The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

And we've been 'round this merry-go-round before: you won't ever get evidence of voter fraud because it's impossible to catch without someone being dumb enough to get caught. This isn't some make-em-up scenario, it happens:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11...es-in-november/

 

Wait, I won't get evidence, but here's an example of it happening??

 

You won't get evidence because it doesn't really happen because in-person voter fraud is an incredibly risky and inefficient way to rig an election with more than a few dozen votes. There are, at most, a handful of cases every couple of years. Pro-ID respondents have repeatedly admitted this, courts have frequently found this. It's not a real problem, and if it was, it'd show up in election data.

 

Let's be real here - this might be an effort from Republicans to keep certain people from voting (I don't buy that, but whatever, i'll play along) because it favors them,

 

This is unquestionably true. Various Republicans have explicitly admitted it, and other voting disenfranchisement policies are clearly partisan-oriented, e.g. shifting polling times and locations to Republican areas in Ohio, changes that resulted in hours-long lines in Democratic areas in Florida. They're pretty blatant about it.

 

but the Democrat response is equally about KEEPING those votes because it favors them. None of this has anything to do with constitutional rights or some fight against disenfranchisement. You have to show an ID to early vote in Illinois. Where's the outcry? Oh yeah, there isn't any because it's not a big deal.

 

Since in-person voter fraud isn't actually a real problem, the Democratic response is entirely legitimate: they want to keep voters enfranchised. Yes, they have a partisan interest in it, but they're also morally right. You could make the same argument in decades-past for racial voter enfranchisement (or "racial entitlements" as Scalia would call them), but one side would still clearly be right.

 

And GMAFB on ID's being a prohibitive force. Registration is equally prohibitive. Let's get rid of that too. Hell, let's get rid of any effort to control voting. Let's make it a free-for-all. You love your candidate? Vote a million times if you want to, just like American Idol.

 

Go read any of the numerous amicus briefs on these cases. GMAFB on your ignorance of real, documented cases of disenfranchisement that are only a quick Google search away. GMAFB on equating not wanting to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens with wanting to allow unlimited votes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because registering to vote is so that you are voting for the right ballots, as elections are based on where you live. Drivers license is unnecessary and superfulous.

 

I hate govt in my life, I dont want to give them any unnecessary information. I find drivers license and more information about me to be completely unnecessary. The govt does not need it to prevent voter fraud.

 

Drivers license is not required of all adults in the US, therefore its unnecessary and irrelevant.

 

If you love big govt and you want to give govt more personal information, that is your call. But I dont. I dont like the govt.

 

 

 

Society evolves, I dont want society to devolve. Anonymity is important.

 

I fail to see how offering up an ID is "government in your life" anymore than having a social security card or a birth certificate or whatever. It's simply providing evidence that you are who you say you are and not someone else.

 

You don't need a driver's license. Get a regular state-issued photo ID. Something official with your mug on it so that an election judge can say "yep, that's you" instead of someone else.

[StrangeSox]

Lol, ugh. So again, why have any requirements at all? Some dumb person might have to deal with a "complicated" process. The horror!

 

Yeah, what a "dumb" person for being old, from an area that didn't have good records and having her SS card stolen! f*** her, better put laws in place that take away her right to vote while preventing a problem that isn't actually real!

 

PS dumb people have just as much as a right to vote as you.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well you have to have some requirements if you are going to base voting on where people live, have districts etc.

 

Which is why registration is done by where you currently live.

 

Not by what your drivers license states. Which is why drivers license requirement is nonsensical under the current rules of voting.

 

But I guess some people just like more rules and more govt intervention.

 

Not I.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I never limited it to a drivers' license. Get a photo ID. It achieves the same purpose.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I fail to see how offering up an ID is "government in your life" anymore than having a social security card or a birth certificate or whatever. It's simply providing evidence that you are who you say you are and not someone else.

