|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11505 Posts
On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples.
I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about.
When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right?
If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right?
So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur.
And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has.
|
On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has.
I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws.
Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon?
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon?
I mean, many posters did already anyway. ‘Here’s how it works where we are with the requirement for photo ID, that is fine because x’
It’s been addressed already by multiple posters from multiple locales.
I’d argue much more thoroughly than the inverse, such as ‘why do we need this to ‘solve’ fraud that isn’t really an issue?’ Never mind other pesky stuff like ‘didn’t the current President completely invent a crisis of fraud while doing things such as pressuring people to find votes in his favour?’
|
On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has.
Approximately 23 states have voter ID. If the goal was to disenfranchise a large number of disproportionately Dem voters it should already be happening and the people polled in this question should know it, since Dems have been making this claim now for years. So it is relevant, unless you want to say the SAVE Act is much worse than voter ID as it currently exists, which i would at least count as progress.
The criticism is not of "proposed laws" it is a criticism of voter ID itself in the US because of past egregious disenfranchment.
|
On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There was nothing to address.
People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying.
Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:On April 24 2026 12:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There was nothing to address.
People who know the subject say that this is just the latest in a long history of abusing rules. You show up and declare that that wouldn’t be possible. But it not only is possible, it’s already happening, it’s been happening since the civil war, it’s established, it’s studied, it’s documented. That’s why the people who know more than you are saying what they’re saying.
Showing up and declaring “well I don’t think that’s possible” isn’t informing us about the subject, it’s informing us about the limits of your understanding. And if you’re going to just randomly list things that you don’t know we’ll be here forever. I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable. But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin. Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work. Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on
Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like:
White men get it for free
White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars
Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k.
Thats what I meant.
|
On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon?
My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane.
|
On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane.
Ah, interesting! Three follow-up questions:
1. What's the downside of automatically mailing ballots out to voters?
2. Why would it be better to have fewer weeks available for early voting?
3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID?
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 08:09 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable.
But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin.
Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work.
Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 13:35 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I am going to try to do an analogy here. Let's say there is this guy you know. He always comes up with some weird story, or a new business idea every time you see him. It is always some new thing, and most of the time it sounds somewhat reasonable.
But each time, it turns out that it is just a plan to scam you out of 50 bucks for heroin.
Is is not reasonable to be a bit suspicious of the thing the guy now proposes? And maybe disagree by default, because history suggests that in the end it is very likely that it is just another scheme to scam you out of 50 bucks. And in this case latest case, you can even see how the scam might work.
Republicans are that guy. Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like: White men get it for free White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k. Thats what I meant.
Sure, you can’t do those things but did you read the Chat GPT summary I posted?
IIRC you’re a Pole living in the UK, so you’ve probably never lived in a place where these things are really a question.
In the US, they can be. Which is the concern people have. Bear in mind how elections functionally are administered aren’t nationally standardised and are at the discretion of states.
At a localised level, all it takes is a voter roll purge at short notice and a lack of convenient facilities to re-register and you’re fucking with the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights.
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane.
For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good?
What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots?
I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it
|
On April 25 2026 08:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:09 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:On April 24 2026 13:59 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes this analogy goes hard if you have no idea who restricted minority voting rights over US history. The conservatives. You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like: White men get it for free White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k. Thats what I meant. Sure, you can’t do those things but did you read the Chat GPT summary I posted? IIRC you’re a Pole living in the UK, so you’ve probably never lived in a place where these things are really a question. In the US, they can be. Which is the concern people have. Bear in mind how elections functionally are administered aren’t nationally standardised and are at the discretion of states. At a localised level, all it takes is a voter roll purge at short notice and a lack of convenient facilities to re-register and you’re fucking with the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights.
I did read this summary, it is irrelevant to my argument, because very people your summary mentioned wouldnt be able to get voter ID. As in people unable to vote would still be unable to vote.
As for second paragraph "Irish need not apply"?
Regarding remaining two paragraphs: this are not the voter ID issues, like... at all. This are particular states voting laws. Like, people who wouldnt be able to vote wouldnt get voter ID, which seems like entire purpose of it.
|
On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it
If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't.
Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you.
Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence.
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 10:13 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:35 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:09 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 02:29 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 02:10 Razyda wrote:On April 25 2026 00:34 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
The conservatives.
