Elections in 2012

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Lilith: Interesting thought. Does that apply equally to positive fraud (parking meters and ghosts voting) and to negative fraud (finding ways to prevent legitimate votes from being cast or counted)?

I suppose you could argue that the latter form is worse because it harms a specific person, even if only in a minor and indirect way. Also, there's a greater chance of the latter actually affecting the result of the election, since poor or marginalised social groups are generally easier to disenfranchise -- but then, it usually doesn't take outright fraud to do so.

[MrRoivas]

In short, despite over half a decade of Republicans trying to prove voter fraud is a real issue in the U.S, they have never actually proved that it actually happens much.

 

And it is Republicans that have an interest in making sure less people vote. The people who are easy to disenfranchise are the sorts of people who vote Democratic.

[Jerakeen]

There's nothing wrong with requiring people to prove that they are who they say they are, and that they're eligible to vote. But if you're going to require that everyone show a specific kind of ID, then you have to make that ID easy to get, and free. That means no-one has to take a long trip or a day off work to get to an office that's only open a couple of days a week, and 90-year-old ladies don't need to produce marriage licences from 70 years ago.

 

I suppose it's too much to expect that election procedures could ever be standardized across the country.

[Necris Omega]

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen

I suppose it's too much to expect that election procedures could ever be standardized across the country.

Yeah, probably... though it would be an excellent step towards not only preventing fraud, but the possibility of online voting.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: B.J.Earles

Sigh *takes deep breath of clean air before plunging into discussion of politics*

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Encouraging people to vote is where there is a sharp divide between left and right. Much of the the right operates out of fear, and wants to limit the numbers who vote. Voter impersonation fraud is a smoke screen used to cloud the issue.

Okay, first of all I'm an admitted Republican, so that kind of hurt. I'll concede that both parties use fear to motivate their base; that's just the way politics is. However, if you're going to make the argument that voter fraud is a false issue I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I did a little bit of digging (and I do mean little; it's 1:40 in the morning over here) and found a very interesting article that argues the opposite (note: the title of that article is not meant to be a be a slight against anyone, so please do not take it as such)(note2: I did find that article to be biased, but still found the argument to be valid). An interesting little factoid I found through that article is that in most states you don't even need to be a citizen of the United States of America to register to vote.

Quote:

The left is on the side of democracy, with little room for debate.

In my modest experience, people who say that there's no debate on an issue are either so biased toward one side of the discussion that they do not want to hear the opposing side or are not educated enough to question what they have been told. I dearly hope you are neither.

Quote:

Universal suffrage, married to an informed electorate, is the goal.

This is one of the goals of the Republican party as well.

Quote:

Limiting any of the following works against that goal: registration, access to polls, freedom of the press and freedom from censorship/control of communication, in general.

There are such things as reasonable limitations for voter registration, such as requiring proof of citizenship (to prevent aliens from casting ballots they have no right to cast), requiring proof of residence (to prevent one state from influencing the democratic process of another state), and requiring a photo ID at a poll (which, IMHO, would help guard against voter impersonation). As for limitations of freedom of press and free speech, barring situations that cause significant harm to others, I agree with you.

You are granted slack for the late hour. To simplify the quoting, I'll take your points in order.
1. The article cited attempts to expand what I said--voter impersonation fraud--into a larger election fraud issue. That's fine, but then you can't fight it with ID requirements for the polls. For example, if a state allows non-citizens to register then no "show picture ID to vote" plan will suffice. I'm against poll taxes and other attempts to control who votes. The cited article agrees with me that voter ID laws will not be effective in fighting election fraud. I stick by my smoke screen statement. Requiring ID limits the numbers and types of people voting. That is the intent.
2. My point here is that those on the side of democracy want as many citizens to vote as possible. Voter ID laws work against this ideal. The American way is to err on the side of preserving rights. Legitimate voters are disenfranchised. Republicans support voter ID laws and lie about (or--more often--fail to understand) the intent.
3. If the Republican party includes the liars referenced in #2--and it does--then this goal is not universally accepted within the GOP. I'm explicitly referring to the universal suffrage portion of my statement. The informed electorate portion would require a separate thread. Let's just say that I equate neoconservatism with lying for the purposes of precluding an informed electorate. Fox News is the embodiment of this tenet of neoconservatism.
4. Agreed with some of your comments. I was referring to limitations based upon the intent described in #1. States are closing picture ID sites (perhaps for legitimate budgetary reasons) while simultaneously forcing registered voters to visit these (now farther away) sites before utilizing a nearby polling place. States are charging for state IDs, with limited exemptions. My state, Michigan, exempts seniors and blind residents (I presume that they are groups considered less likely to need driver's licenses.) Anyone else is paying a poll tax. Traditional voter registration drive groups (think: the League of Women Voters) are being hampered by burdensome requirements in some states. These are not reasonable limitations, such as you cited.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Lilith: Interesting thought. Does that apply equally to positive fraud (parking meters and ghosts voting) and to negative fraud (finding ways to prevent legitimate votes from being cast or counted)?

