2012 Election Season

[Harehunter]

A huge expense in the pharma industry is the energy required to maintain climate controls and to filter the air in order to prevent contamination of the drugs. This number dwarfs the cost of the reagent grade chemicals used in the R&D as well as the manufacture of those drugs.

[Alorael at Large]

All that said, manufacturing usually isn't all that bad. Monoclonal antibodies are expensive. Not everything is as cheap as aspirin. But tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? No. There's a reason brand name drugs are far more expensive than generics and the drugs available in the third world are discounted.

 

I don't hold it againt big pharma. They're in it for a profit, but they're usually not gouging. Drug development is expensive and risky: it may cost a billion dollars to get a drug to market, but it can just as easily cost a billion dollars, or more, to get a drug to phase 3 clinical trials that end up getting the FDA stamp of rejection. Drug development is long, slow, expensive work, and it takes giant companies with reliable income to pull it off without going under.

 

—Alorael, who is still dubious about Mystic's purported welfare queens in Cadillacs. If you don't know how they do it, how do you know it's welfare? The best he's seen are people in the system long-term who have reliable food and housing and other basic necessities, but they're not able to get cars, and they live in fear of auditors cutting them off, even temporarily.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Burning Times (8am-6pm weekdays)

—Alorael, who is still dubious about Mystic's purported welfare queens in Cadillacs. If you don't know how they do it, how do you know it's welfare? The best he's seen are people in the system long-term who have reliable food and housing and other basic necessities, but they're not able to get cars, and they live in fear of auditors cutting them off, even temporarily.

I work at a pizza place, and some of our regular customers are welfare queens. I know for a fact they're getting some form of aid, because whenever they come in, they always try to pay with an aid-funded debit card (never the same one twice) that we don't accept. Then after arguing loudly with the cashier (sometimes using language that would make a Navy SEAL cringe), they whip out a three-inch-thick wad of $100 bills and use one to pay for $10 worth of food, and get even angrier because we can't break $100 bills (but I digress slightly). I don't know about you, but carrying a big bankroll while receiving welfare or some other type of aid seems like a massive non sequitur, unless there's something fishy going on.

[Alorael at Large]

That suggests more to me that the system works, sort of. They're not living on aid, they're living on some undeclared, probably illegal income (what else pays stacks of hundreds?). Since it's under the table, they keep welfare benefits. But welfare still isn't enough to happily live on, and live well. The system is breaking down in the underground economy.

 

—Alorael, who also knows a surprising number of schizophrenic drug dealers. Many of them point out that they're very uninsured and the medications are expensive. If they don't want to go off their meds, and they really don't, they need income. Illegal drugs fund legal ones. That's a sign of a systems that's doing something wrong.

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Burning Times (8am-6pm weekdays)

That suggests more to me that the system works, sort of. They're not living on aid, they're living on some undeclared, probably illegal income (what else pays stacks of hundreds?). Since it's under the table, they keep welfare benefits.

Precisely my point, though I didn't want to be so straightforward. It must be nice to have one's proverbial cake and eat it too.

As for me, when my stacks of hundreds (finally) start coming in, I'd prefer they arrive through legal channels.

Originally Posted By: Burning Times (8am-6pm weekdays)

But welfare still isn't enough to happily live on, and live well.

This I know to be true.

I had a coworker who told me (and anyone else who would listen) she was quitting because she "knew" that she could get twice as much money by mooching off the government than by working in fast food. However, according to the store's rumor mill, she came back a few months later, begging the manager for her job back. I never found out how much aid she was getting, but apparently, it was a heck of a lot less than what she expected.

Originally Posted By: Burning Times (8am-6pm weekdays)

—Alorael, who also knows a surprising number of schizophrenic drug dealers.

I'll take your word for it. Sometimes, the truth is better off not being known.

[Prince of Kitties]

IMO, when that much suffering is involved, the truth is better off being known - even if it's painful.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

...