You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? This is why you get the responses you do. They’re what you deserve. You got question you got, because you just tried to explain to oBlade that there is massive republican/conservative conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments, by quoting conservative Democrat from 1901. That just doesnt make sense, let alone argument. On April 25 2026 00:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 00:06 Razyda wrote:On April 24 2026 23:18 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2026 22:13 oBlade wrote:On April 24 2026 14:40 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
The conservatives.
You think you found some gotcha, but you just sound like an ignorant idiot. We've already discussed this topic, including Nixon's Southern Strategy, which led to party realignment. The racist South switched from voting for the Democrats to voting for the Republicans. Their values didn't change. The parties' platforms did. There is no, and has never been, mass Republican, or mass conservative, conspiracy to disenfranchise people against the spirit or letter of the 15th and 19th amendments. That didn't "switch." It just disappeared after Jim Crow. The country moved on. https://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdfhttps://alabamareflector.com/2025/09/02/study-black-alabamians-more-likely-to-lose-vote-over-moral-turpitude-than-whites/Let's hear from John B. Knox, President of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. He can walk us through this in his own words. Every response is a literal quote from the transcript. So John, what's the purpose of this constitutional convention? To establish white supremacy in this State. Okay. Wow. That's pretty extreme. How do you plan to do that? Manipulation of the ballot. Is that allowed? It is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution. Buddy, that sounds super unconstitutional and frankly immoral. These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition. Oh, so you're passing a law that you're arguing is racially neutral and if it just happens to be used more frequently against the negro then that is their fault. But why are you doing this? The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. That Constitutional Convention established that local officials in Alabama communities were empowered to deny citizens voting if the citizen had been found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude was never defined, the crimes were never listed, it was left up to the local officials to decide who should not be allowed to vote on account of their moral character. The law is literally still there. 2.3% of black men in Alabama can't vote today under the "establish white supremacy" law of 1901. You might think that that's weird because this one is surely indefensible, they said the quiet part out loud, they literally told everyone why they were doing it, then they literally explained how the "we don't say 'blacks' in the law and if it happens to have a racial result then that's fine" loophole worked. The 1985 Supreme Court unanimously agreed and told Alabama to remove the language. But Alabamans are smart when it comes to loopholes. They removed the language but then put it back in unchanged, satisfying the Supreme Court. It wasn't until 2017 that Alabama finally passed a law that created a list which is a slight improvement because it isn't purely at the discretion of poll officials but, of course, it just moves the hurdle very slightly. Instead of charging a white man and a black man with the same crime and only disenfranchising the black man they now get equal treatment, assuming Alabama is equally willing to arrest, investigate, and convict a black man, and assuming they're charged with the same crime. As John explained, you don’t need to write racially specific restrictions into the laws, you just write restrictions, your existing control over the system will do the rest. To put it in a modern context, you decide how hard it is to get IDs, processing times, where the ID registration centres are, their opening hours, what documents are needed, if home ownership is required for proof of address, whatever. Or to put it in another modern context, literally what John said in 1901 because that is in a modern context because the restrictions he wrote in 1901 are the ones being used today. It’s absolute peak ignorance to declare that the Civil War was a long time ago and so it has no relevance today. Wasnt this dude a Democrat?? A conservative, you mean? https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5676#113502 So you believe that Democrats were capable to turn into progressives in couple of decades, but conservatives didnt change at all since 1901? On April 25 2026 00:59 WombaT wrote:
@Razyda there you go, I hope you’re grateful for the a single sentence in Chat GPT hours of research…
Voter disenfranchisement in the United States refers to ways in which eligible citizens are prevented—intentionally or indirectly—from registering to vote or casting a ballot. It’s not usually one single policy, but a mix of laws, administrative practices, and structural issues. Here are the main mechanisms:
⸻
1. Voter ID Laws
Some states require specific forms of identification to vote.
* Supporters say this prevents fraud.
* Critics argue it disproportionately affects low-income voters, elderly people, and minorities who are less likely to have qualifying IDs.
⸻
2. Voter Roll Purges
States regularly remove names from voter registration lists.
* This can happen due to inactivity, address changes, or errors.
