The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

This is why its fully understandable to, again, establish identification for purchasing guns. But that is not at all the same as registration of those guns, which guts the heart of 2A.

Well, first of all, no we do not require identification for purchasing guns, especially at gun shows.

 

And secondly, so it's ok to require restrictions that deny people their constitutional right to vote, but it's not ok to require registration for gun ownership?

[southsider2k5]

Oh, ok, thank you for coming out in favor of registration for gun owners. I'm surprised you'd be willing to go that far.

 

OMFG YOU GOT ME!

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, first of all, no we do not require identification for purchasing guns, especially at gun shows.

 

And secondly, so it's ok to require restrictions that deny people their constitutional right to vote, but it's not ok to require registration for gun ownership?

Nice try twister. I said IDENTIFICATION is reasonable for both. REGISTRATION of guns is equivalent to associating a name with a vote.

 

Using your logic, since you are OK with registration of guns, are you OK with attaching your name to your vote in the public record?

 

[Balta1701]

Using your logic, since you are OK with registration of guns, are you OK with attaching your name to your vote in the public record?

You already do when you vote. I can take your name and tell you exactly which elections you've voted in, just not which candidate.

 

(Hence why voter fraud is so hard to actually pull off).

[NorthSideSox72]

You already do when you vote. I can take your name and tell you exactly which elections you've voted in, just not which candidate.

 

(Hence why voter fraud is so hard to actually pull off).

No, you don't, as per the bolded. Look, its real simple.

 

IDENTIFICATION of voters requires checking off your name, lest the same name vote twice. IDENTIFICATION of gun owners requires checking your ID each time you buy one, lest you allow dealers to just go by recognition. I am OK with either of those identifications. Either way, the person leaves with no record of their actions beyond being in that place at that time.

 

REGISTRATION of guns means having a list of who bought what guns. REGISTRATION of votes would mean applying your votes to your name on a similar list. I am NOT ok with EITHER of those.

 

How is this not clear?

 

[bmags]

If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting.

It costs zero citizens the right to vote. Zero. You are confusing "right to vote" with "vote". It will, I am sure, cost some votes from people who were unwilling or unable to fully exercise that right, or unaware of the process. Unwilling and unaware, I could care less what happens to you. Unable, if physically so, as I said, I am all in favor of having a system in place to address it.

 

[bmags]

It costs zero citizens the right to vote. Zero. You are confusing "right to vote" with "vote". It will, I am sure, cost some votes from people who were unwilling or unable to fully exercise that right, or unaware of the process. Unwilling and unaware, I could care less what happens to you. Unable, if physically so, as I said, I am all in favor of having a system in place to address it.

 

Fine. If you pass a law that correlates to a significant drop in real voters and drop of the small amounts of voter fraud cases, is it a good law.

edit: i'm not confusing anything.

Edited June 29, 2011 by bmags

[Balta1701]

A person turned away at the polls who wants to vote legally is just as effective a method of committing voter fraud as bringing a person in to vote twice.

[southsider2k5]

If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting.

 

We do exactly this for accounting fraud, except for jobs and income.

[Balta1701]

We do exactly this for accounting fraud, except for jobs and income.

Because there's no downside to having the rest of the world believing that your accounting standards are shoddy and worthless.

[bmags]

We do exactly this for accounting fraud, except for jobs and income.

 

I'm not addressing your red herring thank you. And I consider the policies of how our citizens vote to be considerably more important to the health of our democracy than the regulations in place for accountants. You have a strong enough lobby, use your corporate might.

[southsider2k5]

Because there's no downside to having the rest of the world believing that your accounting standards are shoddy and worthless.

 

And there is to having the world think your government is?

[southsider2k5]

I'm not addressing your red herring thank you. And I consider the policies of how our citizens vote to be considerably more important to the health of our democracy than the regulations in place for accountants. You have a strong enough lobby, use your corporate might.

 

So do I. Which is why I think fraud should be fought with obvious measures, such as ID.

[Balta1701]

And there is to having the world think your government is?

