The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Yes, my argument that this isn't a real problem relies on the fact that there's zero evidence that this is a real problem. This is usually regarded as a very strong foundation for an argument. Furthermore, there is more data that can be examined than actually catching someone in the act. You can analyze by-precinct voting results for anomalies. Evidence of in-person voter fraud still does not show up. We can also examine it from a completely theoretical point of view and find that the prospect of non-negligible in-person fraud just doesn't make much sense. There are far more efficient and less-risky ways of committing election fraud. That Republicans focus solely on the one highly implausible form that just happens to disenfranchise their opponents' voters is what makes their motivations so obvious.

 

On the other hand, we have actual, tangible evidence of non-negligible amounts of disenfranchisement that result from these laws. You hand-wave them away because they're inconvenient, or less charitably, because you simply don't care that people are disenfranchised.

 

This is not akin to arguing that people never go over the speed limit because there's a hypothetically low amount of speeding tickets. We can all observe ourselves and others speeding regularly. We can look at reported driving times. At a higher level, we can look at Ipass data. We would still find an abundance of evidence for speeding even if there were few speeding tickets issued. Just the same, we'd find plenty of evidence of voting irregularities if this was an actual, legitimate problem. Yet, we don't.

 

You're still attempting to solve a problem that you've decided to believe is real without any evidence whatsoever. I see no reason to accept these attempts to solve a non-real problem when these solutions result in many multiples more people being disenfranchised than are even hypothetically prevented from committing fraud.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

But you also said it was impossible to detect!

 

When it actually happens, which is rare, because it's a dumb way of committing voter fraud*, people actually get caught. And once you're above the small local election level, it's not even plausible that it could be executed at a significant level.

 

*I guess I'm coming at this from a centrally planned effort and not a random person voting for a couple of relatives. Now compare those five votes to how many people in Ohio would have been disenfranchised with a voter ID law.

[StrangeSox]

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

So make a giant bureaucracy that can grant exceptions at it sees fit, likely making it the target of numerous discrimination claims, but still places significant hurdles to voters via some sort of application and appeals process? To combat a problem for which there is no evidence?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

One side wants less people to vote and is blatant about what group of people that would be (likely opponent voters). The other wants more people to vote.

 

I feel pretty comfortable prescribing sinister, anti-democratic motives to one side in this case.

[Soxbadger]

One side wants less people to vote and is blatant about what group of people that would be (likely opponent voters). The other wants more people to vote.

 

I feel pretty comfortable prescribing sinister, anti-democratic motives to one side in this case.

 

It depends on how you define "anti-democratic".

 

I think both sides would rather win by cheating, than lose in a fair fight.

[StrangeSox]

Restricting the enfranchisement would seem to be a workable definition.

[Soxbadger]

Restricting the enfranchisement would seem to be a workable definition.

 

And so would creating a system to increase your chances of getting duplicate or false votes.

 

This is about winning a game, nothing more, nothing less.

[bmags]

And so would creating a system to increase your chances of getting duplicate or false votes.

 

This is about winning a game, nothing more, nothing less.

 

That's not creating a system, that is the system, a system which is remarkable for how free of that type of voter fraud exists.

 

Hey Dad, check out this rock!

Wow, what does it do?

It keeps bears away.

How does it work?

I don't know, but I don't see any bears around here, do you?

Lisa, let me buy that rock.

 

That's the dialogue from the simpsons that I think of any time this s*** pops up.

[StrangeSox]

There's also this odd implication that only Democrats would engage in in-person voter fraud.

[Soxbadger]

That's not creating a system, that is the system, a system which is remarkable for how free of that type of voter fraud exists.

 

That is merely speculation. I dont think voter fraud is that big of a deal, but I do admit that if people were being clever I may not have any clue they are doing it.

 

 

There's also this odd implication that only Democrats would engage in in-person voter fraud.

 

That would only be because you read it defensively.

 

I think both Republicans/Democrats want to disenfranchise those who wont vote for them, enfranchise those who will vote for them.

 

Its nothing more than knocking off signatures on a primary, you do whatever it takes to win, regardless of the facts, because winning is the ultimate goal.

 

 

[bmags]

That is merely speculation. I dont think voter fraud is that big of a deal, but I do admit that if people were being clever I may not have any clue they are doing it.

 

They must wear guy incognito glasses or something.

[StrangeSox]

That would only be because you read it defensively.

 

No, that would be because you're setting up a dichotomy to claim "both sides!" equality here. If both sides benefit equally from lax voter ID laws, then you can't proscribe sinister motivations to one side who wants to keep the laws the same.

 

I think both Republicans/Democrats want to disenfranchise those who wont vote for them, enfranchise those who will vote for them.

 

Its nothing more than knocking off signatures on a primary, you do whatever it takes to win, regardless of the facts, because winning is the ultimate goal.

 

But we have actual evidence to the contrary. Democrat-controlled states haven't passed numerous measures designed specifically to disenfranchise likely Republican voters. We haven't seen Ohio and Florida-like shenanigans (closing dem-heavy polling places, understaffing them, giving them shorter hours than rep-heavy ones, etc.) in blue states. We didn't see Democrats push to rig the Electoral College in their favor after 2004 like some state Republicans have considered. One party has very clearly made voter disenfranchisement one of their main political tools.

[StrangeSox]

They must wear guy incognito glasses or something.

And oddly don't show up in any sort of voting data analysis. Tricksters.

[Soxbadger]

They must wear guy incognito glasses or something.

 

I just dont see why it makes sense to stick my head in the sand and just believe its not happening.

 

Who is exactly harmed by preparing for the worst and hoping for the best?

