|
On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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.
It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database).
I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA.
|
On November 01 2012 06:18 lowreezy08 wrote:
who cares, the electoral college votes for the next president, not "the people", which is dumb as fuck.
someone failed civics class.
|
On November 01 2012 06:10 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:06 radiatoren 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 ![[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. 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.
No Strawmanning or dishonest association or straight up lying is a part of any election and not illegal. But intimidation is not strictly a legal definition. You want to call it voter apathetisation?
|
On November 01 2012 06:13 ShatterZer0 wrote:
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!
Actually the electoral college is wonderful making stuff like this irrelevant.
In USA states run the elections. A state government could tip the election in favor of one candidate or another, but this is largely pointless because if the State has a Republican government it is likely to vote Republican for president anyway.
The same is true if it is democratic.
If you use a straight popular vote then very Republican states will do everything in their power to swing the vote in favor of Republicans and Democratic states will swing the vote in favor of Democrats. This promotes cheating since if you engage in vote stuffing you can swing the election.
If you are going to use a popular voting system and you are concerned that the states will cheat, then an alternative is to have the federal government police its own elections, but this is letting the fox guard the hen house. The government is controlled by the very same people who are up for election and there will be tremendous pressure to install policies that favor incumbents.
The electoral college is best because it does not reward states for cheating and does not rely on a federal government to police its own elections.
|
On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA.
Do you think every state has the same ID provision structure, and can you see how pushing for uniform ID requirements would be far less divisive given less proximity to a major election? Also, Pennsylvania's ID law is on hold for this election.
|
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. 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.
The voter id law is not valid this election. PA Judges all thought it was absolute bullshit.
PA's voter ID law required people to MAKE additional verification that they were a US citizen and resident of Pennsylvania at least a month prior to voting. Verification of citizenship was very difficult for those who had lost their birth certificates because they had to be wary of serious voter fraud... For example, people showing up saying they needed a voter id and then falsifying records of them being US citizens by producing documents that said they had lived in PA for 14+ years and saying they had lost their birth certificates.
Because of the possible fraud if you didn't have a verified birth certificate and/or owned a home in the United States for 14+ years you wouldn't be able to vote in PA.
Most of the United States' population's birth certificate information is still held in paper form, so losing it meant going to a State or Federal records office and being put on a wait list for 3-6 weeks... only to find they didn't have your records to begin with because your hospital, or god forbid midwife, had left the records some place where they had taken water damage... Then of course, since you have no legitimate record of citizenship, you may actually be threatened with technical illegal status because you also don't have a green card.
Yeah.... voter ID's are bullshit that should either be enacted AFTER election cycle with mass approval of the voting public, or never be brought up at all.
|
On November 01 2012 06:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:16 BluePanther wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I am, but I still fail to see how anyone could perceive that as threatening if they are a citizen? It's clearly a warning to illegal immigrants and felons. I understand why you can think the person behind the Spanish billboard had bad intentions (due to the picture), but the content of the billboard is actually more of a PSA than anything else.
|
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. 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.
I believe that the billboard is rife with intimidation... it's intimidating to people trying to commit voter fraud. I really don't know how you look at that billboard and say "it's clearly intended for people voting legally, but are afraid of being prosecuted for voter fraud." Perhaps I'm not following your logic, or just simply missing some kind of subtlety in the billboard, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. The government doesn't want voter fraud, so they make a billboard that threatens people with steep fines and prison time if they commit voter fraud. When I see a similar billboard for DUIs my first thought is "that billboard is clearly trying to intimidate people who are not driving drunk but are afraid of getting a DUI." I suppose it's possible I'm being naive, but I just don't understand how you got to the conclusion you got to.
|
Wait a minute... does this remind anyone else of Heroes?
Nathan Petrelli is a look-alike of Mitt Romney... and he got elected into Congress by cheating.