Why is it he says that the very poor are in the 47% for Obama? People who are dependent on governmental entitlements would gain only if the party that supports larger funding for those entitlement programs are elected. Typically those people are Democrats. On the other of side of the coin (literally) are the people who pay taxes to fund those entitlement programs. They prosper when unemployment is low, more people are paying into the tax system, and fewer people are taking out of the system.

I wanted to point out that this assumes that the electorate is both informed and that they also consistently vote in their own best interests. As someone else has surely pointed out in another reply, most people on aid live in states that consistently vote conservative.

Another assumption being made here is one on just how we achieve lower unemployment and a broader tax base. I have actually heard non-conservatives utter the words, "I voted Republican because it is good for business." I reject such sentiments out of hand. Republicans ceased being better for business (for the most part) several decades ago. There are stark differences between the two major US parties, but being in the bag for (big) business is not one of them.

If we want to talk small business then we have to recognize an important fact. Those who own and operate small businesses (the real job creators) are only slightly more likely to be in the 98th percentile of income than all Americans. Asking high-income Americans to pay their fair share does not squelch job creation. As a corollary, the past decade shows us that low top-tier rates do not magically create employment.

Yet another assumption is that The Democratic Party favors wanton spending on entitlements. The Dems are moderate and favor extending the life of social programs vs. slowly strangling them. Obamacare extends the life of Medicare. It is an imperfect solution, but it is a step in the correct direction. In my mind, the way to fix Medicare is to make healthcare less expensive in this country. Doing nothing was not and is not a viable option. The status quo is a canine that has no ability to pursue its quarry.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: The Mystic

I had a coworker who told me (and anyone else who would listen) she was quitting because she "knew" that she could get twice as much money by mooching off the government than by working in fast food. However, according to the store's rumor mill, she came back a few months later, begging the manager for her job back. I never found out how much aid she was getting, but apparently, it was a heck of a lot less than what she expected.

 

Plus, I don't think people realize how humiliating it is. I remember when I was little we were on food stamps briefly because my dad lost his job for a while and my mom still talks about how nearly every cashier was a total [censored] to her about it and basically made her feel like dirt every time she'd use them.

 

But the Welfare state doesn't really exist anymore in the same way as it did in the 1970s. In the 1970s and 1980s people could live off of welfare, but that was all gutted in the Clinton admin. Now days there are supplemental programs (e.g. like food stamps, low income housing deductions, etc, etc), but in most states it's really not possible to just sit around and collect a welfare check while doing nothing if you are an able bodied person. The closest thing would maybe be disability benefits, but many people do need those, it's incredibly hard to get them, and they really don't pay much at all.

 

Yet the right wing still loves to push the fantasy of the Welfare queens in their Cadillacs from Reagan's heyday. Just because they are an easy villain that everyone can hate, even if they're mostly fictional.

[Soul of Wit]

There is still fraud in social programs--especially disability. That's up to the states/feds to go after those committing the fraud. In general, it is a pain in the butt to get on (or stay on) an aid program. Even something simple, like getting a small amount of aid for heating in the winter, requires jumping through hoops. Those getting food assistance have to document any income (even loans/gifts from family) and do so on an annual basis. It doesn't look like free and easy from where I'm standing.

[Randomizer]

Anyone else think it's ironic after Republicans pushed for voter fraud enforcement that they have been caught in a fraudulent voter registration flap in Florida? Investigators are widening the search to other states.

[Harehunter]

It goes both ways.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

It goes both ways.

that title makes me immediately suspicious considering how there's no evidence that ACORN was ever actually responsible for any voter fraud

[Harehunter]

The article refers to a different group that was "ACORN like", but was specifically stated that it was not ACORN. The group in question was called "America Votes".

[Khoth]

So "ACORN-like vote fraud" presumably means "Not actually vote fraud", then?

[Alorael at Large]

If vote fraud goes both ways and stays quite limited relative to total vote counts, it actually doesn't matter. Sweeping voter registration laws with biased effects do.