I suppose you could argue that the latter form is worse because it harms a specific person, even if only in a minor and indirect way. Also, there's a greater chance of the latter actually affecting the result of the election, since poor or marginalised social groups are generally easier to disenfranchise -- but then, it usually doesn't take outright fraud to do so.

Bingo! The one who counts the votes has tremendous power. I'm far from a luddite, but some of the technology used to count votes scares the crap out of me. I'll take a punch card (hanging chads and all,) or even a rickety lever machine any day.

The not-so outright fraud might seem like the easier path, but outright fraud can be the "bigger lie" (easier for the public to swallow.)

[Dantius]

Tangential: I just found a collection of scans of some of Newt Gingrich's napkin doodles. The man is clearly a dangerously unstable megalomaniac- remind me again why the American people are seriously considering him for president instead of heeding the advice of the time traveler instead?

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Tangential: I just found a collection of scans of some of Newt Gingrich's napkin doodles. The man is clearly a dangerously unstable megalomaniac- remind me again why the American people are seriously considering him for president instead of heeding the advice of the time traveler instead?

Newt is but a player on a stage filled with an ensemble cast. Bear in mind that many Americans view this iteration of the GOP nomination process as a clown car, with no traction-control devices, on a steep, ice-covered, guardrail-free road.

[Starrodkirby86]

Those napkin doodles sure do explain Newt's giant bravado on stage. A bit too much of an exaggeration for me.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

I suppose you could argue that the latter form is worse because it harms a specific person, even if only in a minor and indirect way. Also, there's a greater chance of the latter actually affecting the result of the election, since poor or marginalised social groups are generally easier to disenfranchise -- but then, it usually doesn't take outright fraud to do so.

e.g. Florida in 2000. I find it amusing that the party of Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush is the one now claiming to be tough on electoral fraud. Oh well, it's not like hypocrisy is a one-party issue.

[Slawbug]

I have to say, I find it a little appalling the way people toss around condescending statements about people from the other party, somehow assuming that they make sense to everyone else. They don't.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

I have to say, I find it a little appalling the way people toss around condescending statements about people from the other party, somehow assuming that they make sense to everyone else. They don't.

How is it not appropriate to refer to someone who refers to himself as a "definer of civilization" and "leader of civilizing forces" as a megalomaniac? I mean, statements like:

Originally Posted By: Newt Gingrich

I have an enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it [...] Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it...

pretty much fit

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia's definition of megalomania

[A] psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs.

to a T. I mean, it's not really very nice (then again, neither is Gingrich), but it's also pretty indisputably true.

[BJ Back From the Beyond]

*looks above* This is why I usually don't like talking about politics on the internet. It always makes me feel like the bottom man in a gigantic dogpile.

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Devil's advocate here: provided there isn't a single party that has a stranglehold on power, why is voter fraud actually a problem for democracy? Presumably every party that has the opportunity to engage in voter fraud will be about equally inclined to do so, and will do so roughly in proportion to their resources, which in turn will be roughly proportionate to the size of their support base (or at least, no more disproportionate than their ability to do other things that increase the number of votes they get, like advertising). Which is to say, the number of votes a party obtains through voter fraud will be proportional to the number of legitimate votes it's getting, and it'll all come out in the wash, so to speak -- the final election results will most likely be the same as they would have been without fraud.

 

It follows from this, by the way, that everyone committing equal amounts of fraud is much better for democracy than only one party committing fraud, even if it may be worse than nobody committing fraud. In fact, given that voter fraud exists (which it does) and can't be eliminated (which it can't), one could argue that every political party has an obligation to commit fraud to the same degree that they believe their rivals are, in order to level the playing field and ensure that the final result reflects the will of the people.

I have a couple of points to make on this. First of all, I agree that voter fraud exists and that it cannot be eliminated, but I would like to add one thing to that list: it is impossible to tell exactly how much voter fraud there actually is (at least not without seriously hindering personal rights). As such, it is highly unlikely that the different parties will actually attempt to commit equal amounts of voter fraud. One party simply does not know how much the other party is gaming the system. It follows from this that elections will then be skewed in favor of the parties that are both unscrupulous and have the power, influence, and/or wealth to act on it. That brings me to my second point, that a party's resources are not necessarily proportional to the volume of its base. There are situations where, despite the opposing side having the popular vote, the less popular candidate is voted into office simply because he has a few very powerful friends who don't mind breaking a few dozen laws in exchange for some favors down the road (I don't know of any instances of this in the USA, but have heard of it happening in other countries). Then you also have situations where powerful people want to remake a foreign country to fit their vision, and so start indirectly backing a political party that has similar ideas. That party would be receiving support from someone who is not even a part of their base.

So, in short, even if having two parties who are equally corrupt is better than having one be more corrupt than the other, such a situation is extremely unlikely to come about.

(I really hope that wasn't as rambling as it sounds...)

 

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

1. The article cited attempts to expand what I said--voter impersonation fraud--into a larger election fraud issue. That's fine, but then you can't fight it with ID requirements for the polls. For example, if a state allows non-citizens to register then no "show picture ID to vote" plan will suffice. I'm against poll taxes and other attempts to control who votes. The cited article agrees with me that voter ID laws will not be effective in fighting election fraud. I stick by my smoke screen statement. Requiring ID limits the numbers and types of people voting. That is the intent.

