ballot.
The Ohio Secretary of State's office said it was still reviewing the decision, and the Obama campaign has said that it intends to issue a statement.
University of California of Irvine Professor Rick Hasen wrote on his blog that the case could wind up before the Supreme Court.
QuoteJudge blocks Pennsylvania voter ID law
By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer
A Pennsylvania judge has blocked enforcement of the voter identification law which the legislature enacted and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed last year, meaning the law will not be in effect for the Nov. 6 election.
Judge Robert Simpson said even with the streamlined procedures that state officials proposed to make it easier for voters without ID cards to obtain them, "the proposed changes are to occur about five weeks before the general election, and I question whether sufficient time now remains to attain the goal of liberal access" to ID cards.
He said, "I expected more photo IDs to have been issued by this time. For this reason, I accept Petitioners' argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed."
:thumbsup:
Was watching the coverage, judge pretty much said--and I what I've been saying all along--is that while there is nothing wrong with Voter ID requirements, there's no compelling need to rush to get it done for this specific election.
Postponed to 2013
QuotePennsylvania voter ID law enforcement halted by judge
A Pennsylvania judge Tuesday ordered state officials not to enforce the commonwealth's tough new voter ID law in the coming election, saying there was not enough time to ensure that some voters would not be disenfranchised.
Commonwealth Court Robert Simpson said elections officials could still ask voters for a photo ID, but not turn away otherwise qualified voters who had not been able to obtain one.
Simpson said he was effectively extending a "soft run" of the new law envisioned by the General Assembly. In such cases, Simpson wrote, "an otherwise qualified elector who does not provide proof of identification may cast a ballot that shall be counted without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot."
Simpson's decision that those voters do not have to cast a provisional ballot "is what makes this so significant and why we think it's a real victory," said Penda Hair of Advancement Project, one of the groups that challenged the new law.
An appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is possible. That court ordered Simpson, who had earlier declared the law constitutional and said it could go into effect this fall, to again review the state's revamped procedures for providing photo IDs for those who lack them.
"I cannot conclude the proposed changes cure the deficiency in liberal access [to voting] identified by the Supreme Court," Simpson wrote.
The issue of voter IDs have sharply divided Republicans and Democrats nationally, and the battle was especially intense in Pennsylvania, which is one of the states most hotly contested in the presidential election.
Republicans, suspicious of alleged illegalities in the Philadelphia area, passed the new law without a single Democratic vote. They said it would ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
Democrats said it was simply an attempt to discourage the vote among the poor and other groups likely to vote Democratic, who are more likely to lack the kinds of specific, government-issued photo IDs the law requires.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
Another state, another judge, another victory for Democrats.
Be honest.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
Another state, another judge, another victory for Democrats.
Be honest.
Wait. So are you saying that Republicans aren't for democracy? I mean, I knew that was the case when it came to this particular item, but it appears that you're claiming it in totality. Care to clarify?
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 11:32:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
Another state, another judge, another victory for Democrats.
Be honest.
Now, now...don't be hatin', Governor Wallace.
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2012, 11:46:27 AM
So are you saying that Republicans aren't for democracy?
How the hell do you get this? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2012, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2012, 11:46:27 AM
So are you saying that Republicans aren't for democracy?
How the hell do you get this? :huh:
Pretty easy. Take both CDM and Derspiess's statements at face value.
QuoteEditorial
Voter Harassment, Circa 2012
The New York Times
This is how voter intimidation worked in 1966: White teenagers in Americus, Ga., harassed black citizens in line to vote, and the police refused to intervene. Black plantation workers in Mississippi had to vote in plantation stores, overseen by their bosses. Black voters in Choctaw County, Ala., had to hand their ballots directly to white election officials for inspection.
This is how it works today: In an ostensible hunt for voter fraud, a Tea Party group, True the Vote, descends on a largely minority precinct and combs the registration records for the slightest misspelling or address error. It uses this information to challenge voters at the polls, and though almost every challenge is baseless, the arguments and delays frustrate those in line and reduce turnout.
The thing that's different from the days of overt discrimination is the phony pretext of combating voter fraud. Voter identity fraud is all but nonexistent, but the assertion that it might exist is used as an excuse to reduce the political rights of minorities, the poor, students, older Americans and other groups that tend to vote Democratic.
In The Times on Monday, Stephanie Saul described how the plan works. True the Vote grew out of a Tea Party group in Texas, the King Street Patriots, with the assistance of Americans for Prosperity, a group founded by the Koch brothers that works to elect conservative Republicans. It has developed its own software to check voter registration lists against driver's license and property records. Those kinds of database matches are notoriously unreliable because names and addresses are often slightly different in various databases, but the group uses this technique to challenge more voters.
In 2009 and 2010, for example, the group focused on the Houston Congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee, a black Democrat. After poring over the records for five months, True the Vote came up with a list of 500 names it considered suspicious and challenged them with election authorities. Officials put these voters on "suspense," requiring additional proof of address, but in most cases voters had simply changed addresses. That didn't stop the group from sending dozens of white "poll watchers" to precincts in the district during the 2010 elections, deliberately creating friction with black voters.
On the day of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, the group used inaccurate lists to slow down student voting at Lawrence University in Appleton with intrusive identity checks. Three election "observers," including one from True the Vote, were so disruptive that a clerk gave them two warnings, but the ploy was effective: many students gave up waiting in line and didn't vote.
True the Vote, now active in 30 states, hopes to train hundreds of thousands of poll watchers to make the experience of voting like "driving and seeing the police following you," as one of the group's leaders put it. (Not surprisingly, the group is also active in the voter ID movement, with similar goals.) These activities "present a real danger to the fair administration of elections and to the fundamental freedom to vote," as a recent report by Common Cause and Demos put it.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits intimidation or interference in the act of voting, but the penalties are fairly light. Many states have tougher laws, but they won't work unless law enforcement officials use them to crack down on the illegal activities — handed down from Jim Crow days — of True the Vote and similar groups.
QuoteLooking, Very Closely, for Voter Fraud
Conservative Groups Focus on Registration in Swing States
nytimes.com
By STEPHANIE SAUL
Published: September 16, 2012
It might as well be Harry Potter's invisible Knight Bus, because no one can prove it exists.
The bus has been repeatedly cited by True the Vote, a national group focused on voter fraud. Catherine Engelbrecht, the group's leader, told a gathering in July about buses carrying dozens of voters showing up at polling places during the recent Wisconsin recall election.
"Magically, all of them needed to register and vote at the same time," Ms. Engelbrecht said. "Do you think maybe they registered falsely under false pretenses? Probably so."
Weeks later, another True the Vote representative told a meeting of conservative women about a bus seen at a San Diego polling place in 2010 offloading people "who did not appear to be from this country."
Officials in both San Diego and Wisconsin said they had no evidence that the buses were real. "It's so stealthy that no one is ever able to get a picture and no one is able to get a license plate," said Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin agency that oversees elections. In some versions the bus is from an Indian reservation; in others it is full of voters from Chicago or Detroit. "Pick your minority group," he said.
The buses are part of the election fraud gospel according to True the Vote, which is mobilizing a small army of volunteers to combat what it sees as a force out to subvert elections. Ms. Engelbrecht's July speech in Montana was titled "Voter Fraud: The Plot to Undermine American Democracy."