/conspiracy
|
On November 01 2012 06:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA. Do you think every state has the same ID provision structure, and can you see how pushing for uniform ID requirements would be far less divisive given less proximity to a major election? Also, Pennsylvania's ID law is on hold for this election.
My point was simply that an exact number is nigh impossible with our current ID system. There is no 100% accurate way to find out how many don't have them. The methodologies I saw that make the most sense estimate around a 2-3% lack of IDs. But even those are just estimates.
As for the PA voter ID law -- I don't know enough about that to comment. I just knew they had passed one. Without more information as to when the billboard was posted in regards to the litigation and the judge's order, I can't really comment on that billboard. It could very well have been posted when that law was in effect but before the judge put it on hold.
|
On November 01 2012 06:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA. Do you think every state has the same ID provision structure, and can you see how pushing for uniform ID requirements would be far less divisive given less proximity to a major election? Also, Pennsylvania's ID law is on hold for this election. My point was simply that an exact number is nigh impossible with our current ID system. There is no 100% accurate way to find out how many don't have them. The methodologies I saw that make the most sense estimate around a 2-3% lack of IDs. But even those are just estimates. As for the PA voter ID law -- I don't know enough about that to comment. I just knew they had passed one. Without more information as to when the billboard was posted in regards to the litigation and the judge's order, I can't really comment on that billboard. It could very well have been posted when that law was in effect but before the judge put it on hold.
Yeah I'm not sure about that 11% number either, it does seem a bit high. In any case, I think it worthwhile for states to get to work on cohesive voter ID law after the election so that we can avoid this shit altogether 
|
BluePanther, I'm confused, I can't tell whether you are genuinely naive or whether you're deliberately misrepresenting facts. Surely, even if you yourself are the image of good, the republican lawmakers that promote these measures don't share your concerns, that much is obvious. When just before an election you make a law that will give your party an electoral advantage and then you brag about how now you're going to win the election, when your party has a history of actual voter suppression, - if all of that is a coincidence, it's still bad form by the republicans for not being more mindful of how all of this looks in the public.
Case in point:
On November 01 2012 06:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA. Do you think every state has the same ID provision structure, and can you see how pushing for uniform ID requirements would be far less divisive given less proximity to a major election? Also, Pennsylvania's ID law is on hold for this election. As for the PA voter ID law -- I don't know enough about that to comment. I just knew they had passed one. Without more information as to when the billboard was posted in regards to the litigation and the judge's order, I can't really comment on that billboard. It could very well have been posted when that law was in effect but before the judge put it on hold.
You've been telling everyone how paranoid and delusional they are for believing this is voter suppression, and now you claim that you know nothing about one of the prime examples. Why bother commenting then?
|
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.
HAHAHA read some of the other posts this guy has made. He only posts to say something dumb/negative...i wouldn't take him too seriously.
|
On November 01 2012 06:33 Grumbels wrote:
BluePanther, I'm confused, I can't tell whether you are genuinely naive or whether you're deliberately misrepresenting facts. Surely, even if you yourself are the image of good, the republican lawmakers that promote these measures don't share your concerns, that much is obvious. When just before an election you make a law that will give your party an electoral advantage and then you brag about how now you're going to win the election, when your party has a history of actual voter suppression, - if all of that is a coincidence, it's still bad form by the republicans for not being more mindful of how all of this looks in the public.
You really think they try to implement this stuff directly before an election? It takes a long time to pass laws in the United States. You forget that we have elections every 6 months in my state. Our ID law was passed over 9 months ago, but it keeps getting delayed because "they don't have enough time to implement it before the next election." Now, to be fair, we've had a string of contentious elections. However, at some point you just have to implement the law and move on with it. When you spend a year drafting it and then another year fighting it in courts, its IMPOSSIBLE to draft it without it overlapping with an election.
