|
|
On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws.
What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable.
edit: I am referring to the 10 cases of in-person voter impersonation that were identified nationwide since 2000 in the study cited here.
|
On August 18 2012 14:23 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Is this a "conservative" position?
Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Good question, there are many on the left that think the rich should sacrifice and serve their time just as much as the poor and unemployed. I can't decide myself, but can see the point. Last draft was under LBJ I believe, so maybe volunteer military is indeed more of a conservative platform. Would kind of make sense to me. One advantage of the draft is that it means the entire country becomes more invested in the often idiotic foreign policy of the country rather than creating disposable heroes and collateral damage.
I should mention that I support universal civil service, not military service.
No desire to feed the military-industrial complex any more bodies, thank you very much. war is nothing but a potlatch
|
On August 18 2012 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
I should mention that I support universal civil service, not military service.
No desire to feed the military-industrial complex any more bodies, thank you very much. war is nothing but a potlatch
Agreed, but with a draft which is inclusive to the people "who matter" perhaps there would be less of it?
|
On August 18 2012 14:35 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
I should mention that I support universal civil service, not military service.
No desire to feed the military-industrial complex any more bodies, thank you very much. war is nothing but a potlatch Agreed, but with a draft which is inclusive to the people "who matter" perhaps there would be less of it?
Oh, I think we should send the children of congressmen and defense lobbyists to the front lines automatically.
|
On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment.
Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service".
Maybe it's just me, but personally, I consider forced military conscription one of the worst violations of freedom out there. And it's especially frightening considering the amount of unnecessary wars we participate in.
|
On August 18 2012 14:38 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service".
See, to me that sounds like a fantastic idea. Why not?
|
On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable.
Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress....
As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
On August 18 2012 14:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:38 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service". See, to me that sounds like a fantastic idea. Why not?
For all your talk of Marxism you sure are showing a remarking similarity to the Leninists you supposedly hate.
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
|
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm a democrat and I believe you should present an ID when voting. Not because of vote fraud though, theres no evidence that voter fraud barely even exists really unless you count people who have "sources" that can't be named and backgrounded.
How can you have no idea about Ohio, just playing dumb huh? Anyway was fun replying to you daunt. Prob won't come back till closer to election.
|
On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 14:38 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service". See, to me that sounds like a fantastic idea. Why not? For all your talk of Marxism you sure are showing a remarking similarity to the Leninists you supposedly hate.
Meh, Leninism is about a lot more than universal civil service. I also think we should have markets for some things, but that doesn't make me a liberal.
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Again, what I have in mind doesn't involve a great deal of dying. More about developing infrastructure, civic pride, and social solidarity.
|
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The issue arises in aggregate resource deterrence effect. Minorities have less resources generally speaking (less cars, less money ect). Furthermore alot of the state voter ID laws have invalidated even state university granted student ID's as forms of ID's which in turn will drag down the number of youth votes. A minority is less likely to have the daily money or will to burn on a State ID, or a new one, or less likely to drive a car and instead take a bus, and youth are less likely to vote and obtain state id's....
Add in other state/city plans like closing facilities or shortening hours of facilities that produce ID's in minority/youth laden areas or take a crack at early voting (see Florida recently) in suspiciously chosen regions and it's more than a conspiracy, it's pretty clear policy is being enacted in tandem to reduce minority and youth vote.
|
On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Because everyone who joins the military does so out of choice and not necessity and desperation right? Maybe those who act irresponsibly at the polls should do their part as well?
|
On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats
It is a conservative position. It's a testament to the power of Milton Friedman that he so radically changed America's position on the matter.
I will refer you to the exchange between General Westmoreland and Milton Friedman when they debated converting the military to all volunteers. Westmoreland was strongly against it and railed against commanding "an army of mercenaries". Friedman interrupted his rant to ask "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?"
The liberal position against the all volunteer military is that it heavily skews against the poor, who are far more likely to join the military out of necessity. Mandatory service evens the playing field because it demands shared sacrifice from all young men. The conservative position is that mandatory service is slavery to the government.
|
that's very interesting, thanks for pointing me to that. Do you have a link to this by any chance or is it from memory?
|
On August 18 2012 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 14:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 14:38 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service". See, to me that sounds like a fantastic idea. Why not? For all your talk of Marxism you sure are showing a remarking similarity to the Leninists you supposedly hate. Meh, Leninism is about a lot more than universal civil service. I also think we should have markets for some things, but that doesn't make me a liberal. Show nested quote +
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Again, what I have in mind doesn't involve a great deal of dying. More about developing infrastructure, civic pride, and social solidarity.
What you have in mind differs considerably from that of our hawkish politicians. And considering they're the ones being elected...