2. My point here is that those on the side of democracy want as many citizens to vote as possible. Voter ID laws work against this ideal. The American way is to err on the side of preserving rights. Legitimate voters are disenfranchised. Republicans support voter ID laws and lie about (or--more often--fail to understand) the intent.

3. If the Republican party includes the liars referenced in #2--and it does--then this goal is not universally accepted within the GOP. I'm explicitly referring to the universal suffrage portion of my statement. The informed electorate portion would require a separate thread. Let's just say that I equate neoconservatism with lying for the purposes of precluding an informed electorate. Fox News is the embodiment of this tenet of neoconservatism.

4. Agreed with some of your comments. I was referring to limitations based upon the intent described in #1. States are closing picture ID sites (perhaps for legitimate budgetary reasons) while simultaneously forcing registered voters to visit these (now farther away) sites before utilizing a nearby polling place. States are charging for state IDs, with limited exemptions. My state, Michigan, exempts seniors and blind residents (I presume that they are groups considered less likely to need driver's licenses.) Anyone else is paying a poll tax. Traditional voter registration drive groups (think: the League of Women Voters) are being hampered by burdensome requirements in some states. These are not reasonable limitations, such as you cited.

1. I'm not contesting that voter ID laws by themselves will not work. That's pretty much a given. What I don't understand about your argument is how the issue is a smokescreen, and for what. As far as I can tell there are two extremes on the "control who votes/don't control who votes" argument: the "everyone can vote even if they don't even live in this country" side and the "only the 'elite' know what's best for this country" side. Personally, I'm of the belief that all law-abiding-citizens who are of age are eligible to cast their vote, and as far as I can tell, the majority of my party agrees with me.

2a. The point I was trying to get across is that saying that others cannot debate an issue or that the debate is over is almost the same as saying you're out of arguments and/or evidence. If I tried to pull a stunt like that during a debate tournament, any worthy opponents, intelligent varsity, and judges worth their salt would all jump down my throat at the same time. There is always a debate to be had. Fortunately, it seems you do have some good arguments to make. And yes, I'm a Republican on the side of democracy. Try not to have a heart attack now.

2b. If you're going to accuse someone (or in this case a large group of someones) of purposely lying, I'm going to have to invite you to prove it. Also, what exactly is the stated intent of voter ID laws, word for word?

3a. All parties have divisions within them. The only reason we have such large political parties is because smaller groups of people with different, but not opposing, political goals band together to get greater support (sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal). Those groups do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on other issues.

3b. Have you ever actually watched Fox News? I don't mean just a few hours, but rather watched it over a longer period of time. I've heard others saying that main-stream media is nothing but lying super-liberals, but that does not mean I'm going to take it as fact (at least not without a very hefty dose of evidence to back up the claim).

4. So, I take it we agree on the proof of citizenship limitation then. It may be that voter ID laws are just an honest attempt to stop voter impersonation fraud with a bunch of unintended negative consequences attached (it does happen). I'd have to go find the arguments for and against it and look at the situations in context before forming an opinion though.

 

(Well, that post only took over an hour to write )

[Kelandon]

The whole "voter fraud" thing comes across (at least to me) as a smokescreen for "let's disenfranchise the poor" because an extraordinarily small number of cases of actual, known voter fraud would be stopped by the measures proposed, but a vastly larger number of legitimate voters would be prevented from voting.

 

I don't think there has been a single voting reform idea from major state Republicans in the past few years that wouldn't (empirically) do enormously more harm than good, in straightforward # disenfranchised > # of fraudulent votes prevented kind of way.

[Alorael at Large]

There's no way to know if a huge amount of fraud is missed, of course, but none of the initiatives are really designed around systematic fraud perpetrated by political machinery. They're about individual fraud, and that's the sort of thing that should be caught, sometimes, if it happens. Maybe not often, but if a tip of the iceberg is detected, you can legitimately worry about large scale fraud going undetected.

 

As far as I know, no one's found even that little bit of evidence. Fixing hypothetical problems before they arise is good policy. Fixing them at the cost of causing new problems? Something to be weighed carefully. Fixing them when the problems affect the opposition of the proposers? There's a conflict of interests there.

 

—Alorael, who has watched Fox News for a substantial length of time. He was curious. He was aware that he wasn't going to like what he heard, and he didn't. But he was also supremely unimpressed with the factual quality, not just the slant. The networks all have their biases and holes in their reporting, but Fox in particular doesn't seem to pay more than lip service to factual accuracy.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

—Alorael, who has watched Fox News for a substantial length of time. He was curious. He was aware that he wasn't going to like what he heard, and he didn't. But he was also supremely unimpressed with the factual quality, not just the slant. The networks all have their biases and holes in their reporting, but Fox in particular doesn't seem to pay more than lip service to factual accuracy.