True the Vote's plan is to scrutinize the validity of voter registration rolls and voters who appear at the polls. Among those in their cross hairs: noncitizens who are registered to vote, those without proper identification, others who may be registered twice, and dead people. In Ohio and Indiana, True the Vote recently filed lawsuits to force officials to clean up voter rolls.
Efforts to tighten voter requirements have become a major issue in the presidential election. Over the last few years, many states have passed voter identification laws, and many of those are being challenged in court.
Now, a network of conservative groups is waging an aggressive campaign on the ground. In a report this month, the liberal-leaning organizations Common Cause and Demos cited True the Vote as the central player in this effort, which it called a threat to the fundamental right to vote.
"It is not about party or politics; it is about principle," Ms. Engelbrecht said.
While she portrays True the Vote as nonpartisan, it grew out of a Tea Party group, King Street Patriots, that she founded in Texas. An examination shows that it has worked closely with a variety of well-financed organizations, many unabashed in their desire to defeat President Obama.
A polished and provocative video, circulating among Tea Party activists, seeks to raise a "cavalry" to march on swing states and identifies True the Vote as a participant in the effort, called Code Red USA.
In the past year, Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, and other Republican-leaning independent groups have sponsored meetings featuring Ms. Engelbrecht and other True the Vote speakers. A spokesman for Americans for Prosperity said that the group had hosted events including True the Vote speakers but that election integrity was not a focus of his group.
Election integrity has become a focus for other activists, including James E. O'Keefe III, a video producer known for his undercover stings of the now defunct community organizing group Acorn. He recently aimed his camera on North Carolina voters in what turned out to be a botched attempt to show that foreigners had registered.
Voter registration has occupied a contentious corner of American history for decades. The perception that voting is ripe for fraud stems in part from the condition of voter rolls in many jurisdictions. The Pew Center on the States issued a report in February finding that more than 1.8 million dead people remained on voter rolls and that about 2.8 million people were registered in more than one state. Another 12 million registrations contained flawed addresses, it said.
Even so, there have been few cases of widespread fraud, according to the Justice Department. A bipartisan commission in 2005 found little evidence of extensive fraud, even while recommending the use of voter identification.
While there have been some recent criminal cases involving local elections, the Justice Department said in a statement that the record has not shown that significant "voter impersonation fraud — the type of fraud that many states claim their voter ID laws are aimed to prevent — actually exists."
But Ms. Engelbrecht said, "Anyone who tells you that election integrity efforts are a solution looking for a problem is way misinformed."
True the Vote is now using proprietary software to accelerate the process of challenging voter registrations. It says its databases will ultimately contain all voter rolls in the country. Using computers, volunteers can check those rolls against driver's license records, property records and other databases, turning the process into an assembly line production.
But when True the Vote vetted petition signatures in Wisconsin's recall election, the state's Government Accountability Board reported that the process was "at best flawed." The group raised questions about thousands of signatures that the board deemed valid.
Roots of a Cause
Ms. Engelbrecht, who at 42 is younger than most of the Tea Party members she addresses around the country, said that until four years ago she was apolitical, a churchgoing mother of two who ran a successful oil field machinery business with her husband in Fort Bend County, Tex.
"Then in 2008, I don't know, something clicked," she said. "I saw our country headed in a direction that, for whatever reason — it didn't hit me until 2008 — this really threatens the future of our children."
The epiphany prompted Ms. Engelbrecht to work as a poll watcher in the 2009 local elections along with others in the King Street Patriots, the Tea Party group she founded. It was supposed to be a one-day assignment, but it crystallized the concerns of Ms. Engelbrecht and her fellow volunteers, who said they saw shenanigans including outright fraud. The group felt duty bound to continue its activities.
In Houston, the group targeted the Congressional district represented by Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat who is black. Ms. Engelbrecht said the group settled on Ms. Lee's district because thousands of addresses there housed six or more registered voters, which it took as an indication of inaccurate registrations. The methodology, which the group still uses, could disproportionately affect lower income families.
Volunteers spent five months analyzing 3,800 registrations in Ms. Lee's district, discovering more than 500 voters that the group said were problematic. More than 200 voters were registered at vacant lots, prompting Ms. Engelbrecht to later remark that those voters had a "Lord of the Rings Middle Earth sort of thing going on."
The reality was far less interesting.
"They had one particular case I remember very well," said Douglas Ray, the Harris County assistant attorney who represents the election registrar. "They had identified an address where eight or 10 people were registered to vote. There was no building there." Mr. Ray found out that the building had been torn down and that the people simply moved.
As a result of the organization's work in 2010, 400 to 500 voters were put on "suspense," forcing them to provide additional information verifying their addresses. By the fall 2010 election, volunteers again appeared to focus on minority neighborhoods, this time as election observers, Mr. Ray said.
"The first day of early voting, at many of the 37 locations, primarily in minority neighborhoods, dozens of poll watchers showed up sent by King Street Patriots," Mr. Ray said.
The influx of white election observers in black neighborhoods caused friction with voters and poll workers, bringing back memories of a time when racial intimidation at the polls was commonplace in the South, said Gerald M. Birnberg, a lawyer and former chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party. True the Vote has strongly denied that it has engaged in voter suppression.
"Whether that was the intention or just born of some innate paranoia is largely irrelevant," Mr. Birnberg said. "That's how it was perceived by people at the polls."
Working in Wisconsin
The boiling political caldron of Wisconsin was the next stop for True the Vote. It teamed up with two Tea Party organizations to review nearly one million signatures on petitions demanding the recall of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. The partnership called itself Verify the Recall.
"We have been hearing reports of duplicate signatures, questionable practices and downright fraud in the gubernatorial recall effort," Verify the Recall said in a pitch to volunteers. "The integrity of Wisconsin's elections and associated processes are at stake; free and honest elections — the cornerstone of our political process — are being threatened."
True the Vote began working in Wisconsin in 2011, the same year it received a $35,000 grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and is a major backer of conservative causes, including Americans for Prosperity. The foundation's president and chief executive, Michael Grebe, was Mr. Walker's campaign chairman for his 2010 campaign and for the recall election, which he won.
Mr. Grebe said in an interview that the grant was for activities unrelated to the recall. He said the donation was ultimately returned because it was given on the premise that True the Vote would be granted tax-exempt status by the I.R.S., which Ms. Engelbrecht said has not happened despite several attempts.
Ms. Engelbrecht has said her goal was not to stop the recall election, which had been backed by labor unions, but to prove to those behind it "that unions cannot strong-arm America." She said thousands of volunteers helped enter petition signatures into a database, which was then analyzed by the group's software. Of the one million signatures, True the Vote said 63,038 were ineligible, 212,628 required further investigation and 584,489 were valid.
The accountability board concluded that about 900,000 signatures were valid and, in a memorandum reviewing True the Vote's work, criticized its methods.
For example: Mary Lee Smith signed her name Mary L. Smith and was deemed ineligible by the group.
Signatures deemed "out of state" included 13 from Milwaukee and three from Madison.
The group's software would not recognize abbreviations, so Wisconsin addresses like Stevens Point were flagged if "Pt." was used on the petition.
