|
On November 01 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system. But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes.
This is the problem: voter suppression is a partisan issue in the U.S., so there's never going to be any bipartisan will to deal with it.
|
On November 01 2012 06:03 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ua18V.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iU50ZDQhUBjs.jpg) The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud.
My point is that there is no partisan relation to that first billboard. For all we know it was posted by a Democrat in a Republican neighborhood. To declare it as "partisan voter suppression" is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly believe that is voter suppression, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting.
PA has a voter ID law. It's not at all a falsehood. At worst, I would say that they are reminding people to bring their ID's on election day so that they don't get turned away for forgetting.
Neither of these billboards are voter intimidation.
|
On November 01 2012 06:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:03 Bigtony wrote:On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
"Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!"
In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud. The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting. My point is that there is no partisan relation to that first billboard. For all we know it was posted by a Democrat in a Republican neighborhood. To declare it as "partisan voter suppression" is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly believe that is voter suppression, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
You might not know, but the actual Republicans in power and the people working for them do.
|
On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election.
That is a bit thin. I would think that it will reduce the number of people voting because it speaks to fear of going to jail.
It is kind of the same as the "there will be no border to Mexico if you vote for x". Sure the partisan strawman is expected to pick up some votes, but its primary role is to intimidate people from voting for x.
Fear about voter fraud is per definition non-partisan, but its effects will clearly be some of the less partisan people will stick to the couch! And that is intimidation, though not of the illegal kind.
|
On November 01 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system. But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes.
I never understood the uproar for making voters have photo IDs. If you're 18 or older you should have a photo ID. If you don't have a photo ID you should get a photo ID. It's a quite simple concept. If you can't legally obtain a photo ID you shouldn't be voting in the first place. There are so many other times where I have to verify my ID, I'm actually kind of surprised the ID verification process has been so slack to begin with.
|
It should be pretty easy to check these machines. Just run a mock election where you intentionally to 50/50 and make sure it comes out that way.
In order for this to happen the state would need to be in on it and I doubt that South Carolina was conspiring to put Romney on the Republican ticket.
|
On November 01 2012 06:07 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system. But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes. I never understood the uproar for making voters have photo IDs. If you're 18 or older you should have a photo ID. If you don't have a photo ID you should get a photo ID. It's a quite simple concept. If you can't legally obtain a photo ID you shouldn't be voting in the first place. There are so many other times where I have to verify my ID, I'm actually kind of surprised the ID verification process has been so slack to begin with.
The whole point of the voter ID laws is to discourage the people without IDs from voting, most of whom vote Democratic. It's not the government's business to decide who should or shouldn't vote, and requiring identification to register but not at the polls works perfectly fine. Again, suppression is the larger problem, so the solution...more suppression!
|
On November 01 2012 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:
You might not know, but the actual Republicans in power and the people working for them do.
You mean me?
|
On November 01 2012 06:07 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system. But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes. I never understood the uproar for making voters have photo IDs. If you're 18 or older you should have a photo ID. If you don't have a photo ID you should get a photo ID. It's a quite simple concept. If you can't legally obtain a photo ID you shouldn't be voting in the first place. There are so many other times where I have to verify my ID, I'm actually kind of surprised the ID verification process has been so slack to begin with.
The history of voter disenfranchisement here in the US is rife with ID verifications that were designed explicitly to target minorities and the poor. While I think a uniform ID standard complete with infrastructure for free provision is the right move, getting there is appropriately slow given the historical background.
|
On November 01 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:
You might not know, but the actual Republicans in power and the people working for them do. You mean me?
No, I don't mean you. I mean people working to influence turnout.
|
On November 01 2012 06:06 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:08 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
None of the quotes in that story are in context. That is such partisan drivel it hurts to read it. The author weaves in his own narrative and then gives snippets to justify his narrative. "Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!" In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. That is a bit thin. I would think that it will reduce the number of people voting because it speaks to fear of going to jail. It is kind of the same as the "there will be no border to Mexico if you vote for x". Sure the partisan strawman is expected to pick up some votes, but its primary role is to intimidate people from voting for x. Fear about voter fraud is per definition non-partisan, but its effects will clearly be some of the less partisan people will stick to the couch! And that is intimidation, though not of the illegal kind.