 

—Alorael, who accidentally committed voter fraud once and registered in two states. Well, almost; there was no actually fraud. He didn't vote in one of the states because he didn't realize he was registered until after the election.

[Randomizer]

I miss the good old days growing up in Chicago, where the dead voted for the Democrats and the cows downstate voted for the Republicans.

[Harehunter]

I have one question: A photo ID is required for just about anything you do in this country. You want to open a bank account? Write a check at a store? Parents have to show a photo ID to enter their child's school. Many politicians have been requiring a photo ID to gain admittance to their town hall meetings, for security reasons they say.

 

Not everyone drives a car, or boards an aircraft or passenger train, but if you do you have to have a photo ID. Establishments that sell alcoholic beverages or tobacco products are required by law to verify the age of their customers; photo ID required.

 

Police, firefighters, hospital staff, military personnel are required to have a photo ID.

 

True, there are people who fit into none of the above categories, so they would have little or no reason to have a photo ID. In most cases there is a fee for getting a photo ID. But those can be waived. In fact, in the Texas Voter ID law, it specifically calls for such fees to be waived for those people who could other wise not afford it.

 

Back to my question: How can it be considered to be biased to require that a person who presents themselves to the polls to participate in their civic duty to verify their eligibility to do so? Does Australia allow non-citizens to vote in their elections? Great Britain? Denmark? India? El Salvador? Venezuela? Cuba? Does any country that has some form or semblance of democracy allow a citizen to vote more than once, in districts they do not live in?

 

This is probably not considered to be a problem in most countries because the fraction of non-citizens in their population is so small as to be insignificant. But what other country has over 13 million non-citizens living within their borders? And that is just those who are in this country **legally**. According to the N.Y. Times, there are 11 million illegal residents in the U.S. And that's only the number they counted. With the total population being 311.5 million, non-citizens represent just a bit over 7% of the population. Not a lot you say. But with the division of political opinions being almost even, that 7% can seriously affect the outcome of an election.

 

For those here who live outside the U.S., I ask you to think honestly how you would feel if foreigners who owe their allegiance to another country, were allowed to come into your country, vote in your elections, and leave you with the results. I ask you Americans to consider the same.

 

I step off the soap box.

[Lilith]

first, forget what other countries do, that's an appeal to popularity. second, if people live under the jurisdiction of a government, why shouldn't they have a say in government policies that affect them, just because that government chooses not to recognise them as citizens? not only is the government telling non-citizens that through an accident of birth they won't be afforded the same rights as citizens, but it's telling them they can't vote to change this because they don't get a vote. in what other context is that acceptable?

 

i mean i'm coming from the position that nation-states are inherently illegitimate and the only fair government is a world government, so take that for what it's worth

 

even if you're a nationalist, though, where's the evidence that non-citizens voting in elections is an actual problem that needs fixing, or that photo ID will do anything to fix it?

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Not everyone drives a car, or boards an aircraft or passenger train, but if you do you have to have a photo ID.

Aircraft, yes; train, no. I have traveled on Amtrak trains many times and have never needed to show photo ID.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

non-citizens represent just a bit over 7% of the population.

maybe the problem isn't that 7% of the population is voting illegally, it's that 7% of the population lives with a constant fear of being evicted from their country

[Prince of Kitties]

The problem is that there's an enormous history of abusing voter ID systems and such here, in the name of harassing and disenfranchising voters. The tendency is to create artificial hurdles to inconvenience minority voters.

 

(See also the idea of requiring a literacy test for voting.)

 

I was going to say the idea sounds superficially reasonable, despite being awful in practice, but Lilith punctured that notion...

 

Originally Posted By: "Lilith"

i mean i'm coming from the position that nation-states are inherently illegitimate and the only fair government is a world government, so take that for what it's worth

 

I'll vouch for that... From a position of reasonable anonymity. Nation-states are jealous creatures.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Does Australia allow non-citizens to vote in their elections? Great Britain? Denmark? India? El Salvador? Venezuela? Cuba?