Signatures were struck for lack of a ZIP code.
While the board commended the group for encouraging "a strong level of civic engagement," it found that True the Vote's results "were significantly less accurate, complete and reliable than the review and analysis completed by the G.A.B."
On Election Day, poll watchers appeared to have slowed voting to a crawl at Lawrence University in Appleton, where some students were attempting to register and vote on the same day.
Charlene Peterson, the city clerk in Appleton, said three election observers, including one from True the Vote, were so disruptive that she gave them two warnings.
"They were making challenges of certain kinds and just kind of in physical contact with some of the poll workers, leaning over them, checking and looking," said John Lepinski, a poll watcher and former Democratic Party chairman for Outagamie County.
He said that as a result of the scrutiny, the line to register moved slowly. Finally, he said, some students gave up and left.
Ms. Engelbrecht said the True the Vote observer at Lawrence University believed that students were being permitted to register and vote without proper identification.
In Racine, conservative poll watchers also alleged fraud, including a claim that a busload of union members from Michigan had come to Wisconsin to vote illegally. The Racine County Sheriff's Department determined that the accusation had been based on an anonymous call to a radio station.
"There is no evidence this bus convoy existed or ever arrived in Racine County," the Sheriff's Office said.
As for the buses her organization saw in Wisconsin, Ms. Engelbrecht could not provide details. "It was reported to us that this had occurred," she said. "I know these sightings were also being reported on the radio."
The Code Red Cavalry
Driving down the Interstate in Florida, you may see an R.V. wrapped with a picture of Abraham Lincoln.
These eye-catching vehicles are mobile command centers for registering and energizing voters. They are part of a citizen effort to "defeat Obama, hold the House and win the Senate in November," Fred Solomon, a retired Alabama businessman, said in an e-mail to fellow Tea Party supporters.
Mr. Solomon is a coordinator for Code Red USA, the plan to flood swing states with conservative volunteers. "Partnering with True the Vote, a nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group, we will train and put election observers in polling places in the swing states to reduce voter fraud," Mr. Solomon said in his e-mail.
Code Red USA is financed by the Madison Project, a political action committee whose chairman is former Representative Jim Ryun, a Kansas Republican who was regarded as among the most conservative members of Congress. The provocative video promoting Code Red accuses Democrats of "a clear intent to commit massive voter fraud."
Despite Mr. Solomon's e-mail and the video, which identifies True the Vote as a participant, Ms. Engelbrecht said her group has no role in the effort.
Nevertheless, Mr. Solomon and many other conservative activists have followed Ms. Engelbrecht's lead.
Mr. Solomon said he was a volunteer poll watcher in Wisconsin and is concerned that voter fraud is rampant around the country. "We just don't understand why dead people are voting," he said.
Finding that someone voted in the name of a dead person is the holy grail of the voter integrity movement, said Jay DeLancy, a retired Air Force officer in North Carolina who embraced the cause after attending a True the Vote meeting last year. Mr. DeLancy, who runs the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, said the group recently submitted the names of 30,000 people who he said were dead yet remained on voter rolls in the state.
Earlier this year, he challenged more than 500 registered voters who he said were not American citizens. After reviewing the challenges, election officials refuted most of them, but confirmed that three were noncitizens who had registered improperly. One had voted.
Mr. DeLancy said he was convinced that the elections agency overlooked many noncitizen voters.
"They want me to look stupid and to look like I'm wasting taxpayer money," Mr. DeLancy said.
He said he split from True the Vote partly because the group raised concerns about focusing on immigrants. "They're not wanting to be branded some kind of anti-immigrant activist group," Mr. DeLancy said.
Mr. DeLancy said he made challenges after comparing voting rolls with citizenship information in jury duty records.
The strategy was used by Mr. O'Keefe, who is known for undercover video stings. Shortly after the North Carolina primary in May, Mr. O'Keefe posted a video aimed at proving noncitizens were registered to vote.
A narrator says: "William Romero is registered to vote in North Carolina. Here is a copy of his voter registration form, where it says he was born in Colombia, South America. He is not, however, a United States citizen."
The video cuts to a young man, dressed in green lederhosen, walking into Mr. Romero's polling place and giving Mr. Romero's name and address. When he is asked to sign his name certifying that he is William Romero, the man, whose right hand was bandaged, says he is unable to sign and leaves.
The video later shows what appears to be the same man in green lederhosen impersonating a registered voter named Zbigniew Gorzkowski.
Not only were Mr. Romero and Mr. Gorzkowski citizens, but the State Board of Elections concluded that Mr. O'Keefe's operatives may have broken several laws, and turned over evidence to prosecutors. "Further, the videos made false or unfounded allegations that only hurt the elections process," North Carolina election officials said in a report.
Mr. O'Keefe, who did not respond to requests for an interview, is on probation for unlawfully entering a federal building in New Orleans in an aborted sting targeting Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana.
Mr. Romero could not be reached for comment. Mr. Gorzkowski, a naturalized United States citizen who operates a deli in North Carolina, said the video was extremely embarrassing, especially after a Polish newspaper ran an article suggesting that he was at the center of a voting scandal in the United States.
'Never Had Any Problem'
Late last month, Ms. Engelbrecht was in Columbus, Ohio, for a True the Vote workshop. About 90 people signed up for the event at a suburban Holiday Inn, where they listened to speeches and discussed how to challenge questionable voters, including 51,000 "nonexistent" people in just one county that True the Vote's Ohio volunteers say are registered to vote.
During the meeting, Anita MonCrief, True the Vote's senior adviser, unleashed her vitriol at what she said was a coalition of voter registration groups, accusing them of "doing voter fraud since at least the early '90s," she said.
"And these groups target minority areas. Why? Because it's so much easier to go work in those areas where they say people have been forgotten or they don't have a voice. Then, when anybody pays a little bit of attention to the fact that there's a high level of fraud coming out of the African-American communities, they say: 'Oh, you're a racist. You don't want black people to vote,' " said Ms. MonCrief, who is black. "Vote fraud deniers is what I call them."
After the event, the volunteers, known as the Ohio Voter Integrity Project, submitted challenges of 380 registered voters in Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati. One of the voters, Teresa Sharp, received a notice from her local Board of Elections stating that her family's right to vote had been challenged and ordering her to attend a hearing on Sept. 10.
"I've always voted," said Ms. Sharp, who had even been a poll worker. "Never had any problem."
At the hearing, she said she asked, "Why are you all harassing me?" She said she believed it was because "either they don't want Obama in there or the fact that I'm black."
Amy Searcy, the director of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said there was no discernible racial pattern in the challenges. Of the 380 challenges, about 35 voters will have to prove that their addresses are current if they appear at the polls. A vast majority of the objections were thrown out.
In the case of Ms. Sharp, a representative of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project withdrew the challenge and apologized to the family.
Battling strawmen and conspiracy theories going head to head. What a great country I live in.
Seems these groups(and I'm sure there are plenty on the Democrat side as well) are spending an awful lot of money and effort to affect only those elections which are essentially ties.
It's really scary when the conviction in one's ideology becomes so strong that it becomes justifiable in their mind to cynically subvert the democratic process. That's how free countries turn authoritarian gradually.