|
On November 01 2012 06:33 Grumbels wrote:BluePanther, I'm confused, I can't tell whether you are genuinely naive or whether you're deliberately misrepresenting facts. Surely, even if you yourself are the image of good, the republican lawmakers that promote these measures don't share your concerns, that much is obvious. When just before an election you make a law that will give your party an electoral advantage and then you brag about how now you're going to win the election, when your party has a history of actual voter suppression, - if all of that is a coincidence, it's still bad form by the republicans for not being more mindful of how all of this looks in the public. Case in point: Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:27 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:21 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA. Do you think every state has the same ID provision structure, and can you see how pushing for uniform ID requirements would be far less divisive given less proximity to a major election? Also, Pennsylvania's ID law is on hold for this election. As for the PA voter ID law -- I don't know enough about that to comment. I just knew they had passed one. Without more information as to when the billboard was posted in regards to the litigation and the judge's order, I can't really comment on that billboard. It could very well have been posted when that law was in effect but before the judge put it on hold. You've been telling everyone how paranoid and delusional they are for believing this is voter suppression, and now you claim that you know nothing about one of the prime examples. Why bother commenting then?
You assume that the poster of the picture has a date on it? My statement was that it's likely still legal and was actually the law at the time the billboard was posted. However, without a timeframe nobody can know for sure.
I was conceding that you may be right, but it would require some sort of information that was not provided.
I never said that voter suppression NEVER happens. It does. Just like fraud happens. Voter suppression just doesn't happen nearly as much as it's made out to be, and is rarely anything serious due to the nature of big prison penalties for committing suppression.
|
Why are threads like these allowed?? If everyone made a thread for any potential conspiracy going on, Teamliquid.net would not be known as a SC2 forum, but as a total piece of shit. Now, I know how people just -love- to find drama or wrongdoing and point it out, and that's just great, but there's a difference between 'actual news' and 'GIGANTIC CONSPIRACY THEORY'.
On another note, the electoral college is a silly system which people are just too lazy to remove. Like how Al Gore actually won popular vote, but then lost because some stupid-ass shit + Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader had good intentions, it's just he was a bit, ugh, not realistic...
|
I'll just kind of jam myself into this conversation and point out how silly it is that we're so concerned about getting as many people to "vote" as humanly possible as if that makes for a more pure/fair election. This seems incredibly naive. I don't consider it a plus to our political process when somebody who is about as uninformed as possible and unmotivated as possible casts their vote for whoever looks the most handsome or gets off the most zingers in the last debate or whatever...
I'm sure I'll be e-crucified for this, but I think making voting a more serious event can only be good for our election process. I'm sorry that democrats have the less motivated base.
|
On November 01 2012 05:51 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +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:On November 01 2012 05:06 Grumbels wrote:On November 01 2012 05:03 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you missed the election fraud story out of Florida?
I LOVE IT WHEN FOREIGNERS TELL ME HOW I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS. The internet is the only place where someone would say something that stupid. http://www.thenation.com/blog/169642/republicans-boast-about-voter-suppression-tampa-ground-shifting I don't want to get into a petty argument, but republican attempts at voter suppression this election are pretty obvious. 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.
What the hell? How does that logic even work? When you see a speed limit or a DUI sign, do you think Driver intimation?
|
On November 01 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2012 06:13 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. It's wrong. It's closer to 2-3%, and nobody knows for sure because there is no universal ID system. The 11% number comes from a retarded methodology that double counts people who usually have ID's (such as a woman's maiden name in one agency database and her married name in the DMV database). I went over how easy it is to get an ID in the other thread and why it is not an unconstitutional bar to voting the USA.
Lol, say whatever made up statistics you want (2 per cent of eligible voters dont have ID, seriously?), everyone knows that poor people, minorities, students, these are the kind of people who might not have voter ID, who might be intimidated at the polls by "volunteer" neighbourhood watch kind of guys, who might not be able to vote when early voting is cut, whose ballots gets lost. ETC
It is just disgusting because they are actively fighting against democracy. They know that if they keep poor people, young people, black people, hispanics etc from voting, they can win it (along with rigging possibly...)