More than half of those countries do actually grant some voting rights to some non-citizens.

[Lilith]

khoth you're a cool poster, post more

[Randomizer]

In Arizona it's easy to fail to meet the list of acceptable proofs for ID if you aren't able to get to the Motor Vehicle Department to get a non driver's license ID. A senior citizen that is bedridden wouldn't be able to register to vote because no driver's license, no utility bills, no passport, no military ID, ....

 

I spent an hour replacing my Driver's license because the cheap ink on it had come off.

 

Even utility bills only are useful to one household member.

[Kelandon]

There is virtually no evidence that any voter fraud of the sort that the the voter ID laws would prevent actually exists. It's a myth. It's not real. It doesn't happen.

 

It is true, though, and widely confirmed, that a lot of people don't drive and don't do all those other things that require a government-issued photo ID. It's also widely confirmed that getting a government-issued photo ID is not quite as easy or as cheap as voter ID advocates claim it is. You need underlying documentation (a birth certificate, etc.) that people without government-issued photo ID often don't have either. And getting new copies of the underlying documentation does cost money. Usually not very much ($20, maybe?), but enough to be a cost, and it also takes enough time to make it harder to vote.

 

Voter ID laws disenfranchise legitimate voters, and there's no evidence that they prevent any actual fraud.

 

As to the "how can it be considered to be biased" question, the obvious answer is that there is, yet again, overwhelming evidence that the people who are disenfranchised by voter ID laws are disproportionately Democrats. Given that voter ID laws are plainly not aimed at what they say they're aimed at (stopping fraud that doesn't exist), they have to be aimed at what they actually do (stopping Democrats from voting). And Mike Turzai actually admitted that that's what the PA voter ID law was intended to do.

[Harehunter]

The one thing that everyone seems to miss is this. Those people who are in this country and are not citizens DO have the right to vote... in the country of which they ARE citizens. When our military personnel are stationed overseas, they do NOT get the right to vote in the elections of the host nation, but they do have the right to vote absentee in the elections of the U.S. and the state which is their Home of Record, i.e. the state in which they lived when they joined the service.

 

Second, why should I not take into account the laws of other nations? The One World government you aspire to does not exist. The closest we have gotten to that ideal is the United Nations, and even that body has only limited authority with respect to the laws that its member nations may enact for their own purposes.

 

Thirdly, with respect to Khoth's post, I admit that half the countries I mentioned do have some cross border voting rights; those states that are members of the European Union. Since they are a union of separate states it would be reasonable that they would have elections on interstate interests. The same principle applies here in the United States of America. Each state has its

own governing body, which is elected by the citizens of that state. And since these states are members of a federal republic, the citizens of those states also qualify as citizens of the republic.

 

Fourth; How can you prove there is *not* any voter fraud? What evidence have you collected to prove that point. Do you have any evidence? No, because you are not even trying to collect any?

 

Fifth; With regard to senior citizens who are bedridden, there are organizations that exist to enable these people to get registered. And they don't have to even go to the pols; they are allowed to vote absentee even though they are not physically absent.

 

Sixth; What overwhelming evidence states that the majority of the people who would be /are disenfranchised are predominantly democrats. Again, without collecting any evidence to verify that point, how can such a claim be proven to be valid?

[keira]

I only skimmed though it but this seems relevant.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The one thing that everyone seems to miss is this. Those people who are in this country and are not citizens DO have the right to vote... in the country of which they ARE citizens.

Depends on the country. I have a friend who isn't allowed to vote in her home country because she's not resident there.

Quote:

Thirdly, with respect to Khoth's post, I admit that half the countries I mentioned do have some cross border voting rights; those states that are members of the European Union.

Well, those countries, and also other countries. Venezuela, for instance, isn't in the EU, but they recognise that resident noncitizens are affected by the government and should get a say in choosing it.