* Problems arise when eligible voters are mistakenly removed and only discover it when they try to vote.
⸻
3. Felony Disenfranchisement
In many states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights—sometimes permanently.
* This disproportionately affects certain communities due to disparities in the criminal justice system.
* Policies vary widely by state (some restore rights after release, others don’t).
⸻
4. Limited Polling Access
This includes:
* Fewer polling stations in certain areas
* Long wait times (sometimes hours)
* Reduced early voting periods
These barriers tend to affect urban areas and minority communities more heavily.
⸻
5. Gerrymandering
This is the manipulation of electoral district boundaries.
* It doesn’t stop people from voting directly, but it can dilute the impact of their vote.
* Political parties in power often draw districts to favor themselves.
⸻
6. Registration Barriers
* Strict registration deadlines
* Limited online registration access (in some states)
* Complicated processes for first-time voters
These can discourage or prevent eligible people from registering.
⸻
7. Mail Voting Restrictions
Rules around absentee or mail-in voting vary by state.
* Some states require specific excuses or impose strict deadlines.
* Rejected ballots (due to signature mismatches, etc.) can also disenfranchise voters.
⸻
8. Misinformation and Intimidation
* False information about voting dates, eligibility, or requirements
* Aggressive “poll watching” or law enforcement presence
These can discourage turnout, especially among vulnerable groups.
⸻
9. Language and Accessibility Barriers
* Lack of multilingual ballots or assistance
* Inaccessible polling locations for people with disabilities
⸻
Big Picture
Disenfranchisement in the U.S. is often debated politically. Some measures are framed as protecting election integrity, while others are criticized for suppressing participation. The real impact tends to depend on how these policies are implemented and who is most affected. Not sure why you @ me here? You have previously said disenfranchisement can’t happen because it’s illegal (it isn’t ) Assuming you are not aware of some of these things, I got an LLM to make a short summary based on a prompt consisting of a single sentence. Take it or leave it, no skin off my dick like. It’s a thread full of people who broadly know what they’re talking about (and me), it’s like you’re actively trying not to learn anything on any of the topics you pontificate on Oh I see, that wasn't my point, apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that abusing Voter ID would be illegal, as in they wouldnt be able to go like: White men get it for free White women must have written permission of a husband and pay 1k dollars Black folks must have certificates from 3 white families signed by attorney and pay 100k. Thats what I meant. Sure, you can’t do those things but did you read the Chat GPT summary I posted? IIRC you’re a Pole living in the UK, so you’ve probably never lived in a place where these things are really a question. In the US, they can be. Which is the concern people have. Bear in mind how elections functionally are administered aren’t nationally standardised and are at the discretion of states. At a localised level, all it takes is a voter roll purge at short notice and a lack of convenient facilities to re-register and you’re fucking with the ability of people to exercise their democratic rights. I did read this summary, it is irrelevant to my argument, because very people your summary mentioned wouldnt be able to get voter ID. As in people unable to vote would still be unable to vote. As for second paragraph "Irish need not apply"? Regarding remaining two paragraphs: this are not the voter ID issues, like... at all. This are particular states voting laws. Like, people who wouldnt be able to vote wouldnt get voter ID, which seems like entire purpose of it.
How is it irrelevant to your argument? What the fuck are you even talking about?
What IS your argument?
Fucking hell are you genuinely incapable of assimilating new information or what, Jesus H Christ
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence.
That’s why postal ballots have an anonymized inner envelope and a non anonymized outer envelope and all of the auditing is done before the inner envelope is taken out of the outer envelope. Only after the ballot has been accepted is the inner envelope removed and mixed in with all the other unopened inner envelopes.
For example if a mail in ballot went to your old address and was fraudulently submitted and then you voted in person at your new address then the system would flag it. It would identify that you had previously been sent a ballot and the act of voting in person would invalidate the mailed one which would be identifiable due to the outer envelope. Not only would the mailed one not be counted, the new occupants of the address would be investigated for voter fraud.
You think nobody ever thought of this?
Edit: some states open the outer envelopes after signature matching
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence.
And?
They do this here, you generally have to combine a ballot with unique identifying information. My brother never bothered changing his address when he was living in London so we got his ballot equivalent, still needed him to fill it out.