I think you misunderstand voter intimidation. You can't honestly say that publicizing "if you vote for x, that's a vote for y" is illegal.
|
On November 01 2012 06:10 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:09 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:06 HunterX11 wrote:
You might not know, but the actual Republicans in power and the people working for them do. You mean me? No, I don't mean you. I mean people working to influence turnout.
You mean me?
|
On November 01 2012 06:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:03 Bigtony wrote:On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
"Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!"
In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud. My point is that there is no partisan relation to that first billboard. For all we know it was posted by a Democrat in a Republican neighborhood. To declare it as "partisan voter suppression" is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly believe that is voter suppression, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous. Show nested quote +
The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting.
PA has a voter ID law. It's not at all a falsehood. At worst, I would say that they are reminding people to bring their ID's on election day so that they don't get turned away for forgetting. Neither of these billboards are voter intimidation.
You said you didn't see anything wrong with it when the billboard's sole intention is to discourage people who are permitted to vote from doing so by scaring them into thinking they could get arrested or go to jail. That's voter intimidation. It's definitely not strong enough to be illegal, but it's certainly intimidating. If you honestly believe that wasn't its intention, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
|
On November 01 2012 06:08 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:07 Tewks44 wrote:On November 01 2012 06:02 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:58 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:54 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:19 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
"Voter ID which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania... Done!"
In what world are you living where republicans aren't trying to discourage certain groups from voting? Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election. Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. It's amazing that someone who does election law would cheer on voting suppression efforts. It's like a doctor cheering on tobacco commercials. Or maybe I actually understand how it works on a practical level instead of just making assumptions based on biased media reports that I receive from halfway around the world? You don't see me commenting on the validity of Dutch elections do you? Why? Because I know jack shit about about them. Certain individuals slapped the tag "voter suppression" onto certain actions that actually create valid elections in the hope that it evokes certain emotional resentment to those actions. It's political persuasion. The tag "voter suppression" is slapped onto certain actions undertaken with the deliberate intent of suppressing voters. That's a bad thing. Sure, it's emotional, but only in the sense that it is emotional to prefer democracy over oligarchy or some other non-democratic system. But you overlook that it's intent is to suppress only illegal votes. Democrats dislike these rules because they are the overwhelming beneficiary of illegal votes. I never understood the uproar for making voters have photo IDs. If you're 18 or older you should have a photo ID. If you don't have a photo ID you should get a photo ID. It's a quite simple concept. If you can't legally obtain a photo ID you shouldn't be voting in the first place. There are so many other times where I have to verify my ID, I'm actually kind of surprised the ID verification process has been so slack to begin with. The whole point of the voter ID laws is to discourage the people without IDs from voting, most of whom vote Democratic. It's not the government's business to decide who should or shouldn't vote, and requiring identification to register but not at the polls works perfectly fine. Again, suppression is the larger problem, so the solution...more suppression!
Are you ****ing kidding me? I'm done responding to you.
|
I blame the electoral college. The all or nothing of votes per state bullshit shouldn't exist. It's like silencing a possible 49% of the population of 25+ million people in a single state!
|
There was some random statistic I heard/saw somewhere in the cacaphony of voter-enfranchisement-related media that 11% of eligible voters don't have a valid government-issued photo ID in the states.
I have no idea whether I even heard it correctly or where it came from, but that seems like a fucking crazy number. Someone tell me it's wrong.
|
On October 31 2012 10:17 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 10:15 Denzil wrote:
that really astounds me, how comes theres not a bigger shitstorm about this? I think Americans stopped caring what their rulers did long ago.
...
I disagree with this in more ways than I thought was possible.
|
On November 01 2012 06:12 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:05 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:03 Bigtony wrote:On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:26 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Look, I know you live in a shell where you only ever hear one side of a story. That's great. I do election law in the United States, where I volunteer my time to ensure we have fair elections. I have an intimate knowledge of how we do our elections in my state, and I would never put partisan interests above a fair election.
Believe it or not, we're not one of those countries (as of now), where parties put winning ahead of fairness. Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud. My point is that there is no partisan relation to that first billboard. For all we know it was posted by a Democrat in a Republican neighborhood. To declare it as "partisan voter suppression" is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly believe that is voter suppression, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting.