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2012, 11:46:27 AM
So are you saying that Republicans aren't for democracy?
Yes, that is precisely what I am saying :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 03:14:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 02, 2012, 11:46:27 AM
So are you saying that Republicans aren't for democracy?
Yes, that is precisely what I am saying :lol:
I agree that it wasn't a fair implication. What that remark hinted at was that disenfranchisement was a partisan issue, and not really one of fundamental values of this country. It's an extremely despicable sentiment either way, but let's at least identify the subversive modes of thinking on display accurately.
I just voted. :ccr
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
I just voted. :ccr
I didn't think American Idol started up again until next year.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2012, 03:29:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
I just voted. :ccr
I didn't think American Idol started up again until next year.
There's dozens of other shows that take in viewer votes though.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 03:27:03 PM
I agree that it wasn't a fair implication. What that remark hinted at was that disenfranchisement was a partisan issue, and not really one of fundamental values of this country. It's an extremely despicable sentiment either way, but let's at least identify the subversive modes of thinking on display accurately.
I support voter ID laws. I don't necessarily support disenfranchisement, unless it concerns a person (convicted felon, non-citizen or false identity) that is not legally entitled to vote in the first place.
And stop stalking me.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 04:18:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 03:27:03 PM
I agree that it wasn't a fair implication. What that remark hinted at was that disenfranchisement was a partisan issue, and not really one of fundamental values of this country. It's an extremely despicable sentiment either way, but let's at least identify the subversive modes of thinking on display accurately.
I support voter ID laws. I don't necessarily support disenfranchisement, unless it concerns a person (convicted felon, non-citizen or false identity) that is not legally entitled to vote in the first place.
And stop stalking me.
I'm not intentionally stalking you. You just happen to constantly provoke me by your incessant and offensive stupidity, so I keep treating you like I treated Hansy back when he posted.
As for voter ID laws, I simply do not buy the premise of an informed person being for them without the intent to disenfranchise. Sorry, that passes the smell test about as well as an opposition to the Civil Rights Act being just a defense of state rights. I'm just not buying your "I support voter ID laws, but I don't support disenfranchisement" story, and I don't think any supporter of democracy should even feign respect for such outright lies.
Sorry for the harsh tone, but these attempts by Republicans to subvert democracy to get in power have gotten to me personally in a way that no other political bullshit of this season did.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 04:33:45 PM
As for voter ID laws, I simply do not buy the premise of an informed person being for them without the intent to disenfranchise. Sorry, that passes the smell test about as well as an opposition to the Civil Rights Act being just a defense of state rights. I'm just not buying your "I support voter ID laws, but I don't support disenfranchisement" story, and I don't think any supporter of democracy should even feign respect for such outright lies.
You have a lot of people to bitch at then, because 67% of Languish agrees with me.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 06:35:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2012, 04:33:45 PM
As for voter ID laws, I simply do not buy the premise of an informed person being for them without the intent to disenfranchise. Sorry, that passes the smell test about as well as an opposition to the Civil Rights Act being just a defense of state rights. I'm just not buying your "I support voter ID laws, but I don't support disenfranchisement" story, and I don't think any supporter of democracy should even feign respect for such outright lies.
You have a lot of people to bitch at then, because 67% of Languish agrees with me.
Have you made a poll?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Have you made a poll?
No, just a wild guess.
But seriously, yes: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7301.0.html :)
Oh right.
Though everybody who actually gives a fuck seems to be against it. :hmm:
Silent majority ftw?
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 08:36:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Have you made a poll?
No, just a wild guess.
But seriously, yes: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7301.0.html :)
It's always fun to look back at old threads. Great quote from Yi
QuoteJake: where are you picking up this demonization of the poor?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 09:12:00 PM
Oh right.
Though everybody who actually gives a fuck seems to be against it. :hmm:
Silent majority ftw?
No, just Seedy stirring shit up.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 09:58:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 09:12:00 PM
Oh right.
Though everybody who actually gives a fuck seems to be against it. :hmm:
Silent majority ftw?
No, just Seedy stirring shit up.
I stir nothing up. I simply traffic in the truth.
Besides, you're actually going to expect a poll on democratic processes to have any validity with a board full of so many Europeans? They don't understand democracy. Hell, I bet half of them weren't even born into it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 09:12:00 PM
Oh right.
Though everybody who actually gives a fuck seems to be against it. :hmm:
Silent majority ftw?
Lots of Euros with compulsory ID laws didn't understand the idea of voting without showing their papers :P
In Poland, they scratch the name of the candidate they want on a piece of black bread and drop it in the village well. Then they throw the Jews down the well.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2012, 10:25:41 PM
In Poland, they scratch the name of the candidate they want on a piece of black bread and drop it in the village well. Then they throw the Jews down the well.
Silly Ed. :rolleyes:
There are no Jews left in Poland.
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 09:58:41 PM
No, just Seedy stirring shit up.
From Seedy and Raz it's to be expected, but Berkut also seems to think it's like they're bringing Jim Crow back.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 11:26:36 PM
From Seedy and Raz it's to be expected, but Berkut also seems to think it's like they're bringing Jim Crow back.
Any rational observer can understand what's going on with all this.
Seedy, Raz and Berkut rational?!?
Why don't we flip the question around? What's the compelling interest in forcing additional ID? You have to register to vote, you need to bring your voter registration card, and you need to sign in, so you can only vote once per registration anyway. And for some reason, we only hear about fraudulent registrations in groups coming from orgs like these True the Vote whackjobs. Why don't we just take them out of the equation and leave the IDs alone?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 11:26:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 09:58:41 PM
No, just Seedy stirring shit up.
From Seedy and Raz it's to be expected, but Berkut also seems to think it's like they're bringing Jim Crow back.
Aren't they?
The point of the Jim Crow laws were to prevent blacks from voting against what the whites wanted, ie integration laws, etc. The point of these laws is to prevent minorities from voting against what the whites want, ie re-electing Obama.
If this were an across-the-board process that involved more states than the swing states, I'd understand it better. Not agree with it, but understand it. But it's not. How many Democrats have been thrown off the voting dockets versus how many Republicans based on "problems" like new addresses, typos, etc? Given that this is spear-headed by the Republicans, I'm going to guess that there's quite a discrepency there. Why the rush to get these laws into place just before the election? Why are there no Republicans out driving people to help them get their IDs to vote in the poorer sections of town?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 03, 2012, 08:56:15 AM
Why don't we flip the question around? What's the compelling interest in forcing additional ID? You have to register to vote, you need to bring your voter registration card, and you need to sign in, so you can only vote once per registration anyway. And for some reason, we only hear about fraudulent registrations in groups coming from orgs like these True the Vote whackjobs. Why don't we just take them out of the equation and leave the IDs alone?
It's not necessary to bring your voter registration card to vote in Illinois. You need only to register in advance, show up at the polls, and sign in. If you have your card, it's easier on the poll-workers to find the right ballot, but certainly not required.