Quote:

Fourth; How can you prove there is *not* any voter fraud? What evidence have you collected to prove that point. Do you have any evidence? No, because you are not even trying to collect any?

Surely the burden of proof should be on those arguing that new restrictions be introduced which make it harder to vote?

But anyway, yes, people have tried to collect evidence of voter fraud. Here's an attempt to make a comprehensive database: http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/

The only type of fraud listed which would be prevented by ID requirements is "Voter Impersonation Fraud". Over the last ten years, they found ten cases of this.

Quote:

Sixth; What overwhelming evidence states that the majority of the people who would be /are disenfranchised are predominantly democrats. Again, without collecting any evidence to verify that point, how can such a claim be proven to be valid?

Demographics. Look at the percentage of people by race who vote Democrat, and the percentage of people by race who have voter ID.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Fourth; How can you prove there is *not* any voter fraud? What evidence have you collected to prove that point. Do you have any evidence? No, because you are not even trying to collect any?

Evidence

Quote:

Sixth; What overwhelming evidence states that the majority of the people who would be /are disenfranchised are predominantly democrats. Again, without collecting any evidence to verify that point, how can such a claim be proven to be valid?

Look, evidence! (And the voter base of the Democratic party, just in case.)

Dikiyoba picked up those links from Google. Search engines are really helpful. You should try using one before bemoaning the lack of evidence.

[Alorael at Large]

It's hard to prove a negative, but there have been repeated investigations like this one. Cries of fraud, like cries of wolf, rarely show much of anything.

 

The claim about bias is simple demographics. Those who are disenfranchised are more likely to be immigrants, black, hispanic, poor. All of these things also correlate with voting for Democrats.

 

Then there's this gem by Mike Turzai of Pennsylvania: "We are focused on making sure we meet our obligations that we've talked about for years... Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." It's hard to take it seriously when the proponents are willing to baldly state partisan motives.

 

—Alorael, who likes Sylae's link, too. Fraud has been looked into. It is, at worst, insignificant. More often it's nonexistent.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The one thing that everyone seems to miss is this. Those people who are in this country and are not citizens DO have the right to vote... in the country of which they ARE citizens. When our military personnel are stationed overseas, they do NOT get the right to vote in the elections of the host nation, but they do have the right to vote absentee in the elections of the U.S. and the state which is their Home of Record, i.e. the state in which they lived when they joined the service.

This is a statement of positivity, not normativity. Just because it is that way, why should it be? Just because, for instance, a law is in existence, doesn't mean that's how it should be.

Quote:

Second, why should I not take into account the laws of other nations? The One World government you aspire to does not exist. The closest we have gotten to that ideal is the United Nations, and even that body has only limited authority with respect to the laws that its member nations may enact for their own purposes.

Thirdly, with respect to Khoth's post, I admit that half the countries I mentioned do have some cross border voting rights; those states that are members of the European Union. Since they are a union of separate states it would be reasonable that they would have elections on interstate interests. The same principle applies here in the United States of America. Each state has its
own governing body, which is elected by the citizens of that state. And since these states are members of a federal republic, the citizens of those states also qualify as citizens of the republic.

North Korea, China, Cuba are all communist (so-called). Does that mean we should be too? This argument is the equivalent to saying that everyone else is doing, so we should too. Just because something is normal doesn't mean that it's normative. You bring up the European Union - that's a large interstate organization that's more decentralized than our federal republic - should we be in a confederacy of nations like that, just because others are?

Quote:

Fourth; How can you prove there is *not* any voter fraud? What evidence have you collected to prove that point. Do you have any evidence? No, because you are not even trying to collect any?

First of all, from the viewpoint of strict logical argumentation, you can't prove a negative. Second of all, others have already done the Google Fu for both of us - use it.

Quote:

Fifth; With regard to senior citizens who are bedridden, there are organizations that exist to enable these people to get registered. And they don't have to even go to the polls; they are allowed to vote absentee even though they are not physically absent.