I also tend to believe in freedom to choose ones own life instead of your collectivist ideals, but Im not going to bother to try and convince you there.
|
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional.
First of all, no, voter fraud is extremely infrequent in the US, as you can see for yourself here. News21, "a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project", found a bit more than 2000 cases of fraud since 2000 in the entire country for both local and federal elections. That's such a small number compared to the number of votes that were cast in all of those elections that it's downright laughable.
Second, I was talking about the kind of voter fraud that voter ID laws are supposed to address, namely in-person voter impersonation. They have found TEN cases of such voter fraud in the US since 2000 in local and federal elections. TEN. See for yourself here and here. So, you were saying?
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:
It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud.
The good reasons not to have it is that 1. it's not necessary because there's no actual voter fraud problem 2. it will prevent substantial numbers of people from voting. Many people don't necessarily know that their photo IDs may not be up to some of the new standards that have been adopted, some aren't even sure of whether or not they will vote, and the point is that if a US citizen that is eligible to vote goes to the voting booth then HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE.
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:
As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Here, educate yourself. Republicans not allowing the same voting hours in Democratic-leaning districts than in Republican-leaning districts, how about that?
|
On August 18 2012 15:02 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Because everyone who joins the military does so out of choice and not necessity and desperation right? Maybe those who act irresponsibly at the polls should do their part as well?
No one is "forced" to join the military. It certainly represents a higher potential status for many poor people, I agree with you there, but were I incredibly poor it's still a choice I personally would not take. That is just my view.
And I cant tell, but are you suggesting that people whom voted for Bush deserve to be shipped off to war? And what is "ones part"? Is it that every member of society should murder an Iraqi civillian? Hmm. Well I did not vote for Bush, don't worry.
|
On August 18 2012 15:23 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 15:02 screamingpalm wrote:On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Because everyone who joins the military does so out of choice and not necessity and desperation right? Maybe those who act irresponsibly at the polls should do their part as well? No one is "forced" to join the military. It certainly represents a higher potential status for many poor people, I agree with you there, but were I incredibly poor it's still a choice I personally would not take. That is just my view. And I cant tell, but are you suggesting that people whom voted for Bush deserve to be shipped off to war? And what is "ones part"? Is it that every member of society should murder an Iraqi civillian? Hmm. Well I did not vote for Bush, don't worry.
As somewhat of an aside to the whole topic, I personally think any significant dedication to "war" should be met with a conscription to fill the ranks. Even if we forget why war is bad, maybe this would give us a nudge in the right direction.
|
On August 18 2012 15:23 1Eris1 wrote:
No one is "forced" to join the military. It certainly represents a higher potential status for many poor people, I agree with you there, but were I incredibly poor it's still a choice I personally would not take. That is just my view.
And I cant tell, but are you suggesting that people whom voted for Bush deserve to be shipped off to war? And what is "ones part"? Is it that every member of society should murder an Iraqi civillian? Hmm. Well I did not vote for Bush, don't worry.
Well I speak as an independent voter. There are candidates out there that aren't as hawkish and have such idiotic stances on foreign policy compared to the mainstream ones. As I said, with a draft, the entire country then becomes heavily invested in these issues. The last time the anti-war movement had any teeth, was when there was a draft. Why do you think that is?
That conservatives consider a draft to be "slavery" just magnifies the hypocrisy of that view.
|
On August 18 2012 15:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. First of all, no, voter fraud is extremely infrequent in the US, as you can see for yourself here. News21, "a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project", found a bit more than 2000 cases of fraud since 2000 in the entire country for both local and federal elections. That's such a small number compared to the number of votes that were cast in all of those elections that it's downright laughable. Second, I was talking about the kind of voter fraud that voter ID laws are supposed to address, namely in-person voter impersonation. They have found TEN cases of such voter fraud in the US since 2000 in local and federal elections. TEN. See for yourself here and here. So, you were saying? Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:
It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. The good reasons not to have it is that 1. it's not necessary because there's no actual voter fraud problem 2. it will prevent substantial numbers of people from voting. Many people don't necessarily know that their photo IDs may not be up to some of the new standards that have been adopted, some aren't even sure of whether or not they will vote, and the point is that if a US citizen that is eligible to vote goes to the voting booth then HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE. Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:
As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. Here, educate yourself. Republicans not allowing the same voting hours in Democratic-leaning districts than in Republican-leaning districts, how about that?
Everything about this post is perfect, except one thing... After the whole country saw what a farce the Republicans were running in Ohio they backtracked and now have equal voting for all counties IIRC. The fact remains that they tried to allow Republican districts more time to vote than Democratic leaning ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