And even in Illinois - the capital of Fraud - there have never been significant numbers of people showing up pretending to be someone else in order to vote. That alone says something.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 03, 2012, 08:56:15 AM
Why don't we flip the question around? What's the compelling interest in forcing additional ID? You have to register to vote, you need to bring your voter registration card, and you need to sign in, so you can only vote once per registration anyway. And for some reason, we only hear about fraudulent registrations in groups coming from orgs like these True the Vote whackjobs. Why don't we just take them out of the equation and leave the IDs alone?
We'd already flipped the question around before. :huh:
And in a more sensible fashion as we didn't assume that all states require you to bring a voter registration card (which I've never done before). ;)
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 08:58:41 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 11:26:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 02, 2012, 09:58:41 PM
No, just Seedy stirring shit up.
From Seedy and Raz it's to be expected, but Berkut also seems to think it's like they're bringing Jim Crow back.
Aren't they?
The point of the Jim Crow laws were to prevent blacks from voting against what the whites wanted, ie integration laws, etc. The point of these laws is to prevent minorities from voting against what the whites want, ie re-electing Obama.
If this were an across-the-board process that involved more states than the swing states, I'd understand it better. Not agree with it, but understand it. But it's not. How many Democrats have been thrown off the voting dockets versus how many Republicans based on "problems" like new addresses, typos, etc? Given that this is spear-headed by the Republicans, I'm going to guess that there's quite a discrepency there. Why the rush to get these laws into place just before the election? Why are there no Republicans out driving people to help them get their IDs to vote in the poorer sections of town?
Except that you're the one making it about race. I think it is more about preventing those poor individuals, the one's who traditionally vote dem, from voting. That's still pretty reprehensible but the goal isn't that they don't want minorities voting...but rather that they don't want people voting for the "wrong" party.
Also, I'll note that I think it's generally pretty bad to vote someone for an office just because they happen to belong to a particular race.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2012, 11:56:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 02, 2012, 11:26:36 PM
From Seedy and Raz it's to be expected, but Berkut also seems to think it's like they're bringing Jim Crow back.
Any rational observer can understand what's going on with all this.
So then who is it you depend on for that insight?
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 09:18:45 AM
Except that you're the one making it about race. I think it is more about preventing those poor individuals, the one's who traditionally vote dem, from voting. That's still pretty reprehensible but the goal isn't that they don't want minorities voting...but rather that they don't want people voting for the "wrong" party.
Also, I'll note that I think it's generally pretty bad to vote someone for an office just because they happen to belong to a particular race.
I realized after I posted that I should have probably worded it better. I was in a rush to get it down before I went back to work. :blush:
The similarities are still there, even taking race out of the equation of what's going on now. The point of the Jim Crow laws were to prevent one group of people from voting against what another group wanted. The point of these changes are the same.
And I agree with you on your second note completely, just as I don't believe in voting for someone based on gender, though I think religion can be a factor.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 09:18:45 AM
Also, I'll note that I think it's generally pretty bad to vote someone for an office just because they happen to belong to a particular race.
Just another shit sandwich from our national curse of White Supremacy. Hopefully this kind of thing will be all but gone in another generation.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 09:47:18 AM
The similarities are still there, even taking race out of the equation of what's going on now. The point of the Jim Crow laws were to prevent one group of people from voting against what another group wanted. The point of these changes are the same.
The issue is that when one bring Jim Crow into the discussion - it brings in another entirely awful dimension and I think confusing the aims of such measures.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 09:47:18 AM
The similarities are still there, even taking race out of the equation of what's going on now. The point of the Jim Crow laws were to prevent one group of people from voting against what another group wanted. The point of these changes are the same.
The issue is that when one bring Jim Crow into the discussion - it brings in another entirely awful dimension and I think confusing the aims of such measures.
Agreed, but it doesn't change the similarities.
Of course, even the Republican party might blanch at some of the stuff done under Jim Crow. :ph34r:
Nah, we're actually pretty cool with it, Meri. It's our secret agenda, in fact :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:02:07 AM
Nah, we're actually pretty cool with it, Meri. It's our secret agenda, in fact :ph34r:
I was talking about The Party, not Republicans. There's a massive difference.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
I was talking about The Party, not Republicans. There's a massive difference.
The Party? Is that the secret cabal actually running the Republicans?
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
The Party? Is that the secret cabal actually running the Republicans?
http://www.gop.com/our-party/leadership/ (http://www.gop.com/our-party/leadership/)
QuoteReince Priebus
Chairman
Reince Priebus was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee on January 14, 2011. In his first year as Chairman, Reince oversaw a dramatic turnaround of the RNC, building it into a strong and effective organization for electing Republicans in 2012.
Under Reince's leadership, the RNC raised more major donor money in an off year than in the history of the RNC. At the same time, the RNC has broken new ground, deploying new communication strategies and innovative technology for voter outreach.
Reince is committed to uniting the Republican Party to reach our common goal – electing Republicans. With sound fiscal stewardship, a dedication to conservative principles, and a message of freedom and prosperity, Reince continues to lead the party toward victory in 2012.
A successful chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Reince created the framework that brought about one of the most historic election cycles Wisconsin has ever experienced. During Reince's tenure, Republicans in Wisconsin not only defeated Russ Feingold by electing citizen legislator Ron Johnson to the Senate, but they gained two additional U.S. House seats, won the Governor's office, took back both the state Assembly and the state Senate and defeated the leaders of both of those chambers.
Reince has a long history in Republican politics, having served on his first campaign at the age of 16. Since then, he worked his way up through the ranks of the Republican Party of Wisconsin as 1st Congressional District Chairman, State Party Treasurer, First Vice Chair, and eventually State Party Chairman. In 2009 Reince served as General Counsel to the RNC, a role in which he volunteered his time to help manage the RNC's most difficult challenges.
A proud native of Kenosha, Wisconsin, Reince is happily married to his wife, Sally. They have two young children, Jack and Grace.
That's pretty damning, Meri.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 11:49:10 AM
That's pretty damning, Meri.
I guess I'd hope that the point of the Republican (or any party) is to get the message out, help the country be great, etc. No, not this guy. His whole purpose is to get his folks elected. And that, to me, is the biggest problem with politics today. So yeah, to me, that's pretty damning.
Wait so the Republican Party leadership has the singular shocking insideous goal of...electing Republicans?!
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
His whole purpose is to get his folks elected.
Yeah, just like any RNC or DNC chairman throughout history.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
I guess I'd hope that the point of the Republican (or any party) is to get the message out, help the country be great, etc. No, not this guy. His whole purpose is to get his folks elected. And that, to me, is the biggest problem with politics today. So yeah, to me, that's pretty damning.
Yeah these are not civic organizations really. There is a shitload of money and power at stake. Both parties are massive corporations in the business of power and results is what they are interested in not some altruistic love of the republic.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
I guess I'd hope that the point of the Republican (or any party) is to get the message out, help the country be great, etc. No, not this guy. His whole purpose is to get his folks elected. And that, to me, is the biggest problem with politics today. So yeah, to me, that's pretty damning.
Yeah these are not civic organizations really. There is a shitload of money and power at stake. Both parties are massive corporations in the business of power and results is what they are interested in not some altruistic love of the republic.
You're making my point for me. It's this mentality that has led to the BS that's going on with voter ID laws.
I know it's fun to disagree with meri just for the lulz but I can't believe that you guys can't see the cynism in that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
I know it's fun to disagree with meri just for the lulz but I can't believe that you guys can't see the cynism in that.