And until they are universally effective, it won't be good enough.

Quote:

Sixth; What overwhelming evidence states that the majority of the people who would be /are disenfranchised are predominantly democrats. Again, without collecting any evidence to verify that point, how can such a claim be proven to be valid?

Others have done this already for me, so I'll just move to my main rebuttal. Why should we peg government to the nation, when it is far more logical to have the people who are going to be affected by the laws (residents and non-) vote? Nonresidents who are here on a longterm basis bear the consequences of the electoral agents just as much as citizens do, so why exclude them from suffrage?

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

I miss the good old days growing up in Chicago, where the dead voted for the Democrats and the cows downstate voted for the Republicans.

Originally Posted By: Khoth

The only type of fraud listed which would be prevented by ID requirements is "Voter Impersonation Fraud". Over the last ten years, they found ten cases of this.

Don't the dead and cows voting constitute as Voter Impersonation Fraud that could have been prevented by picture ID requirements?

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Khoth

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Does Australia allow non-citizens to vote in their elections? Great Britain? Denmark? India? El Salvador? Venezuela? Cuba?

More than half of those countries do actually grant some voting rights to some non-citizens.

If you ended up with some sort of residency status, you can enroll to vote in Australia, although you don't have to. Once you enroll to vote, you have to vote.

Originally Posted By: ξ

You need underlying documentation (a birth certificate, etc.) that people without government-issued photo ID often don't have either. And getting new copies of the underlying documentation does cost money. Usually not very much ($20, maybe?), but enough to be a cost, and it also takes enough time to make it harder to vote.

I have to get all my old ID back since I lost it all while fishing. Plus a new birth certificate. All up I'm looking at a bit over $200 just to replace 2 cards and a piece of paper.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Microsoft lacky

Don't the dead and cows voting constitute as Voter Impersonation Fraud that could have been prevented by picture ID requirements?

If election officials are letting cows show up to vote, you have more problems than a voter ID law can solve.

[Harehunter]

Aloreal, When ever I try to make a point from the conservative perspective, I make an effort to cite liberal leaning sources. If I only cited FOX sources, then my arguments are shot down as being based on a biased news source (which FOX is). But bias is rampant in our so-called media today. When I read your cite to NEWS21, I felt compelled to research the source.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a report that conflicts directly with the NEWS21 article. Here is an example of what I mean by using statistical modelling based upon flawed or merely insufficient sampling techniques.

 

Is the NCPPR biased? I would have to say yes. But that does not mean that NEWS21 is not biased. I have said it before, that there is a great distortion between journalism and editorialism. We expect that our journalists will tell us objectively what the facts are, without creative editing or biased spin. But that sort of journalism doesn't grab peoples attention enough to increase a stations ratings. Why should that factor in? Follow the money. Low ratings mean low viewership, and advertisers need large viewerships in order to sell their product. So now we wind up with Chris Mathews ad Bill O'Reilly, stirring the pot in opposite directions.

 

Where lies the truth? IMO it lies somewhere between the two polarities.

 

Harehunter yields the soap box.

 

Sorry, Sylae, I haven't had time to look at your citation. I will try to get to it tonight.

[Sudanna]

Reality is always going to be biased towards someone's viewpoint.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a report that conflicts directly with the NEWS21 article.

I can't find the bit in your source that shows voter fraud to be common (it's long and mostly about peripheral issues). Could you pick it out and quote it?

[Alorael at Large]

It doesn't. It proclaims media bias and flaws in studies failing to find evidence of voter fraud. Even so, I think that's damning: whether or not the investigations are strong or not, they are some evidence that voter fraud has limited impact. I have yet to see any systematic evidence to the contrary.

 

Liberal media may have liberal biases, but if conservative media can't debunk, just retort, then the liberal media still has the preponderance of evidence on its side.