 

You don't need a driver's license. Get a regular state-issued photo ID. Something official with your mug on it so that an election judge can say "yep, that's you" instead of someone else.

That costs time and money and requires you to have some other official document proving you are who you say you are. Not everybody has the time, money and necessary documents. Getting the documents is a Catch-22 in that you need a state-issued ID to get them.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks, do you think in-person voter fraud has had any measurable impact on an election? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

[Jenksismyhero]

Wait, I won't get evidence, but here's an example of it happening??

 

You won't get evidence because it doesn't really happen because in-person voter fraud is an incredibly risky and inefficient way to rig an election with more than a few dozen votes. There are, at most, a handful of cases every couple of years. Pro-ID respondents have repeatedly admitted this, courts have frequently found this. It's not a real problem, and if it was, it'd show up in election data.

 

 

 

This is unquestionably true. Various Republicans have explicitly admitted it, and other voting disenfranchisement policies are clearly partisan-oriented, e.g. shifting polling times and locations to Republican areas in Ohio, changes that resulted in hours-long lines in Democratic areas in Florida. They're pretty blatant about it.

 

 

 

Since in-person voter fraud isn't actually a real problem, the Democratic response is entirely legitimate: they want to keep voters enfranchised. Yes, they have a partisan interest in it, but they're also morally right. You could make the same argument in decades-past for racial voter enfranchisement (or "racial entitlements" as Scalia would call them), but one side would still clearly be right.

 

 

 

Go read any of the numerous amicus briefs on these cases. GMAFB on your ignorance of real, documented cases of disenfranchisement that are only a quick Google search away. GMAFB on equating not wanting to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens with wanting to allow unlimited votes.

 

LOL, hey man, why don't you link me to some more sites about how difficult it is to vote because someone can't find their SS card.

 

Ugh, I'm done. Your bleeding heart is too much for me. Also remember the golden rule: if you're white, male and conservative, you hate the colored folk! It never fails!

[Soxbadger]

I fail to see how offering up an ID is "government in your life" anymore than having a social security card or a birth certificate or whatever. It's simply providing evidence that you are who you say you are and not someone else.

 

You don't need a driver's license. Get a regular state-issued photo ID. Something official with your mug on it so that an election judge can say "yep, that's you" instead of someone else.

 

It is a considerable escalation to go from pieces of paper with my name and information, to something that has my actual picture and can be easily used to track me down for voting against the party in power.

 

Its great that you are concerned about voter fraud, but my concerns are about govt abusing power.

 

Seeing as that there are historically far more examples of govts using information as a way to control people, I am going to argue against that, until its proven that voter fraud presents a greater risk.

 

We all know where this goes. Ids, approved, but then the argument is that people are making fake ids. Well only 1 way to solve that, we have to put tracking devices in the ids, that way we can make sure that the person is who they say they are and we can make sure they are coming from the same place.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

We must remain vigilant against the expansion of govt power or else one day the people will have nothing left.

 

Voter nonsense is nothing more than each party trying to get some sort of advantage. You wont stop that, no matter how many rules we make.

 

But we can stop making rules, we can stop giving govt more and more power.

 

Each person is entitled to their own opinion. I just find govt power more of an issue, then voter fraud, which to the best of my knowledge, is anecdotal and the evidence is flimsy at best.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, do you think in-person voter fraud has had any measurable impact on an election? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

 

I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this.

 

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I don't know what you're talking about. I never limited it to a drivers' license. Get a photo ID. It achieves the same purpose.

 

Right you want more rules where people have to give the govt information and have no problem with that.

 

I want less rules where people have to give the govt information.

 

I dont like requirements that people have photo ids and licenses. I find that unnecessary.

[Soxbadger]

I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this.

 

Yep and it doesnt require a license.

 

I can create a fake id for a dead person.

 

The real answer is just taking accountability and actually spending time matching names with register rolls. If someone who is dead voted, an id isnt going to tell you that. A death certificate and a ballot will.