Agreed, based on my (limited but non-zero) experience with Fox. It's one thing to be essentially a platform for opinion pieces, like the New Republic and Nation on the left, or the National Review on the right, and another to claim to be a "fair and balanced" news outlet and be nothing of the sort.

[*i]

"Fair and Balanced...", Orwell would be proud. When I owned a TV still, I would periodically turn on Fox "News" for entertainment.

 

One of the best segments was in Fall 2007, they had a special on "Hillary-Safe Stocks" for what to invest in if the presumptive Democratic nominee at the time became president and the accompanying economic disaster that was strongly implied would ensue as a direct result of her policies. Sad irony is that said disaster didn't even wait for the election.

 

Even more sad is that large segments of the US populace buy this stuff unquestioningly. Not stating that the other news agencies are perfect by any long shot, but Fox takes it to a whole new level.

[Yuna Corne]

Of course they do. They even went to court to win the right to lie.

[Harehunter]

Thank you for making my point. The 18th Amendment was a mistake. The 21st Amendment was required to fix that mistake. Point made, you can't legislate stupid behavior out of society.

[Fringy MacGee]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

I have to say, I find it a little appalling the way people toss around condescending statements about people from the other party, somehow assuming that they make sense to everyone else. They don't.

That's because Spidweb exists outside the bubble. People come here from all over. (The Fox Bubble, the MSNBC Bubble, the post-grad academia bubble - the evilest and most condecending of all bubbles...)

Things that are "facts" inside each of the various bubbles, make little sense outside of the bubble. I don't know when facts stopped being universal, I guess it happened gradually over time.

Click to reveal..

Fox People - believe it is a fact that Obama is a socialist who has destroyed the economy and the solution is to slash government spending and regulation across the board. Many also doubt the veracity of Obama's birth/religion, and fear that he's coming for their guns.

MSNBC People - believe it is a fact that Republicans arranged for, or at least allowed 9/11 to happen as a false-flag thingymajig. Also that all Republicans are stupid or evil.

Academic People - believe it is a fact that whomever is president and which party is in power makes no difference. This whole left vs. right thing is just bread and circuses, while the politicians are just figureheads whose strings are pulled by the Plutocrats (the super wealthy).

FYI, if you think you're all worldy because you get your news from Al-Jazeera and various blogs, you belong to the 3rd bubble.

[Actaeon]

And I assume Newspapers qualify as bubble 3, too?

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

What do you mean by libertarian?

it's a word for librarians named Bert

yay - free books!

You know I'm going to get blamed for this.

[Harehunter]

Thank you for explaining that so clearly. As you pointed out, all to many are so strongly biased one way or the other that all they see of the other party is what they want to see.

 

I gave up listening to Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. They present their opinions in such a one-sided manner, it bores me. In Houston, we have a couple of guys, yes conservative, who actually look for calls from liberals, and will let them rant as much as they want. The point these hosts is trying to make is that people need to be informed of both (or all of many sided) issues, and not to just buy into the propaganda that is being delivered on both sides.

 

As for requiring everyone to show up to vote, I don't believe in that. In fact I would prefer that people who don't know what or who they are voting for would just stay at home. I don't mean they can't have a different opinion than me about an issue; just that they formed that opinion after having at least some understanding of what the issue or candidate is about.

 

And I strongly agree that people who vote should present some form of ID when voting. Why the liberals are against this, I cannot fathom, unless they are intending to have non-citizens vote. I don't believe that any non-citizen in this country, whether here legally or not, has that right, just as I have no right to vote in their country. And no, not all non-citizens are of one specific ethnic group or country of origin, but the Democrats would paint me as racist just for saying it.

 

Edit: Photo ID is already required by so many businesses for financial transactions, regardless of ones economic or social standing. I agree that standing in line at the DMV for your drivers license photo ID is a pain in the glass. I agree that it could be made more convenient; but it is only one day in 8 years that I have to do that. And in the state of Texas, you do have to show some proof of citizenship or legal residency to get a license. And the license is clearly marked if a person is not a citizen.

 

And speaking about racism and political propaganda, why is it considered racist to disagree with the policies of the current administration? I disagreed with those same policies decades ago, and it was not considered racist at that time. I sometimes listen to NPR and Pacifica radio, just so that I can get an understanding of where they are coming from. I would love to see the demographics of those studies that """prove""" that conservatives are racially biased. While figures don't lie, liars can figure. Mind you, I believe both political sides use biased studies and fuzzy statistics to make a proof.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Originally Posted By: Lilith

What do you mean by libertarian?

it's a word for librarians named Bert

yay - free books!

You know I'm going to get blamed for this.

My thought exactly

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

... As for requiring everyone to show up to vote, I don't believe in that. In fact I would prefer that people who don't know what or who they are voting for would just stay at home. I don't mean they can't have a different opinion than me about an issue; just that they formed that opinion after having at least some understanding of what the issue or candidate is about.

And I strongly agree that people who vote should present some form of ID when voting. Why the liberals are against this, I cannot fathom, unless they are intending to have non-citizens vote. I don't believe that any non-citizen in this country, whether here legally or not, has that right, just as I have no right to vote in their country. And no, not all non-citizens are of one specific ethnic group or country of origin, but the Democrats would paint me as racist just for saying it.