Who would be afraid of the voice of the people? What party would say, "with voter suppression we will take the white house from obama"? Its an actual strategy of the GOP!
Also, its easy for you to get an ID because to you the cost is not prohibiting, and its easy to access. In some places and to some people (read; people who will not vote republican), the hassle and cost to get one might very well keep them from voting.
Furthermore, they do shit like make the ballot 20 pages long so noone has the time to read it and fill it out. They hire known fradulent companies to register voters and of course they cheat, just like they cheated earlier under a different name. And yeah acorn was nothing compared to this year's republican voter fraud and voter suppression. They waste the time of voting officials who are preparing polling places etc, with fake lists of "possible cases of voter fraud". Now the voting officials have to spend hours and hours going through a list of tens of thousands of people, a vast majority of whom were in fact eligible voters. Now the voting preparation has gotten interrupted and early voting is cut, guess what? People are less likely to vote if they have to stand in line for hours!
And just to reiterate, there has been almost no case of in person voter fraud in modern times. So whats the "hurry" to get voter suppression laws in place again? Its simply not a problem, so why are you trying to disenfranchise so many people, trying to take their democracy away from them (stealing the election), for this non-issue? It just becomes obvious this is about suppresing votes and not about voter fraud, of which there is none EXCEPT these cases of voter manipulation or at the very least voter intimidation and suppression.
I could go on further. For example what about the time when the Pennsylvania supreme court struck down voter ID laws, but they went ahead with adds, in english and spanish (!) telling voters they had to show ID or they couldn't vote. In the end they accomplished their goals of making sure at least some people saw the ad, and decided not to vote. Even though their law was not upheld.
btw im not a citizen but ive lived in america, my so is an american citizen, and I plan to move back.
As a human being believing in democracy, I am ASTONISHED to see such great leaps taken by the GOP to make sure as few people as possible vote. Even disregarding this allegation of voter miscounting.
|
Zurich15355 Posts
On October 31 2012 10:17 BluePanther wrote:WHY THIS IS FALSE (with proof)I posted this in the other thread, but I'll copy it over here since you couldn't keep this contained in the relevant thread: Please remember that I do volunteer election work (legal) on partisan elections for some Republicans in the State of Wisconsin, which was one of the states accused of cheating in that report. Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 08:36 Lmui wrote:
Secondary confirmation of the statistical anomaly I posted earlier. It did seem pretty impossible at the time and some people, BluePanther especially tried to refute it but didn't have a concrete reason. This article elaborates further and suggests that it has occured starting only in 2008, only for republican candidates and is only ever in favour of republican candidates.
You're asking me to disprove something that didn't happen. It is hard to do that. I also believe when you throw around these kinds of accusations, it's YOUR job to PROVE that it happened. And correlations are not PROOF. Like I said, the author of that study noted that in Wisconsin, we've had that same trend. But I pointed out that we use paper ballots, and that the machines only count. When there is a recount, they count the paper ballots. Just recently we had a huge election scandal. A Democrat won the election for a spot on our Supreme Court. A clerk in a large (and very Republican) Milwaukee suburb failed to submit a large group of votes until the day after the election which swung the results in favor of the Republican candidate for Supreme Court. Obviously, hell was raised and a recount commenced to verify the results. See: http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/latest-report-to-gab-shows-waukesha-county-recount-628-completedhttp://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/122443704.htmlThey used a partial hand recount in this Supreme Court election (which was hugely partisan) where the Republican won by a miniscule amount. He still won after the recount. About 1/3 of the counties in the state were required to recount the ballots BY HAND. There was no suggestion of wildly varying vote totals nearing the 10% your conspiracy theorist alleges. The mistakes were well within reasonable changes to the total, and nobody accused anyone of stealing the election. Here are the historical counts as this whole debacle unfolded so you can see these changes from a machine count to a hand count: http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/results/2011/springYou are chasing a ghost. Our machines are not rigged. And this is proof (at least in a single example). Where is YOUR proof?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