 

Ironically in that situation the id does nothing to help, if anything the fake id would probably make it so no one checked the rolls.

 

Its just making up nonsense to get more govt power.

 

(edit)

 

Or here is another non-intrusive way.

 

Prior to election have internet database of all registered voters. Voters name is then converted to secret id number. Voter is given id number. Id number goes on ballot. Ballot is scanned and id number is marked off database.

 

If another ballot is scanned with same number, red flag, both ballots pulled.

 

If a ballot is scanned without id number, red flag, ballots pulled.

 

Its 2013, its simply creating a database and cross referencing. A license does not help this problem at all.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I'll note that you're never able to actually present an argument or any evidence whatsoever on this topic and just fall back to some dumb knee-jerk "you're calling me a racist" line.

 

I'm sorry that my "bleeding heart" for "letting people vote" is too much. I'm sorry that you can't accept that there's no evidence-based support for these laws pushed by Republicans that just happen to significantly disenfranchise their political opponents' voters. I'm sorry that you can't discuss an issue with a racial aspect without immediately concluding that you, personally, are being called a racist or that anyone is even being called a racist (they're not, at least by me). I'm sorry that you seem to lack empathy for people in situations that you haven't been through, that you seem to not give one s*** about actual people losing their ability to vote in an effort to stop a non-existent problem.

 

I could like you to various amicus briefs filed in the cases over these laws that document this disenfranchisement and the lack of actual in-person voter fraud, but you've already told me you simply don't care. It doesn't seem to matter that there's no evidence for this being a real problem, you've simply assumed a priori that it's real. It doesn't seem to matter that people actually are disenfranchised, you've assumed a priori that they really aren't and, even if they are, f*** 'em.

[Jenksismyhero]

It is a considerable escalation to go from pieces of paper with my name and information, to something that has my actual picture and can be easily used to track me down for voting against the party in power.

 

Its great that you are concerned about voter fraud, but my concerns are about govt abusing power.

 

Seeing as that there are historically far more examples of govts using information as a way to control people, I am going to argue against that, until its proven that voter fraud presents a greater risk.

 

We all know where this goes. Ids, approved, but then the argument is that people are making fake ids. Well only 1 way to solve that, we have to put tracking devices in the ids, that way we can make sure that the person is who they say they are and we can make sure they are coming from the same place.

 

And so on and so forth.

 

We must remain vigilant against the expansion of govt power or else one day the people will have nothing left.

 

Voter nonsense is nothing more than each party trying to get some sort of advantage. You wont stop that, no matter how many rules we make.

 

But we can stop making rules, we can stop giving govt more and more power.

 

Each person is entitled to their own opinion. I just find govt power more of an issue, then voter fraud, which to the best of my knowledge, is anecdotal and the evidence is flimsy at best.

 

I don't get it. It's relatively simple. When you're born, you have get a certificate. By law, you're supposed to get an SS#. Those two things everyone has and they're free. Take that to a local post office/drivers license facility/courthouse, whatever. Use that document, get your picture taken and get an photo ID. Use that photo ID for various services including voting. 99.9% of the country already does this. Why is it that so difficult? You have to do more to do just about anything else in life.

 

Why is voting so different? If voting was such a sacred right that can't be infringed even a little, then registration should be thrown out the window. Who cares why they have you register, if it affects someone's right to vote (as in, you CAN'T VOTE AT ALL UNLESS YOU REGISTER), then that should be abolished. If you can physically make it to the polling station, your vote counts. End of story.

 

[StrangeSox]

I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this.

 

No, we don't. You're simply assuming that we do. If this was a real problem, it would manifest in the voting data. It doesn't.