And speaking about racism and political propaganda, why is it considered racist to disagree with the policies of the current administration? I disagreed with those same policies decades ago, and it was not considered racist at that time. I sometimes listen to NPR and Pacifica radio, just so that I can get an understanding of where they are coming from. I would love to see the demographics of those studies that """prove""" that conservatives are racially biased. While figures don't lie, liars can figure. Mind you, I believe both political sides use biased studies and fuzzy statistics to make a proof.

An informed electorate is a goal, but an unobtainable one. You long for an utopian ideal. There is no reasonable way to limit voting to an informed electorate. There is also no basis for it in the founding (or development) of this country. Idiots vote for both parties. Accept it.

Voter ID has nothing to do with citizenship. My driver's license does not come close to proving my citizenship (there are limited exceptions, such as enhanced licenses for crossing the border into contiguous countries.) There is no racism angle to my opinion. Several groups are potentially disenfranchised by voter ID laws: the so-called bankless, students, seniors, and the lower class, in general (which is filled with far more white people than most Republicans will acknowledge.)

As for actual accusations of racism? My best argument is the difference between how Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were treated. Neither seems a radical liberal to me, but you wouldn't know it to turn on your TV.

The racism argument has its roots in the shift of racist Southerners from the Democratic Party to the GOP. This happened under LBJ's watch. There is a reason why the South is reliably red. Notice no use of the words "most" or "many" in this paragraph. Some Southerners are racist. There are racists everywhere.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee

{various musings about bubbles]

Your three bubbles are blatant examples of generalizations. I don't buy any of them. Many of these beliefs cross over to the other bubbles. The one that crosses over least well is the Fox bubble, and I don't buy that one. I know a lot of Fox viewers who don't agree with most/all of your generalization, but they still buy that Fox is Fair & Balanced.

[Fringy MacGee]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee

{various musings about bubbles]

Your three bubbles are blatant examples of generalizations.

I agree. They are generalizations. In real life, people don't fit cleanly into categories.

My point was, why can't there be a form of newsmedia or infomedia which actually cares more about separating fact from believe than promoting an ideology? I blame human nature. When will we finally put robots in charge of everything?

Edit: Also, newspapers? Who reads those? I read the free ones on the metro sometimes to help me learn French, but that's it.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: B.J.Earles

...
1. I'm not contesting that voter ID laws by themselves will not work. That's pretty much a given. What I don't understand about your argument is how the issue is a smokescreen, and for what. As far as I can tell there are two extremes on the "control who votes/don't control who votes" argument: the "everyone can vote even if they don't even live in this country" side and the "only the 'elite' know what's best for this country" side. Personally, I'm of the belief that all law-abiding-citizens who are of age are eligible to cast their vote, and as far as I can tell, the majority of my party agrees with me.
2a. The point I was trying to get across is that saying that others cannot debate an issue or that the debate is over is almost the same as saying you're out of arguments and/or evidence. If I tried to pull a stunt like that during a debate tournament, any worthy opponents, intelligent varsity, and judges worth their salt would all jump down my throat at the same time. There is always a debate to be had. Fortunately, it seems you do have some good arguments to make. And yes, I'm a Republican on the side of democracy. Try not to have a heart attack now.
2b. If you're going to accuse someone (or in this case a large group of someones) of purposely lying, I'm going to have to invite you to prove it. Also, what exactly is the stated intent of voter ID laws, word for word?
3a. All parties have divisions within them. The only reason we have such large political parties is because smaller groups of people with different, but not opposing, political goals band together to get greater support (sort of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deal). Those groups do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on other issues.
3b. Have you ever actually watched Fox News? I don't mean just a few hours, but rather watched it over a longer period of time. I've heard others saying that main-stream media is nothing but lying super-liberals, but that does not mean I'm going to take it as fact (at least not without a very hefty dose of evidence to back up the claim).
4. So, I take it we agree on the proof of citizenship limitation then. It may be that voter ID laws are just an honest attempt to stop voter impersonation fraud with a bunch of unintended negative consequences attached (it does happen). I'd have to go find the arguments for and against it and look at the situations in context before forming an opinion though.

(Well, that post only took over an hour to write )

The intent of voter ID laws is to limit the numbers and types of people voting. The smokescreen is that they are effective in reducing voter fraud. My apologies if I was unclear. [see my response to Harehunter for a sidebar on the types of people and why this has nothing to do with racism.] Voting for citizens should be strongly encouraged. We should err on the side of rare occurrences of fraud, versus common occurrences of disenfranchisement. It is my firm belief that the common occurrence of voter fraud would be both (sometimes) detected and widely disseminated. That has not happened.

This is not a debate forum. I will behave civilly and attempt to explain when I am misunderstood. Instances of minor logical fallacies are no reason for alarm. Consistent use of them would be unappealing. I, in no way, accused a large group of lying. I clearly stated that Republicans more often fail to understand the intent of voter ID laws (see previous paragraph.) The intended implication is that those creating the "smokescreen" are the liars.