PA has a voter ID law. It's not at all a falsehood. At worst, I would say that they are reminding people to bring their ID's on election day so that they don't get turned away for forgetting. Neither of these billboards are voter intimidation. You said you didn't see anything wrong with it when the billboard's sole intention is to discourage people who are permitted to vote from doing so by scaring them into thinking they could get arrested or go to jail. That's voter intimidation. If you honestly believe that wasn't its intention, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
"sole intention"?
It's awesome when you can just assume the person intended to portray the thing you dislike the most. When I read that, I see a billboard that basically reminds people that scamming an election is illegal. I feel zero threat of going to jail because it makes me think my vote is illegal. I know my vote is legal. Why the hell would I be worried because of that billboard? I'm a citizen and I don't have any intention of committing fraud. Why should I be scared?
|
On November 01 2012 06:16 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:12 Bigtony wrote:On November 01 2012 06:05 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:03 Bigtony wrote:On November 01 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:42 HunterX11 wrote:On November 01 2012 05:36 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 05:28 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Election officials genuinely preventing voter fraud and vote rigging doesn't mean politicians don't attempt voter suppression and things like voter caging. I mean voter caging even leaves a paper trial so you can't deny it exists. You call it voter suppression, I call it preventing voter fraud. You call it disenfranchisement, I call it ensuring fairness for those who actually live in that district. There is a difference between outright voter fraud and challenging tainted votes for the other side. Because both sides do this, it becomes a wash. And if you honestly don't think both sides do this, you are living under a rock. They do. This isn't some "dirty Republican trick." In fact, you might understand the Republican concerns over ballot stuffing given the history of the Democratic Party (Tammany, Tweed, etc.). Even then, challenged voters still get to cast provisional ballots. Both sides do it, but Republicans benefit more from it. Also, I think challenging votes is perfectly fine, it's challenging voters that I find odious since unlike the latter, it really does result in legitimate voters not voting. Not everyone knows about provisional ballots (including election officials), and deliberately scaring voters for example with billboards threatening them with jail for improper voting is the opposite of what we need which is more awareness of voters' rights. The only reason Republicans could possibly benefit more from it is if Democrats were cheating more. That's such a terrible argument I don't even know where to begin with it... And threatening people with jail is voter intimidation, and it results in a jail sentence... Those things get investigated and prosecuted. Stop living in conspiracy theory world. No, the reasons Republicans benefit more is because the groups most easily disenfranchised, the poor and minorities, tend to vote Democratic. This is real life, not some conspiracy The fact is that voter fraud is vanishingly rare (because of safeguards people like you are a part of) and voter suppression far more common--and the response is to step up anti-fraud measures that increase voter suppression (and don't even do anything substantial against fraud) as a consequence! This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would do if democracy were the goal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that first billboard, and I don't speak Spanish so I can't comment on that second billboard. Telling people it's a crime to commit fraud isn't intimidation. That's merely a reminder that they shouldn't scam the election. The first billboard is intimidating as it will only serve to scare off people from voting - people who don't know better but are completely innocent will be afraid in case they commit voter fraud 'by accident.' It wont deter people who actually want to commit voter fraud. My point is that there is no partisan relation to that first billboard. For all we know it was posted by a Democrat in a Republican neighborhood. To declare it as "partisan voter suppression" is absolutely ridiculous. If you honestly believe that is voter suppression, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous.
The second says 'if you want to vote, you have to show this.' Which is probably a falsehood designed to deter hispanics from voting.
PA has a voter ID law. It's not at all a falsehood. At worst, I would say that they are reminding people to bring their ID's on election day so that they don't get turned away for forgetting. Neither of these billboards are voter intimidation. You said you didn't see anything wrong with it when the billboard's sole intention is to discourage people who are permitted to vote from doing so by scaring them into thinking they could get arrested or go to jail. That's voter intimidation. If you honestly believe that wasn't its intention, I'm not going to bother listening to you anymore. It's so disingenuous. "sole intention"? It's awesome when you can just assume the person intended to portray the thing you dislike the most. When I read that, I see a billboard that basically reminds people that scamming an election is illegal. I feel zero threat of going to jail because it makes me think my vote is illegal. I know my vote is legal. Why the hell would I be worried because of that billboard? I'm a citizen and I don't have any intention of committing fraud. Why should I be scared?
Aren't you white, middle class, and in Wisconsin? I only ask because these are the sorts of factors that might work into a possible fear of voter problems.
|
who cares, the electoral college votes for the next president, not "the people", which is dumb as fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