 

Think about how hard this scheme would be to pull off. You need to know who's registered in a given precinct. You need to know they won't show up. You need to send an individual for every vote you're going to fraudulently cast. You need dozens to thousands (depending on the scale of the particular election local/state-wide) of people to keep quite, to never say a word about this scheme. Now compare that with absentee ballot fraud, something Republicans seem oddly quiet about. Compare it to good ol' ballot box stuffing or electronic manipulation. Why would anyone go through the hassle and risk of in-person fraud on any meaningful level?

[Soxbadger]

I don't get it. It's relatively simple. When you're born, you have get a certificate. By law, you're supposed to get an SS#. Those two things everyone has and they're free. Take that to a local post office/drivers license facility/courthouse, whatever. Use that document, get your picture taken and get an photo ID. Use that photo ID for various services including voting. 99.9% of the country already does this. Why is it that so difficult? You have to do more to do just about anything else in life.

 

Why is voting so different? If voting was such a sacred right that can't be infringed even a little, then registration should be thrown out the window. Who cares why they have you register, if it affects someone's right to vote (as in, you CAN'T VOTE AT ALL UNLESS YOU REGISTER), then that should be abolished. If you can physically make it to the polling station, your vote counts. End of story.

 

Why should I have to put my picture on a govt regulated item?

 

Isnt my ss and birth certificate enough?

 

Perhaps it doesnt impact you, but coming from a group of people that was persecuted by govts for over 2000 years, you get a little nervous any time people want you to "register" because "its for your own good"

 

I remember back in the Middle Ages when they just wanted the Jews to put a little yellow star on themselves. Thats not a big deal, why shouldnt you have to tell the govt who you are? When has it ever gone wrong that the govt has used information to select and target people...

 

If you are going to argue for such an increase in govt power, at least give me a reason why that is the ONLY/BEST method.

 

Seeing as its not even a legitimate or good method to decrease voter fraud, it just simply seems like a way for the govt to get more information/better control its people.

[StrangeSox]

I don't get it. It's relatively simple. When you're born, you have get a certificate. By law, you're supposed to get an SS#. Those two things everyone has and they're free. Take that to a local post office/drivers license facility/courthouse, whatever. Use that document, get your picture taken and get an photo ID. Use that photo ID for various services including voting. 99.9% of the country already does this. Why is it that so difficult? You have to do more to do just about anything else in life.

 

Why is voting so different? If voting was such a sacred right that can't be infringed even a little, then registration should be thrown out the window. Who cares why they have you register, if it affects someone's right to vote (as in, you CAN'T VOTE AT ALL UNLESS YOU REGISTER), then that should be abolished. If you can physically make it to the polling station, your vote counts. End of story.

 

No, they don't. Remember how I already linked you to one story about that? There's many others about people who were born in areas and eras before BC's and hospital records were widespread and well-kept and who simply cannot ever obtain that information. Maybe in a few decades it wouldn't be an issue, but there's still other concerns as well.

[Soxbadger]

SS,

 

Its not about voter fraud at all. You can completely erase voter fraud without actually needing people to take pictures so we can create more databases to track citizens.

 

You just need a database that is actively updating. Now someone could hack the database, but then again, some one could hack the voting machines....

 

Its interesting what the govt puts out there as what we should worry about, as compared to what would really be the likely way to manipulate voting.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Why should I have to put my picture on a govt regulated item?

 

Isnt my ss and birth certificate enough?

 

Perhaps it doesnt impact you, but coming from a group of people that was persecuted by govts for over 2000 years, you get a little nervous any time people want you to "register" because "its for your own good"

 

I remember back in the Middle Ages when they just wanted the Jews to put a little yellow star on themselves. Thats not a big deal, why shouldnt you have to tell the govt who you are? When has it ever gone wrong that the govt has used information to select and target people...

 

If you are going to argue for such an increase in govt power, at least give me a reason why that is the ONLY/BEST method.

 

Seeing as its not even a legitimate or good method to decrease voter fraud, it just simply seems like a way for the govt to get more information/better control its people.