Clearly, I don't buy your #4 at all (again, see my first paragraph.)

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee

... My point was, why can't there be a form of newsmedia or infomedia which actually cares more about separating fact from believe than promoting an ideology? I blame human nature. When will we finally put robots in charge of everything? ...

I pay attention to how often a source corrects known errors of fact. You can be biased and still correct errors. Your point is certainly valid in consideration of the consistency of correcting errors.

You blame human nature. I blame human nature, the ingrained two-party system and neoconservatism. Much of the blowback from the left is an unfortunate response to the darker tenets of neoconservatism. And, yes, I mean lying to advance a political agenda.

[Actaeon]

Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee

Edit: Also, newspapers? Who reads those? I read the free ones on the metro sometimes to help me learn French, but that's it.

You know those surveys different institutions occasionally administer to figure out where people get their news? Well, the last one they did in my area had newspapers and radio tied with the internet. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN were barely on the radar. Go figure.

Edit: I'm starting to think that the metaconversation is getting more out of hand than the primary political one. I have actually been pleasantly surprise by most parties' ability to discuss these issues politely. If we continue to call each other out for real or perceived slights, however, I think a lock will shortly follow.

[Soul of Wit]

I'm not surprised at the civility in these forums. This community is a wonderful mix of backgrounds and ages, with a general belief in civility (and the moderators aren't afraid to be aggressive, as warranted.) If anything, I miss the input of those that lurk, or comment vaguely. Alas, real life often intrudes. Cue humorous comment on real life...

[Harehunter]

An informed electorate is a utopian ideal. I can dream can't I? As to limiting the right to vote for the uninformed, I am vehemently opposed. It is the right and duty of our citizenry to freely participate in the process of our government. I served to protect that right. I just wish they would at least 'read the bill' before passing it. Understanding it is another matter, but not required.

 

I respect your opinion as the intended goal of voter id. I strongly disagree, but as you pointed out, this is not a debate forum. I think we will have to agree to disagree. That is the nature of the 1st Amendment.

 

I am also happy that you pointed out that the underclass is more racially diverse than many people take it to be. As to Republicans not recognizing this, that is another myth.

 

As to voter ID, the laws regarding photo ids such as drivers licenses are different from state to state. Not all states have the requirement of proof of status. That is as it should be. Let the people of each state determine for themselves how they should conduct elections.

 

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

And I strongly agree that people who vote should present some form of ID when voting. Why the liberals are against this, I cannot fathom, unless they are intending to have non-citizens vote. I don't believe that any non-citizen in this country, whether here legally or not, has that right, just as I have no right to vote in their country. And no, not all non-citizens are of one specific ethnic group or country of origin, but the Democrats would paint me as racist just for saying it.

Edit: Photo ID is already required by so many businesses for financial transactions, regardless of ones economic or social standing. I agree that standing in line at the DMV for your drivers license photo ID is a pain in the glass. I agree that it could be made more convenient; but it is only one day in 8 years that I have to do that. And in the state of Texas, you do have to show some proof of citizenship or legal residency to get a license. And the license is clearly marked if a person is not a citizen.

Some form of ID might not be a serious problem. The serious problem is the photo ID, which a substantial percentage of eligible voters don't have (as has been well documented, say, here, among other places). It might be easy enough for you to get, but that doesn't mean that it's easy enough for everyone to get (as documented, say, here). For people who don't have the requisite documents to get a driver's license (say, a birth certificate), which is surprisingly common among rural populations, the elderly, the poor, etc., the photo ID requirement is a serious problem.

I don't think that disenfranchising 5-10% of the population is worth preventing hypothetical fraud. You might find it hard to believe that the percentage is that high, but this country is big and diverse, and you and I are hardly aware of large parts of it. The people who have studied the issue come up with that number pretty consistently.

Voter ID laws of the most controversial kind today sound nice in theory but have terrible practical implications.

Also, allowing states decide who to disenfranchise on their own has led to some serious problems in the past. There need to be limits.

[Tyranicus]

The entire problem could be circumvented by requiring a federal ID card for every citizen. Ironically enough, a lot of the same people who are big proponents of requiring ID to vote are vehemently opposed to the idea of federal ID cards.

[Actaeon]

The question of how to provide and authenticate said cards stands, unless they were presented on birth and could be renewed with a fingerprint and retinal scan. Edit: Perhaps a subcutaneous chip, like the ones we use for pets? Orwell would love it.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

Fox People - believe it is a fact that Obama is a socialist who has destroyed the economy and the solution is to slash government spending and regulation across the board. Many also doubt the veracity of Obama's birth/religion, and fear that he's coming for their guns.

MSNBC People - believe it is a fact that Republicans arranged for, or at least allowed 9/11 to happen as a false-flag thingymajig. Also that all Republicans are stupid or evil.

Academic People - believe it is a fact that whomever is president and which party is in power makes no difference. This whole left vs. right thing is just bread and circuses, while the politicians are just figureheads whose strings are pulled by the Plutocrats (the super wealthy).