Just trying to help her cope with reality.
GF, I think the answer is no. They dont see it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 12:40:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
I know it's fun to disagree with meri just for the lulz but I can't believe that you guys can't see the cynism in that.
Just trying to help her cope with reality.
The one where Republicans can now only win via ballot rigging ?
Quote from: mongers on October 03, 2012, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 12:40:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 03, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
I know it's fun to disagree with meri just for the lulz but I can't believe that you guys can't see the cynism in that.
Just trying to help her cope with reality.
The one where Republicans can now only win via ballot rigging ?
Save it for your letter to Ohio voters :)
For some balance:
http://www.democrats.org/about/our_leaders
QuoteDEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIR
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
As the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz works every day to advance President Obama's agenda and re-election campaign and to elect Democratic candidates across the country. First elected to Congress in 2004, Rep. Wasserman Schultz has been a rising presence in the House and a tireless advocate for Democratic values. Prior to becoming chair, Rep. Wasserman Schultz was DNC vice chair.
Horror, outrage, etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:44:40 PM
GF, I think the answer is no. They dont see it.
Of course I see it. But it is the nature of the beast.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 12:50:49 PM
For some balance:
http://www.democrats.org/about/our_leaders
QuoteDEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIR
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
As the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz works every day to advance President Obama's agenda and re-election campaign and to elect Democratic candidates across the country. First elected to Congress in 2004, Rep. Wasserman Schultz has been a rising presence in the House and a tireless advocate for Democratic values. Prior to becoming chair, Rep. Wasserman Schultz was DNC vice chair.
Horror, outrage, etc.
I saw that as well. I'm also pretty sure that I said that I dislike both parties' emphasis on this. The difference is that the Democrats aren't changing laws to give their party a better chance at winning. And at least Wasserman Schultz is pretending by throwing Obama's agenda in there. Not that it's a hell of a lot better, but it doesn't feel quite so... stark.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
The difference is that the Democrats aren't changing laws to give their party a better chance at winning.
Like hell they are not. But usually the Republicans and Democrats are crafting laws to make it harder for any third party to challenge them. Only rarely do they come into conflict like this on election laws as their interests usually intersect.
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
I saw that as well. I'm also pretty sure that I said that I dislike both parties' emphasis on this. The difference is that the Democrats aren't changing laws to give their party a better chance at winning.
No. To flip it around, Democrats seem willing to tolerate (if not encourage) a certain amount of voter fraud to give their party a better chance at winning.
QuoteAnd at least Wasserman Schultz is pretending by throwing Obama's agenda in there. Not that it's a hell of a lot better, but it doesn't feel quite so... stark.
Pretty sure that's only because her party has the White House. If McCain had won in '08 I'm sure Priebus would mention McCain's agenda.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
The difference is that the Democrats aren't changing laws to give their party a better chance at winning.
Like hell they are not. But usually the Republicans and Democrats are crafting laws to make it harder for any third party to challenge them. Only rarely do they come into conflict like this on election laws as their interests usually intersect.
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
No. To flip it around, Democrats seem willing to tolerate (if not encourage) a certain amount of voter fraud to give their party a better chance at winning.
That's a pretty serious accusation, and unlike the accusation of disenfranchisement against Republicans, totally made up.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2012, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
No. To flip it around, Democrats seem willing to tolerate (if not encourage) a certain amount of voter fraud to give their party a better chance at winning.
That's a pretty serious accusation, and unlike the accusation of disenfranchisement against Republicans, totally made up.
He is just repeating the central fallacy of the Republican argument - that there is a problem which needs to be addressed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Southern conservatives figuring out ways to keep black people from voting is one of those traditions that has an uninterrupted link to the beginning of our republic.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Southern conservatives figuring out ways to keep black people from voting is one of those traditions that has an uninterrupted link to the beginning of our republic.
:lol:
Fair point
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 12:44:40 PM
GF, I think the answer is no. They dont see it.
Of course I see it. But it is the nature of the beast.
You had me worried.
Then maybe the Beast needs to be put down?
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
No. To flip it around, Democrats seem willing to tolerate (if not encourage) a certain amount of voter fraud to give their party a better chance at winning.
Still waiting on documentation for this "voter fraud" that entails people pretending to be other people in order to vote.
Quote
Pretty sure that's only because her party has the White House. If McCain had won in '08 I'm sure Priebus would mention McCain's agenda.
I agree completely.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2012, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 01:11:43 PM
The difference is that the Democrats aren't changing laws to give their party a better chance at winning.
Like hell they are not. But usually the Republicans and Democrats are crafting laws to make it harder for any third party to challenge them. Only rarely do they come into conflict like this on election laws as their interests usually intersect.
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Pretty much, yeah. It's the culture of all of it that I am complaining about.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Southern conservatives figuring out ways to keep black people from voting is one of those traditions that has an uninterrupted link to the beginning of our republic.
As is voter fraud.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:04:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 03, 2012, 01:47:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
I think the point she is making is the Republicans are so desparate they are now departing from those basic norms that have governed your system for so long.
Southern conservatives figuring out ways to keep black people from voting is one of those traditions that has an uninterrupted link to the beginning of our republic.
As is voter fraud.
I sure you will be able to support that contention with, you know, something beyond speculation and assumption.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
I sure you will be able to support that contention with, you know, something beyond speculation and assumption.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32747884_1_election-officials-voter-impersonation-new-voter-id-law
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/julien-voting-irregularities-and-absentee-ballot-fraud-tainted-razor-thin-race.html
http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest-Southampton/438337/Tuckahoe-Finds-Voting-Irregularities-Re-piping-Project-Put-Off
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/was_al_franken_elected_by_vote_fraud_Ige4Z6HxpXOmCgKlpmgyZM
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/211828/2/Commission-examines-claims-of-voting-irregularities
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984165483276543.html
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
I sure you will be able to support that contention with, you know, something beyond speculation and assumption.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32747884_1_election-officials-voter-impersonation-new-voter-id-law
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/julien-voting-irregularities-and-absentee-ballot-fraud-tainted-razor-thin-race.html
http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest-Southampton/438337/Tuckahoe-Finds-Voting-Irregularities-Re-piping-Project-Put-Off
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/was_al_franken_elected_by_vote_fraud_Ige4Z6HxpXOmCgKlpmgyZM
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/211828/2/Commission-examines-claims-of-voting-irregularities
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984165483276543.html
I've only looked at the first two links. The first states that there wasn't voter fraud but that there were some issues - notably 23 votes that shouldn't have been able to be cast by non-registered voters but poll workers failed to follow procedure. Oh and a woman who voted twice. :o
2nd is about a politician who is claiming fraud because though because the results of his personally run exit poll don't match the reported vote results.