Well, we're going to find that out on about August 3rd at this rate.

[bmags]

So do I. Which is why I think fraud should be fought with obvious measures, such as ID.

 

And my argument is that there's a cause and effect that is stupid. If you put in a measure that prevents more citizen voters than cases of voter fraud, which in all evidence these do exactly that, then the election is LESS legitimate, not MORE.

[southsider2k5]

And my argument is that there's a cause and effect that is stupid. If you put in a measure that prevents more citizen voters than cases of voter fraud, which in all evidence these do exactly that, then the election is LESS legitimate, not MORE.

 

The only problem with that is you have no idea how effective ID is because there is no reporting of people who are legitimately turned away, or otherwise don't even try to vote because they know they can't get away with it. You only hear the very few people who complain, and even in those cases they can take a provisional ballot and vote anyway, and prove that they are indeed legitimate. So the reality is that no one should be "disenfranchised" by these rules. That is entirely propaganda.

[bmags]

The only problem with that is you have no idea how effective ID is because there is no reporting of people who are legitimately turned away, or otherwise don't even try to vote because they know they can't get away with it. You only hear the very few people who complain, and even in those cases they can take a provisional ballot and vote anyway, and prove that they are indeed legitimate. So the reality is that no one should be "disenfranchised" by these rules. That is entirely propaganda.

 

And no one should be disenfranchised by citizen tests.

[Balta1701]

The only problem with that is you have no idea how effective ID is because there is no reporting of people who are legitimately turned away, or otherwise don't even try to vote because they know they can't get away with it. You only hear the very few people who complain, and even in those cases they can take a provisional ballot and vote anyway, and prove that they are indeed legitimate. So the reality is that no one should be "disenfranchised" by these rules. That is entirely propaganda.

But that turns around. You don't know how much its' needed, because if you actually try to point to the numbers of legitimate fraud cases, they're miniscule. You get a guy or two every term and they usually get caught. So you have to point to this nebulous "voter fraud epidemic" without evidence for it (other than Democrats being elected, of course), lump in things like Voter Registration Fraud (a much more common problem but one that never carries over to the polling place), etc.

[southsider2k5]

But that turns around. You don't know how much its' needed, because if you actually try to point to the numbers of legitimate fraud cases, they're miniscule. You get a guy or two every term and they usually get caught. So you have to point to this nebulous "voter fraud epidemic" without evidence for it (other than Democrats being elected, of course), lump in things like Voter Registration Fraud (a much more common problem but one that never carries over to the polling place), etc.

 

When you have organizations adding untold numbers of fraudulent registrations, there is a really good reason for wanting to be sure that your process is honest and accurate. Looking the other way only encourages fraud.

[Balta1701]

When you have organizations adding untold numbers of fraudulent registrations, there is a really good reason for wanting to be sure that your process is honest and accurate. Looking the other way only encourages fraud.

Of course, then one might note the fact that registration groups are required by law to turn over every registration received to registrars (for very good reason in fact) and say that no one is looking the other way...that's why voter registration forms are actually examined then processed.

 

If we were looking the other way, Homer Simpson would be registered to vote about 400x per city.

[southsider2k5]

Of course, then one might note the fact that registration groups are required by law to turn over every registration received to registrars (for very good reason in fact) and say that no one is looking the other way...that's why voter registration forms are actually examined then processed.

 

If we were looking the other way, Homer Simpson would be registered to vote about 400x per city.

 

So even if that process is 99% accurate, that means literally thousands of fraudulent names remain.

[Balta1701]

So even if that process is 99% accurate, that means literally thousands of fraudulent names remain.

So, if 99% of all ID's are real, then we still have a major problem at the polling place. Clearly, the photo ID check is worthless.

[southsider2k5]

So, if 99% of all ID's are real, then we still have a major problem at the polling place. Clearly, the photo ID check is worthless.

 

I am impressed your general feelings on voter fraud are so accommodating. What is a little fraud between elections afterall.

[Balta1701]

What is a little fraud between elections afterall.

A Republican fairy tale?