Which does leave some room for fraud, albeit a combination of close family or a partner who has access to that information, and who fills out a ballot using that, and also relies on the person themselves not going to vote and discovering someone else has already done so using their information
|
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On April 25 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. That’s why postal ballots have an anonymized inner envelope and a non anonymized outer envelope and all of the auditing is done before the inner envelope is taken out of the outer envelope. Only after the ballot has been accepted is the inner envelope removed and mixed in with all the other unopened inner envelopes. For example if a mail in ballot went to your old address and was fraudulently submitted and then you voted in person at your new address then the system would flag it. It would identify that you had previously been sent a ballot and the act of voting in person would invalidate the mailed one which would be identifiable due to the outer envelope. Not only would the mailed one not be counted, the new occupants of the address would be investigated for voter fraud. You think nobody ever thought of this?
Apparently not, which makes demands to ‘secure elections’ especially laughable.
It would be fucking trivial to fix an election if such mechanisms weren’t already in place.
Surprisingly most places have systems in place to prevent that, who’d have thought it?
|
On April 25 2026 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. Ah, interesting! Three follow-up questions: 1. What's the downside of automatically mailing ballots out to voters? 2. Why would it be better to have fewer weeks available for early voting? 3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID?
Mailing ballots to people and places that did not ask for them is an...invitation I'd rather not make.
Too long an early voting period means sometimes things happen before election day that voters might like to know. But once they've dealt with their ballot early they are less likely to bother changing it. Elections happen on particular days. It's not the 1820s anymore, you don't need that much time.
I haven't looked into any literature specially but from what I've read it seems like most people who study such things think it's a pretty good system. It is generous within the rules. Famously early voting within Florida is very popular. But you still have to go through a security process. They even report turnout exactly through the day each day (from what I recall) which gives people a very good sense of what is happening. They know how many ballots are to be counted before they even start (early voting ends a few days before election day in most places). Maybe California changed this but I believe they do not know, and it makes sense because they also allow ballots to be received after election day, which if you have a easy, long early vote period is not needed.
On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it
There is nothing that explains it except platitudes about more voters equals more better type of arguments. At least that's the only justification I ever read. You could argue it helps GOTV organizations as it gives them more time to get people to actually vote. And it seems to me, though again maybe someone disagrees, but the Dems usually benefit more from outside groups trying to turn out voters. It's possible that as the coalitions move around, that early voting, VBM, stuff like that actually end up helping Republicans more as they get the less reliable share of the electorate.
|
United States43964 Posts
Amusingly there was briefly a weakness in the NM same day registration process in which they would do address matching verification against the address you had just provided. The verification process was checking that the information you provided was the same as the information they had on file which was the information you had literally just provided. Wouldn’t have allowed non citizens to vote but would have allowed people to vote under the wrong address.
During training I said “hold up, it’s not validation if both pieces of data came from the same source”. By the time of the election they’d fixed that loophole.
As a rule “someone already thought of that” applies but in that instance I was the guy who already thought of it before the election. I do enjoy it when I have voter fraud theorists come to my location though because I get a chance to walk them through how the Dominion machines work and what the checks are. It’s always funny when after explaining why whatever they can come up with wouldn’t work they’re like “well you never know what happens later behind closed doors” and I remind them that that’s why we have the doors open and that they’re allowed to observe. For some reason they never want to.
|
On April 25 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. That’s why postal ballots have an anonymized inner envelope and a non anonymized outer envelope and all of the auditing is done before the inner envelope is taken out of the outer envelope. Only after the ballot has been accepted is the inner envelope removed and mixed in with all the other unopened inner envelopes. For example if a mail in ballot went to your old address and was fraudulently submitted and then you voted in person at your new address then the system would flag it. It would identify that you had previously been sent a ballot and the act of voting in person would invalidate the mailed one which would be identifiable due to the outer envelope. Not only would the mailed one not be counted, the new occupants of the address would be investigated for voter fraud. You think nobody ever thought of this? Edit: some states open the outer envelopes after signature matching
Gaslighting hasn't gotten more expensive for you with the Iran war? "You think nobody ever thought of <thing I already put in the post you're responding to>?"