If the rest are like that - no real signs of voter fraud.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
I sure you will be able to support that contention with, you know, something beyond speculation and assumption.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32747884_1_election-officials-voter-impersonation-new-voter-id-law - New laws won't fix anything found
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/julien-voting-irregularities-and-absentee-ballot-fraud-tainted-razor-thin-race.html - New laws won't fix anything found
http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest-Southampton/438337/Tuckahoe-Finds-Voting-Irregularities-Re-piping-Project-Put-Off - New laws won't fix anything found (And you're really reaching when you're pulling out School Board elections. :rolleyes: )
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/was_al_franken_elected_by_vote_fraud_Ige4Z6HxpXOmCgKlpmgyZM - New laws won't fix anything found Doesn't say who DID vote. The assumption based on the article is that the felons did actually vote, but weren't supposed to.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/211828/2/Commission-examines-claims-of-voting-irregularities - New laws won't fix anything found Appears to be a problem with people registering to vote who shouldn't be allowed to, not something an ID would fix.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984165483276543.html - Opinion piece; not valid studies of voter rolls
3rd link just has a person complaining that 3 people voted in two school districts. 4th seems to be the first I've seen that actually talks to real voter fraud though the amount of people accused is about 177.
Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people. You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.
As to the incidents where there are small numbers of confirmed or suspected voter fraud-- some elections are close enough to be determined by a handful of votes, and those are the ones that can be adversely affected by voter fraud. I'll freely admit that voter fraud is probably not a decisive problem in elections where there is a sizable margin of victory (i.e., most). But that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored altogether.
Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2012, 02:46:59 PM
3rd link just has a person complaining that 3 people voted in two school districts. 4th seems to be the first I've seen that actually talks to real voter fraud though the amount of people accused is about 177.
Fourth one is more absentee voter fraud, not something the new laws would address at all.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people. You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.
As to the incidents where there are small numbers of confirmed or suspected voter fraud-- some elections are close enough to be determined by a handful of votes, and those are the ones that can be adversely affected by voter fraud. I'll freely admit that voter fraud is probably not a decisive problem in elections where there is a sizable margin of victory (i.e., most). But that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored altogether.
Oh, I agree, but the new laws are not going to fix anything that's happening right now. It's all about better training for pollsters, better communication between prescincts, and fixing absentee voter fraud. Showing an ID isn't going to fix anything whatsoever that you've provided. All it does is disenfranchise voters by adding yet another bar for people to climb over.
With voter participation at barely half the eligible population as it is, why make it harder unless it benefits your primary objective of getting your people elected?
Quote from: merithyn on October 03, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people. You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.
As to the incidents where there are small numbers of confirmed or suspected voter fraud-- some elections are close enough to be determined by a handful of votes, and those are the ones that can be adversely affected by voter fraud. I'll freely admit that voter fraud is probably not a decisive problem in elections where there is a sizable margin of victory (i.e., most). But that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored altogether.
Oh, I agree, but the new laws are not going to fix anything that's happening right now. It's all about better training for pollsters, better communication between prescincts, and fixing absentee voter fraud. Showing an ID isn't going to fix anything whatsoever that you've provided. All it does is disenfranchise voters by adding yet another bar for people to climb over.
With voter participation at barely half the eligible population as it is, why make it harder unless it benefits your primary objective of getting your people elected?
Exactly this.
I am with DG here.
There is no way I am buying the claim that a reasonable, rational person could support these types of Voter ID laws for the stated reasons. It is transparently obvious that the solution (requiring voter id that will inevitably result in many, many, MANY people not being able to vote) is far worse than the actual problem (largely unevidenced, but under no circumstances significant numbers of invalid votes being cast due to inadequate ID checks)...unless the solution and problem are not what is being stated, but something else entirely (problem: too many people voting Dem - solution: target poor and minorities to discourage them from voting).
Then it makes perfect, if utterly reprehensible, sense.
I get the part about not many documented instances of voter fraud, but I don't get the many, many people who will be unable to vote because of voter ID laws.
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 03, 2012, 02:05:20 PM
I sure you will be able to support that contention with, you know, something beyond speculation and assumption.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-20/news/32747884_1_election-officials-voter-impersonation-new-voter-id-law
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/08/julien-voting-irregularities-and-absentee-ballot-fraud-tainted-razor-thin-race.html
http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/General-Interest-Southampton/438337/Tuckahoe-Finds-Voting-Irregularities-Re-piping-Project-Put-Off
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/was_al_franken_elected_by_vote_fraud_Ige4Z6HxpXOmCgKlpmgyZM
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/211828/2/Commission-examines-claims-of-voting-irregularities
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984165483276543.html
You took an article from the New York Post? I mean seriously?
Quote from: derspiess on October 03, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Nothing is ever going to be enough for you people. You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.
As to the incidents where there are small numbers of confirmed or suspected voter fraud-- some elections are close enough to be determined by a handful of votes, and those are the ones that can be adversely affected by voter fraud. I'll freely admit that voter fraud is probably not a decisive problem in elections where there is a sizable margin of victory (i.e., most). But that doesn't mean it's something that should be ignored altogether.
Actually it is something that should be ignored. A few people get struck by lightning every year. That doesn't mean we should make illegal to be outside while there is a thunderstorm. Most cases of voter fraud have been felons or people on parole voting (something without knowing what they did was illegal), not some nefarious conspiracy to throw elections. Voter fraud convictions are very, very rare. Missouri hasn't had someone convicted of voter fraud since the 1930's. In short there is no major problem that needs to be addressed.
I was gonna add a Breitbart article just for you, Razz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 05:47:29 PM
I get the part about not many documented instances of voter fraud, but I don't get the many, many people who will be unable to vote because of voter ID laws.
Does it need to be many, many people? How many voters should acceptably not be able to vote, to stop the very, very few documented instances (according to academic studies between 0.00004 and 0.0009%) of voter fraud?
As the Economist put it, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. Ironically I think it's actually energised the Democrats more than anything else this election.
QuoteNothing is ever going to be enough for you people. You'll bury your heads in the sand and pretend there's no problem.
I disagree. I think your mindset on this is a wee bit conspiratorial. There's no real evidence that this is a problem, there's no evidence of any election swung by it - but that in itself is almost a proof that it is a problem because of how difficult it is to detect voter fraud. And so it goes. No evidence about how rare and inconsequential it is is enough.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 08:00:18 PM
Does it need to be many, many people?
People opposed like Berkut and Seedy seem to think it has some relevance.
QuoteHow many voters should acceptably not be able to vote, to stop the very, very few documented instances (according to academic studies between 0.00004 and 0.0009%) of voter fraud?
But that's not the question. The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances. After all, the documented ones have already been caught.
I could understand the rage if voters were required to correctly pronounce "library" before voting, or to swim, but we're talking about getting an ID card.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:09:23 PM
But that's not the question. The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances. After all, the documented ones have already been caught.
Why should the state be forcing people to get IDs to exercise their basic rights? That to me is not worth solving a problem that doesn't exist. It is literally a cost, as well, that the state must provide those IDs either for free - with all of the bureaucracy that goes with it - or they pass the cost onto voters - which I think is fundamentally wrong.
As I say, my position on ID is different if you've already got a compulsory ID system as much of Europe does. Because the fundamentals are the same - beyond registering (which should have ID requirements, obviously) there is no further steps a voter needs to take to vote. They go about their daily lives and voting is integrated into that. If they're in Europe they just turn up with their ID, if they're in the UK they don't have one, so they just turn up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2012, 08:16:57 PM
Why should the state be forcing people to get IDs to exercise their basic rights? That to me is not worth solving a problem that doesn't exist. It is literally a cost, as well, that the state must provide those IDs either for free - with all of the bureaucracy that goes with it - or they pass the cost onto voters - which I think is fundamentally wrong.