 

—Alorael, who agrees that failure to respond reduces the power of statistical analysis. However, unless you suspect systematic bias in non-reporting, there's no reason to think the News21 report is wrong, just that it is not as strong as it might claim to be. And frankly, the NCPPR's thunderous denunciations of college students and journalistic sellouts undermines their case. Regardless of who reports it, truth is truth. Disprove or pipe down.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a report...

...the author of that report quotes *himself* in it. Multiple times.

Dikiyoba.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Where lies the truth? IMO it lies somewhere between the two polarities.

"the truth is in the middle" is one of the most ridiculous canned thoughts in western culture. you can't find the truth by somehow triangulating between people who aren't looking for it in the first place. even if you could, which two polarities would you pick? are you willing to say that the truth was in the middle in the debate between slave power and abolitionism? is it not instead true that if anything, the abolitionists didn't go far enough in their criticism of the racist ideas of the day?

and if you look at other countries, there's an even wider range of possible positions, many of which are extremely different but can't usefully be described as two poles of a single well-defined axis at all. "the truth is somewhere in between Icelandic and North Korean-style government" doesn't get you very far if you're looking for a good political praxis. but if you pick only positions that have mainstream credibility in the present-day US you may be choosing from a sample set that doesn't contain the truth at all, because the US has a pretty narrow range of acceptable political ideas

the truth is not in the middle: the truth is wherever it is. it doesn't move just because people's opinions change

[Cairo Jim]

Is there such thing as solid truth, or it just an ideology that a majority agrees upon?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

Is there such thing as solid truth, or it just an ideology that a majority agrees upon?

when we're talking about voter fraud yes, there's such a thing as truth. either it's happening on a scale large enough to influence election results, or it's not. either voter ID laws will be effective in preventing whatever kinds of fraud might happen, or they won't be. these are factual questions, not political ones

[Student of Trinity]

Non-citizens living in a country may be affected by the country's laws just as much as the citizens, but there's still something perverse about giving non-citizens the right to vote. If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, then what does citizenship even mean? Liability to conscription and jury duty? If so, I'd expect lots of Nth generation Americans to abandon their citizenship, in order to evade its obligations while retaining its benefits.

 

It seems to me that arguing for non-citizen voting rights is really arguing for granting immediate citizenship to all residents. That may be a defensible viewpoint, but surely the issue is clearer if we set it out openly.

[Erebus the Black]

If wer'e already on the subject of voting and voting rights for foreigners this is how they do it in The City of London:

Which is separate from London the city as can be seen here:

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Where lies the truth? IMO it lies somewhere between the two polarities.

snip
the truth is not in the middle: the truth is wherever it is. it doesn't move just because people's opinions change

Correct, the truth is *not* in the middle.
Correct, the truth is wherever it is.
What I said is that it is somewhere between the biased perspectives. It may certainly be closer to one perspective or the other.

The truth is what it is. Where the distortion comes in is from the biased perspective of the observers.

@Aloreal, I would love to be able to disprove the theory that people are fraudulently voting in the name of other people, dead or alive. But riddle me this, how does one go about *verifying* that it does not occur if you are not verifying the identity of those who show up to vote?

To conduct a study of voter fraud today, you send out a questionnaire to the effect of:
"Did you have any voter fraud in your district?"
"No."
"How do you know this?"
"I just know."
"What metric did you use to arrive at this conclusion?"
"What what???"
"What method did you use to verify there was no fraud?"
"I stood around and watched people coming in to vote."
"Do you know all those people?"
"No."
"How did you identify them?"
"They came in, they voted, they left."
"On this basis you assert there was no fraud?"
"Yes."

I understand this sounds sarcastic, but under the current rules, how else could this conversation go?

On the other hand, if verification of a persons identity was in place, would it not then discourage the practice of voter fraud in the first place? In that circumstance, it would (could only) prove that there is no voter fraud. It seems we have one Heller of a Catch here.