You're joking, right? This is some sort of hyperbole or satire, yes? I recognize that American politics seems divided more and more into warring camps, but many of the above statements are factually incorrect.

I have never met a traditional leftist (members of the "MSNBC bubble") who believed that 9/11 was an inside job. It seems like you're taking the notion that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to its own nefarious and ill-considered ends (which I and many people on the left believe) and exaggerating it into the belief that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks in the first place (a view I've only seen ascribed to anarchists/radical libertarians, and some apolitical people). I grew up among people in said bubble, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air. The "Academic People" view is equally spurious in my experience, and according to various social science research on how students and professors think and behave. I have the least experience with the "Fox Bubble," but I know some staunch Republicans, many of whom respect Fox News, and they believe few if any of the above things.

@Soul of Wit: I wouldn't mind that Fringy's statements were generalizations if they were right. I think we agree that they aren't.

Quote:

The question of how to provide and authenticate said cards stands, unless they were presented on birth and could be renewed with a fingerprint and retinal scan. Edit: Perhaps a subcutaneous chip, like the ones we use for pets? Orwell would love it.

Mark of the Beast, man. Mark of the Beast.

[Harehunter]

In order to vote, one needs to be registered to vote. In order to register, some form of ID is required in order to prove one is a resident of the district in which they will vote. I realize that documents get lost, or may not have been issued at all. In such instances, I believe that is resolved with presenting witnesses, who can be confirmed. This could be done with a Justice of the Peace, or at the DMV office itself. Once ID'd, you don't have to go through that again. Registered voters get a voter registration card. This is not currently a photo ID, but as Actaeon points out, the technology exists to make it so, and I think affordably.

 

Can the process be made easier? Yes. In states such as Texas which enacted motor-voter laws, you don't even have to go in to get registered. Why is this OK? As I pointed out earlier, in Texas you need to present proof of identity to get the drivers license. BTW, Texas recognizes the drivers license of other states as proof of ID, even though not all states follow the same rules.

 

As for the elderly, they have already acquired some form of ID at some time in their life. An expired drivers license is still a valid form of ID. No need to do anything else. If they have lost all form of ID, they can still present witnesses. As far as getting them to vote, in Texas you are eligible to vote by absentee ballot even though you are not out of the state. They send you the form to request a ballot, you mail it in, you get a ballot, vote and mail it back.

 

For the poor, there are programs that take the process of voter registration to them. What could we do to make it easier for them to vote? Tuesday sucks as a day for elections. How about early voting, like for a whole two weeks before the election, including Saturday and Sunday? We do that in Texas.

 

As for those who do not register to vote, they have made a conscious choice. I can't help them. It takes a decision to participate in the democratic process. If one makes the decision to abstain, that is their liberty.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

In states such as Texas which enacted motor-voter laws, you don't even have to go in to get registered.

The whole point is that it isn't the voter registration process that's too hard, it's the process of getting ID that's too hard.

And nobody's saying it's too hard in general -- rather that it's too hard to be connected to voting, which should not put anyone off if it is to accomplish its intended purpose.

Quote:

As for the elderly, they have already acquired some form of ID at some time in their life.

Unless they haven't. Elderly people from the segment of the population that usually gets driver's licenses at 16 probably had an ID once, you're right. But there are other segments of the population, too.

Quote:

If they have lost all form of ID, they can still present witnesses.

I imagine you need tons of documentation as well. Otherwise this would make it pretty easy for undocumented immigrants to get a legal ID, wouldn't it?

[Harehunter]

And on that last point, Slarty, you found probably the greatest vulnerability to our system of government.

 

Supposedly, for witnesses to be a valid form of ID, they would in turn have to have some form of valid ID. But even with this caveat, those who wish to violate our laws could still get through. The only solution is to have a totalitarian state, or something close to it, to ensure no one gets by with that.

 

I hope and pray that we never go down that path.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: B.J.Earles

An interesting little factoid I found through that article is that in most states you don't even need to be a citizen of the United States of America to register to vote.

I'm going to reject all of the arguments presented in favor of voter registration so far as necessarily disenfranchising. Why is it that there is a bias against letting noncitizens vote in the United States? At the point at which there are governments within the United States that require aliens to pay taxes - and there are - it seems to me that they should have just as much of a right to vote as anyone else. The United States is just like any other exclusive organization - if you pay your membership fees, you should have some sway.

Just so long as no political machinery reminiscent of Tammany Hall is constructed, I see no harm in expanding the franchise.

[Randomizer]

But almost all forms of ID have an expiration date where it's no longer considered valid without renewal. Arizona doesn't accept expired driver's licenses as ID so you need a non-license ID that is almost as hard to get. So elderly voters that can't get over to the DMV to get a new ID lose the right to vote.

 

There has been voter fraud in nursing homes in Arizona where a nurse will vote for patients living in the home and sign the mail in ballot claiming to be the patient. It's small, but it happened and the nurses claim they are just helping patients that had difficulty filling out the ballots.