The same reason the state forces people to register, or to show proof of residence when they register: to make sure only people who are authorized to vote, vote, and only one time.
Do you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:09:23 PM
But that's not the question. The question is how many people who want to vote but don't have an ID should be forced to get one, to stop all instances of voter impersonation, not just the documented instances. After all, the documented ones have already been caught.
I could understand the rage if voters were required to correctly pronounce "library" before voting, or to swim, but we're talking about getting an ID card.
That's an absurd question. No law will stop all instances of voter impersonation. There will always be someone who breaks the law and any law that requires a person to pay some money (even if it's only five bucks), is unconstitutional.
The issue is not the cost in dollars, it is the cost in repressed voter turnout targeted at specific elements of the population.
It is funny to see Yi kind of dance around the issue - he knows as well as me or DG that the point of this entire thing has nothing to do with keeping people who should not be voting from voting, but keeping people who won't vote in a certain manner from voting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:54:42 PM
Do you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?
It's more than a $5 card. It's time off from work in order to go to the DMV. Last time I went in to get a duplicate ID, it took me four hours, since I don't have a car and had to take public transportation and there was a long line (which is the norm, not unusual). Since I don't get paid for that time off, it cost me half a day's pay, plus the aggravation of my co-workers and employer. I was lucky in that my boss understood and allowed me the time off. Not everyone has such an understanding boss. Since the hours are limited to primarily business hours and Saturday mornings, it could be a major problem getting in for most people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 03, 2012, 08:54:42 PMThe same reason the state forces people to register, or to show proof of residence when they register: to make sure only people who are authorized to vote, vote, and only one time.
But as I said last time why do they need to prove that they are who they say they are twice? I think extra hassle and cost can be justified if there's a problem - as there isn't any evidence whatsoever that this is a problem, I don't think it's worth that.
In addition the facts suggests these laws disproportionately benefits one party and they're pushing this issue. I'm not convinced it's with the best of intentions.
QuoteDo you really want to build a cost argument on a $5 ID card?
First of all Meri's right. In the lives of voters, exercising that right shouldn't be a hassle. The state shouldn't be placing obstacles and making it difficult. It's not just people who don't have ID, but the guy who decides to vote on the way to work and realises he forgot his ID. Why should he have to make multiple trips? Or the person who brought the wrong type of ID?
Second, there is a cost argument. A $5 ID card is being massively subsidised by the state. That isn't an irrelevant issue when states are going through austerity and cutting spending. They should prioritise and in my view they should prioritise
Another one put off until 2013.
QuoteSouth Carolina voter ID law upheld by Federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — A panel of three federal judges upheld a South Carolina law requiring voters to show photo identification, but delayed enforcement until next year, in a decision announced Wednesday, less than a month before this year's presidential election.
In a unanimous ruling, the judges said there was no discriminatory intent behind the law, ruling that it would not diminish African-Americans' voting rights because people who face a "reasonable impediment" to getting an acceptable photo ID can still vote if they sign an affidavit.
The judge declined to let the law take effect immediately, "given the short time left before the 2012 elections and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law ... and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory" effects.
South Carolina voters who now lack the proper photo ID are disproportionately African-American, so proper and smooth functioning of the law "would be vital to avoid unlawfully racially discriminatory effects," according to the decision, written by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "There is too much of a risk to African-American voters for us to roll the dice," he said.
South Carolina is one of 16 states, mostly in the South, where election laws are subject to Justice Department approval under the federal Voting Rights Act because of a history of discrimination. South Carolina's was the first law to be refused federal OK in nearly 20 years, which led state officials to challenge that decision in federal court.
The state's Republican-controlled Legislature pushed the law through last year despite heavy opposition from African-American lawmakers. GOP Gov. Nikki Haley signed it last December.
Voter ID laws and other restrictions on voting became priority issues in mostly Republican legislatures and for governors after the 2008 elections. Opponents have described them as responses to the record turnouts of minorities and other Democratic-leaning constituencies that helped put Barack Obama, the first African-American president, in the White House.
Such laws have become a critical issue in this year's election because of the tight presidential race between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Supporters have pitched these laws as necessary to deter voter fraud, although very few cases of impersonation have been found.
Officials from South Carolina could not cite a single case of such fraud during the trial, but they said the law would help enhance public confidence in the election system and prevent other types of fraud.
South Carolina's law requires voters to show a driver's license or other photo identification issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, or a passport, military photo identification or a voter registration card with a photo.
The other judges in the case were Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in Washington.
Kollar-Kotelly was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Bates and Kavanaugh were appointed by President George W. Bush.
Stay classy, Ohio! :thumbsup:
QuoteOhio voter fraud billboards will stay
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cleveland.com%2Fplain_dealer_metro%2Fphoto%2F11688017-large.jpg&hash=452be0c53fe29a2add24102e14db4031f4e3a357)
Clear Channel, the outdoor advertising giant, said Friday that it was a mistake to sell space on dozens of Cleveland and Columbus billboards warning that "voter fraud is a felony" — many in African American neighborhoods — to an anonymous foundation.
But the company also said it has no plans to take the ads down.
Civil rights and labor groups have denounced the billboards, which also feature a giant judge's gavel and a warning of "up to 3 1/2 years and a $10,000 fine," as an attempt to intimidate minority voters. The ads are appearing in Milwaukee as well, according to Clear Channel.
The purchaser of the space remains anonymous, described at the bottom of the ads only as a "Private Family Foundation."
Jim Cullinan, vice president of marketing and communications for Clear Channel Outdoor, said that if the ad is accurate and is not "an attack ad," the company will sell the space. He added that Clear Channel usually requires that ads have the name of the purchaser at the bottom.
"Honestly it was a mistake of the specific sales person who agreed to that," Cullinan said. "But once we put them up and signed a contract, we had to live with the anonymity. We understand there's people upset. We're working with the community."
Ohio has long been a battleground for legal disputes over election issues such as early voting and provisional ballots. Secretary of State Jon Husted and Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, have been accused of pursuing policies and regulations designed to suppress black votes.
Mike Gillis, communications director for the Ohio AFL-CIO, said the location of the ads is "clearly by design."
"They're really designed to scare people," he said.
In a statement, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker and Ohio AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Pierrette "Petee" Talley called on Clear Channel to pull the ads.
"Every election year we see offensive, underhanded tactics by groups who don't want everyone to have access to the voting booth," they said. "This year, intimidating billboards that point out voter fraud are appearing in predominantly African American communities in Ohio, despite little to no evidence that voter fraud exists. ... We urge Clear Channel to remove these billboards and replace them with information that will help voters exercise their fundamental right to vote in this year's critical election."
According to wiki:
QuoteClear Channel Communications, Inc. is an American mass media company, that is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Founded in 1972 by Lowry Mays and Red McCombs, the company was taken private by Bain Capital, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners in a leveraged buyout in 2008; as a result, the company now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of CC Media Holdings, Inc..[5][6]
:whistle:
Mike DeWine is my huckleberry.