[Lilith]

if dead people are voting then the problem is less to do with lack of voter ID and more to do with the electoral register not being kept up to date

 

in any case, how do you justify a measure that will disenfranchise about 10% of the voting population (as shown by many, many links already posted in this thread) on the basis of preventing fraud that hasn't been shown to exist? there's no proof that i won't murder someone tomorrow: does that justify locking me up?

 

i'd also suggest you educate yourself on the present state of voter ID laws in the US, because "the current rules" are much, much more restrictive than you apparently believe them to be in many states and also federally. there's been plenty of evidence posted in the thread to show that existing voter ID laws already discourage minority groups from voting and encourage voter intimidation

[Jerakeen]

If they were truly concerned about voter fraud, they should have cracked down on absentee ballots, which have been used fraudulently in many instances. Does the fact that traditionally absentee voting has favored Republicans have anything to do with the fact that nothing has been done about it?

[Dantius]

I'm shocked. The first debate was days ago, and you people are still talking about voter fraud? That's so last week.

 

I was very surprised at how well Romney did. Despite the frantic race to lower expectations on both sides, he performed shockingly above even the rather high expectations that everybody shilling for him had. Of course, the fact that Obama decided to go along with him and allow him to basically frame the debate the way he wanted (i.e. deficit reduction == unequivocally good thing, for instance), and Lehrer just went along with whatever anybody said probably helped.

 

Personally, I think that Romney managed a good enough performance that he's stopped his campaign from hemorrhaging away any chances he had like it's been doing for the past weeks, but he's going to have to do much better than he is if he's going to turn things around. The map does not look good for him, and it's going to need some serious work to put him into a position to get 270 (or rather 269, since the Republicans have the house).

 

(Also, I would have posted this on the night of the debate, but I started drinking heavily at "We are a nation that believes that we are all children of the same God." and was pretty out of it by the end.)

[Harehunter]

@Lilith,

Again and again I hear that "There is no evidence that voter fraud exists". I agree with that because there is no evidence at all, period. None, zero, zip, nada. Whether you wish to prove or disprove it, there is no evidence.

 

As to the premise that voter ID laws will / have disenfranchise 10% of the population, again, how can one prove that theoretical estimation without actually testing it and making quantifiable observations? An assertion that is simply being repeated many times by many people does not make it a fact. What quantitative method is being used to count that 10%? I also assert that if that 10% of the population could be verified to have been denied the right to vote, we would also have identified those individuals and be able to correct the problem.

 

As for the process of purging the voter registry of deceased people, well even that is a contentious problem as evidenced in Florida. There are claims that people who are still living have been dropped from the registry. I can see how this could happen, given the mobility in our society. The procedures to verify if a citizen is dead or alive vary from state to state, but I would presume that it involves matching a persons name with their address. In that case, it is up to the individual to apply for a new registration card with their current address.

 

If I were to show up at the polls without a valid voter registration, whose fault is that? Did I move and not tell the county registrar of such? How are they going to know if I don't tell them? There is a responsibility on the part of the individual to register and to keep that registration current.

 

@Jerakeen,

Your point is very well taken. I was just thinking about that myself. I do not know the procedure for verifying the validity of these, but I am certain there is one.

 

Your assertion that absentee ballots traditionally favor Republicans is very intriguing. What demographic is most likely to have to vote by absentee ballot that would also favor Republicans? Surely you can't be talking about our men and women in the armed forces who have volunteered to put themselves at risk, and have been deployed by the Commander In Chief to overseas stations?

[Harehunter]

Was it that Romney was more prepared, or was it that Obama didn't feel the need to prepare? Romney had reason to come with both guns loaded. The polls probably lulled the President into thinking that he only needed to bring his knife. Round two will be different.

 

The VP debates promise to be quite explosive.

 

P.S. I don't put much stock in polls. Ever since that college course, I have always been a curmudgeon with respect to statistics unless I see the basis upon which they are formed; sample size, how sample was chosen, % of non-respondents, weighting factors, standard deviations.