 

I saw a copy of Frank Lloyd Wright's passport on Saturday. They used to just be a list of physical descriptions. "Nose: Large" "Forehead: High"

[Soxbadger]

I just always wonder why people believe that either party wants a fair fight. They both want a fight where the odds are stacked in their favor.

[StrangeSox]

SS,

 

Its not about voter fraud at all. You can completely erase voter fraud without actually needing people to take pictures so we can create more databases to track citizens.

 

You just need a database that is actively updating. Now someone could hack the database, but then again, some one could hack the voting machines....

 

Its interesting what the govt puts out there as what we should worry about, as compared to what would really be the likely way to manipulate voting.

 

That's a plausible way of doing it, but it seems like a hugely unnecessary and expensive system to solve a non-problem. You already sort of have that with registration rolls, two people can't try to identify themselves as the same person. That's one reason why in-person fraud is so implausible even without an ID.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll note that you're never able to actually present an argument or any evidence whatsoever on this topic and just fall back to some dumb knee-jerk "you're calling me a racist" line.

 

I'm sorry that my "bleeding heart" for "letting people vote" is too much. I'm sorry that you can't accept that there's no evidence-based support for these laws pushed by Republicans that just happen to significantly disenfranchise their political opponents' voters. I'm sorry that you can't discuss an issue with a racial aspect without immediately concluding that you, personally, are being called a racist or that anyone is even being called a racist (they're not, at least by me). I'm sorry that you seem to lack empathy for people in situations that you haven't been through, that you seem to not give one s*** about actual people losing their ability to vote in an effort to stop a non-existent problem.

 

I could like you to various amicus briefs filed in the cases over these laws that document this disenfranchisement and the lack of actual in-person voter fraud, but you've already told me you simply don't care. It doesn't seem to matter that there's no evidence for this being a real problem, you've simply assumed a priori that it's real. It doesn't seem to matter that people actually are disenfranchised, you've assumed a priori that they really aren't and, even if they are, f*** 'em.

 

Your entire argument relies upon the fact that there is no evidence that this type of voter fraud happens, but you refuse to acknowledge that it's incredibly difficult to go out and find that evidence given the way the system is set up. Occasionally when an idiot trips up and gets caught, it's proof that it happens, but that's few and far between because the government and the party's don't have the manpower or the means to catch people. It's like arguing that people never go over the speed limit when you have 5 cops patrolling the entire state. The lack of evidence isn't proof that it doesn't happen.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

No, we don't. You're simply assuming that we do. If this was a real problem, it would manifest in the voting data. It doesn't.

 

Think about how hard this scheme would be to pull off. You need to know who's registered in a given precinct. You need to know they won't show up. You need to send an individual for every vote you're going to fraudulently cast. You need dozens to thousands (depending on the scale of the particular election local/state-wide) of people to keep quite, to never say a word about this scheme. Now compare that with absentee ballot fraud, something Republicans seem oddly quiet about. Compare it to good ol' ballot box stuffing or electronic manipulation. Why would anyone go through the hassle and risk of in-person fraud on any meaningful level?

 

I just f***ing linked to a site where 3-4 people were charged!

[Jenksismyhero]

I just always wonder why people believe that either party wants a fair fight. They both want a fight where the odds are stacked in their favor.

 

Hey I agree. But i'm not the one pretending like one side is fighting for the little guy while the other party is only doing it for sinister purposes.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, they don't. Remember how I already linked you to one story about that? There's many others about people who were born in areas and eras before BC's and hospital records were widespread and well-kept and who simply cannot ever obtain that information. Maybe in a few decades it wouldn't be an issue, but there's still other concerns as well.

 

OMG. So make a f***ing exception. Jesus.

[Soxbadger]

Hey I agree. But i'm not the one pretending like one side is fighting for the little guy while the other party is only doing it for sinister purposes.

 

I think that they are all motivated by sinister purposes.

 

Which is why I dont want either to have my information.