I enjoy you think
1) you have to live at an address to open its mailbox and envelope
2) someone can only move within their state and not to a different state, an inherently disconnected jurisdiction, which "muh system" doesn't notice
3) this has any relevance to someone using ballots for the infirm or other non-voters who aren't submitting a second ballot
"It's secure because you can investigate someone later" is like saying the unlocked house is secure because you can investigate who stole the TV. No thanks. Voter ID, in-person, you don't lose 0.3% aka 3000 ballots per million to "signature verification" because you immediately know the person is the person.
|
United States43964 Posts
On April 25 2026 11:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 10:42 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2026 10:26 oBlade wrote:On April 25 2026 08:40 WombaT wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. For those of us unfamiliar what does Florida do that is good? What’s the issue with automatic mailing of ballots? I’d agree that 6 weeks of early vote seems excessive on the face of it. There may be something I’m not privy to that explains it If you mail ballots to people who didn't ask, you don't know the same people are there 4 years later. You don't know they didn't move. You don't know they aren't voting somewhere else or some other way. You don't know they have the capacity to vote, i.e. ballot harvesting dementia-ridden elderly (or "enfranchisement" as Biden would call it). You literally don't know they are still alive. You can intercept at literally any point and there is no magic beepbeepbeep this ballot is fraudulent detector when they come back. Ballots are intentionally and necessarily decoupled from signatures/envelopes for secrecy, which nukes security and auditing. The boxes are unmanned. The chain of custody is broken frequently. The only clue is if someone notices their secretary of state recorded they already voted when they didn't. Signature matching fails like 0.3% of the time which is either the tip of an iceberg of fraud that's let through by leniency OR it's disenfranchising 10000 times more people than in person voting would assuming the true fraud rate is 0.00003% as we are led to believe, because people's signature changed or the driver's license signature box made them cram it more weirdly than normal so it's unrecognizable or what have you. Some states have 10 and 20 day grace periods after election day if postmarked before. This is either generously secure or the post office should be nuked from orbit for incompetence. That’s why postal ballots have an anonymized inner envelope and a non anonymized outer envelope and all of the auditing is done before the inner envelope is taken out of the outer envelope. Only after the ballot has been accepted is the inner envelope removed and mixed in with all the other unopened inner envelopes. For example if a mail in ballot went to your old address and was fraudulently submitted and then you voted in person at your new address then the system would flag it. It would identify that you had previously been sent a ballot and the act of voting in person would invalidate the mailed one which would be identifiable due to the outer envelope. Not only would the mailed one not be counted, the new occupants of the address would be investigated for voter fraud. You think nobody ever thought of this? Edit: some states open the outer envelopes after signature matching Gaslighting hasn't gotten more expensive for you with the Iran war? "You think nobody ever thought of <thing I already put in the post you're responding to>?" I enjoy you think 1) you have to live at an address to open its mailbox and envelope 2) someone can only move within their state and not to a different state, an inherently disconnected jurisdiction, which "muh system" doesn't notice 3) this has any relevance to someone using ballots for the infirm or other non-voters who aren't submitting a second ballot "It's secure because you can investigate someone later" is like saying the unlocked house is secure because you can investigate who stole the TV. No thanks. Voter ID, in-person, you don't lose 0.3% aka 3000 ballots per million to "signature verification" because you immediately know the person is the person.
Yeah, how would you catch someone voting in two states, one by mail, one in person. It’s the perfect crime.
Probably like this.
https://6abc.com/post/pa-man-convicted-voter-fraud/18679610/
or this
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/08/23/shaker-heights-man-found-guilty-of-double-voting-in-2020-and-2022/
That said, those were both Trump voters and the system by which they were caught has been the subject of many conservative conspiracy theories involving George Soros. Even though all it does is search for duplicates and even though it was a bipartisan multi state effort that at one point had 31 member states we have since seen Republican controlled states leaving the program and refusing to submit their data to it.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation-voter-data-election-integrity
In many ways it leaves you wondering if Republicans are really that concerned with voter fraud. They used to be, and then the system they joined kept catching Republicans doing voter fraud, and then they yelled about Soros and stopped using the system.