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Goldenking

I'm going to reject all of the arguments presented in favor of voter registration so far as necessarily disenfranchising. Why is it that there is a bias against letting noncitizens vote in the United States? At the point at which there are governments within the United States that require aliens to pay taxes - and there are - it seems to me that they should have just as much of a right to vote as anyone else. The United States is just like any other exclusive organization - if you pay your membership fees, you should have some sway.

I don't think it's necessarily a bias against non-citizens; it's reasonable that only citizens should be allowed to vote. The problem really stems from immigration policy, and ideally citizenship should be easy to attain. Or maybe that was your point.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

I don't think it's necessarily a bias against non-citizens; it's reasonable that only citizens should be allowed to vote.

i could have sworn that taxation without representation was a thing that the american political system kind of used to oppose

[Harehunter]

Does that mean you would approve of a mess of Texans voting for your Prime Minister?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Does that mean you would approve of a mess of Texans voting for your Prime Minister?

i said the american political system, not the australian one

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Thank you for making my point. The 18th Amendment was a mistake. The 21st Amendment was required to fix that mistake. Point made, you can't legislate stupid behavior out of society.

Ah, but you can. Bans on public smoking and especially increasingly heavy tobacco taxes have helped. A lot. You can legislate morality if you do it carefully.

—Alorael, who will turn to Paul Krugman for an explanation of why "polarization" is not an explanation for American politics. You can look up his columns yourself. The key is the lack of respect for facts and the lack of desire to cooperate at all from the right. They can hold the entire political system hostage. (This would be a problem if the Democrats did it, too, but the Democrats aren't.)

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

I don't think it's necessarily a bias against non-citizens; it's reasonable that only citizens should be allowed to vote. The problem really stems from immigration policy, and ideally citizenship should be easy to attain. Or maybe that was your point.

I think that it is even more reasonable to have only the taxpayers being allowed to vote. They are, after all, the ones footing the bill for the government programs they are voting for. Either give non-citizens the vote, or stop taxing them, and I will no longer feel this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

However, since non-citizens almost inevitably purchase things, they get sales taxes from the state. Furthermore, if they are in the country for any period of time long enough to have an interest in voting, chances are they've been using government facilities of some sort (e.g. roads), so it only makes sense to tax them for that use. Thus, the only real solution I see is to allow non-citizens to vote.

[Callie]

I think we're actually agreeing completely here. Applying for citizenship should require a simple form and not much else, as opposed the impossible application currently in place. The sheer number of noncitizens is a symptom of immigration policy, which a separate but related issue.

[Harehunter]

@Lilith- I love it when you leave me a straight line like that. But I think you see my point.

 

-Aloreal, While taxation has had a measurable effect on smoking behavior, I believe that education of its relationship to cancer has probably had the greater effect. Education that is funded in part by the revenue of those higher taxes, I'll grant, but education still.

 

As to the idea that only Republicans would hold a legislative body hostage, the Democrats have done their bit of stonewalling as well. Twice in Texas our legislature was hung by the democrat legislators fleeing the state, causing a no-quorum roadblock. This tactic was most recently used in Wisconson. During Bush 43's administration, many federal court appointments were held up by a democratic Senate. (Yes, the republicans did the same thing to Clinton.) Obamacare was basically rammed through with no input from the republican side of Congress. (I still love Nancy Pelosi's statement; "You have to pass the bill before you can find out what's in it." !!!Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!!) I don't mean that republicans don't stonewall the democrats; they do.

 

Actually, I prefer that there is a split Congress. It forces the two sides to come to the center and compromise. Laws written totally by one party or the other will be damaging to about half the population. Laws written with compromises may not be all that one side wants, but benefits both sides while causing the least damage to the other side. (By damage, I mean economic burdens, limitations on personal liberties, etc.)

 

On another note, the U.S. naturalizes more new citizens per year than any other nation in the world. Is the process unnecessarily burdensome? Maybe. But just as the citizens of all the nations of the world set the rules for who can vote in their elections, or become citizens of their country, so does the U.S. As for the assertion that the U.S. should just allow as many people to come here as may want to, I think a little understanding of economics would be in order. While it would be wonderful if we could give everybody in the world the opportunity to earn a living, we don't have the resources to do that. By limiting the number of people we allow to have visas or to become citizens, we can more easily absorb the demands on our resources. Every nation in the world has the same problem. That is why they have similar laws regarding immigration into their country.

[Soul of Wit]

Generally directed at Harehunter...

 

If only most states had used cigarette taxes (and lawsuit awards from tobacco companies) primarily for education. Too often, it went mostly/entirely to the general fund.

 

Is it okay if I both love and loathe Texas? They get so many things right (and don't get me started on tall women.) They get so many things wrong (but I am a Yankee.) I feel similarly towards Walmart. They manage their company so well, but they could do so much more.

 

No-quorum roadblocks are, of course, part of an individual state's legislative rules. An important thing to consider is the general public sentiment towards the stand. Is it considered a principled stand? Is it supported by the majority of state residents?

 

Immigration has to be tailored to the country involved. Different countries have different needs. The reality is that a popular country (and the US still is--defending my love-the-USA street cred) can be more selective in immigration. I'm sure there are university courses devoted solely to the history of US immigration policy.