|
On April 25 2026 11:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2026 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 08:14 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2026 07:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 25 2026 06:40 Falling wrote:On April 25 2026 01:18 Introvert wrote:
Once again, as I asked Falling the other day, it would be great for anyone to provide an example of a currently enacted voter ID law they think is too restrictive. Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples. I'm not sure why you think we are not talking about actual examples as though we are dodging. There might be too restrictive laws at the state level and there might not be. But you are arguing about something no one else was talking about. When Republicans say "We want X" That means they currently do not have it, right? If it is something that Republicans want that they do not have, we should be looking at proposed laws that Republicans say would get the X that they want, right? So then when criticism is levelled at the proposed laws (or executive orders) being pushed by Republicans as being too restrictive, how is the counter to look at some state law that is already on the book? It's a complete non-sequitur. And when I looked at the proposed law, it is most certainly most restrictive than, for instance, the three tiered system that Canada has. I was equally confused by Introvert's wording in that post. If Introvert had written it as "Setting aside the debate on hypothetically adding a photo ID requirement for a minute, are there any currently enacted voter ID laws/regulations that anyone thinks is too restrictive? If so, why?" then I think some people might engage. But Introvert's wording was weirdly accusatory, especially when a conservative was the one who brought up photo ID in the first place, and the rest of us were just responding. These quotes in particular were aggressive and confusing to me: "Apparently we can talk about anything except actual examples"; "What is happening here is either ignorance or willful conflating"; and "You could argue about OTHER voter integrity laws". I don't think I read anything over the past few pages that came off like we were all going to refuse to talk about current voter ID laws. Introvert, since you brought it up, are there any current election rules / voter integrity laws that you would like to discuss? Anything you think could be improved upon? My general suggestion would be to do what Florida does. Very secure, and very fast counting. They really turned it around after 2000. My main things are voter ID, not automatic mailing of ballots, and less then one month of early vote. Some states I think are doing 6+ weeks now? It's insane. Ah, interesting! Three follow-up questions: 1. What's the downside of automatically mailing ballots out to voters? 2. Why would it be better to have fewer weeks available for early voting? 3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID? Mailing ballots to people and places that did not ask for them is an...invitation I'd rather not make.
Okay, that's fair. Would you be okay with an opt-in program, where a voter could choose to receive a mailed ballot if they preferred it? That way it's not automatically extra mail for every voter, since some voters might not want it, but it's available as an option for those who do?
Too long an early voting period means sometimes things happen before election day that voters might like to know. But once they've dealt with their ballot early they are less likely to bother changing it. Elections happen on particular days. It's not the 1820s anymore, you don't need that much time.
Shouldn't that be a choice each individual voter could make though? The government isn't forcing voters to vote a month early, right? If a person was truly undecided with a month left before the election, couldn't that person just decide to wait a little longer, if they wanted? The vast majority of all voters obviously know who they're going to vote for way in advance, so it sounds like a beneficial option for anyone who wants to send in their vote and have one fewer errand to remember and run in November. You're right that most people "don't need that much time", but if a person wants to vote on the day of the election, or a week early, or a month early, I don't really see a downside to being flexible there.
I haven't looked into any literature specially but from what I've read it seems like most people who study such things think it's a pretty good system. It is generous within the rules. Famously early voting within Florida is very popular. But you still have to go through a security process. They even report turnout exactly through the day each day (from what I recall) which gives people a very good sense of what is happening. They know how many ballots are to be counted before they even start (early voting ends a few days before election day in most places). Maybe California changed this but I believe they do not know, and it makes sense because they also allow ballots to be received after election day, which if you have a easy, long early vote period is not needed.
While I appreciate the response here, I don't think it addressed my question, which was "3. Is there any evidence that Florida is more secure than states that don't require a voter ID?" I asked that because one of your three "main things" was voter ID, and I still don't see any beneficial impact of it. I'm not aware of any evidence either - I'm pretty sure all 50 states have secure elections, regardless of their rules and requirements - and while I agree that it's great that Florida reports up-to-date turnout throughout the day, that's not the same thing as preventing voter fraud. Also, voter ID isn't even a key component in the ability to report up-to-date turnout. Florida would still run smoothly and transparently without voter ID... maybe even more efficiently, since removing a voter ID requirement would allow for faster lines (less time per voter is needed when you don't need to check ID). And since we know that there's no widespread voter fraud that needs to be prevented with any extra regulations, it sounds like voter ID is pretty redundant and not crucial for anything in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