[Soxbadger]

No, that would be because you're setting up a dichotomy to claim "both sides!" equality here. If both sides benefit equally from lax voter ID laws, then you can't proscribe sinister motivations to one side who wants to keep the laws the same.

 

 

 

But we have actual evidence to the contrary. Democrat-controlled states haven't passed numerous measures designed specifically to disenfranchise likely Republican voters. We haven't seen Ohio and Florida-like shenanigans (closing dem-heavy polling places, understaffing them, giving them shorter hours than rep-heavy ones, etc.) in blue states. We didn't see Democrats push to rig the Electoral College in their favor after 2004 like some state Republicans have considered. One party has very clearly made voter disenfranchisement one of their main political tools.

 

Okay you are right, Democrats are just true blue good guys who never bend rules and dont try and use any method necessary to win elections.

 

If you want parrots, just go to some sort of nonsense Democrat website where you can all talk about how the Democrats have never done a single bad thing and the Republicans are the evils of the world.

 

It really isnt helpful to actually making the US voting system better, its just backing your dog in the fight.

 

(edit)

 

I mean the implication is that Democrats have never gerrymandered, is that even defendable?

Edited March 19, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Nope, Illinois is IIRC the most-heavily Democratically gerrymandered state!

 

But we were talking about voter ID laws, right? In that case, one party is actively and openly trying to disenfranchise some groups of voters while the other side is fighting for the fraudless status quo. To make the argument that one side is not on the morally right side here, you need to show that the Democrats somehow disproportionately benefit from looser voter ID laws that lead to fraud after you show that this fraud actually exists.

[StrangeSox]

I just dont see why it makes sense to stick my head in the sand and just believe its not happening.

 

I just don't see why it makes sense to believe in something for which there is no evidence and for which the data counter-indicates.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012...atic-deception/

 

Who is exactly harmed by preparing for the worst and hoping for the best?

 

hundreds of thousands of disenfrachised voters, many orders of magnitude more people than are even plausibly committing in-person voter fraud.

 

[Soxbadger]

Nope, Illinois is IIRC the most-heavily Democratically gerrymandered state!

 

But we were talking about voter ID laws, right? In that case, one party is actively and openly trying to disenfranchise some groups of voters while the other side is fighting for the fraudless status quo. To make the argument that one side is not on the morally right side here, you need to show that the Democrats somehow disproportionately benefit from looser voter ID laws that lead to fraud after you show that this fraud actually exists.

 

No you made a comment about how Republicans after winning tried to gerrymander, implying that Democrats dont do the same thing. Which is patently false. You keep jumping around, instead of focusing on the overarching argument, that both sides make rules to get advantages in elections.

 

You seem to be trying to create an imaginary line that somehow Democratic cheating is more honorable than Republican cheating, but I just call it cheating

 

I just don't see why it makes sense to believe in something for which there is no evidence and for which the data counter-indicates.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012...atic-deception/

 

 

 

hundreds of thousands of disenfrachised voters, many orders of magnitude more people than are even plausibly committing in-person voter fraud.

 

 

Perhaps read my posts?

 

Where did I ever say people should be disenfranchised? What proposal did I make that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people?

 

How would a database that cross references instantly, disenfranchise anyone more than the current system?

 

I await your response, because it seems like you feel that we should do nothing and just leave the status quo, and never try and improve.

 

And your absence of evidence argument is somewhat annoying. There is evidence people have been caught committing voter fraud.

 

Its like arguing that no one else at a certain HS is drinking because only a few students were actually caught drinking...

 

Generally we presume that more people get away with something than are caught doing it, so if 1% are caught, its almost guaranteed that the number who tried is > 1%. And furthermore, you are acting like as long as it doesnt happen a lot, it doesnt matter.

 

I personally believe that we should try to eradicate all voter fraud, through reasonable means, because otherwise you are disenfranchising every citizen who actually played by the rules. Their vote gets diluted and that isnt fair.

 

I know not your concern, but its mine.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

It's 10 years later and still to this day, none of the people involved in making the decision can articulate anything we were actually supposed to accomplish via what became the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. They don't even have the decency to feel shame for what they did nor are they embarrassed by how horribly wrong they were. In fact they feel like we are supposed to show gratitude for their "courage" or "resolve" or something like that. Donald Rumsfeld actually tweeted this today:

 

@RumsfeldOffice 10h

10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.

 

That is such unmitigated gall that it's almost funny. These people take basically all of what credit there is to be had and none of the blame, and pay phony lip service to those who ACTUALLY made sacrifices and showed courage in spite of them. Oh, they pretend to care, but the concept of actually paying taxes for this war is beneath them. Abhorrent, actually, but I do wonder exactly how many hundreds of billions (or trillions) more we could've spent on the war before they actually acknowledged it was costing money, and a lot of it. So today you can see members of this same tribe hemming and hawing about the budget, so as a result we end up indiscriminately slashing money and benefits and not taking care of the veterans... they'll blame everyone BUT themselves for it even if you go so far as to acknowledge there might be other factors at play. But they swear they care so much. Yeah right.

 

I don't really have the English vocabulary that can accurately convey my disgust and contempt for these people. It's frankly pretty f***ing embarrassing that I share the same nationality with them.

[StrangeSox]

I'm reasonably sure I did not mention gerrymandering in this discussion at all until you brought it up.

 

I think that the status quo re: in-person voter fraud is perfectly fine. The current rate of people actually caught doing it is typically around 0.00005%. In other words, it's completely inconsequential. I don't know if your proposed system would have any disenfranchising effects, but it would have substantial costs and would require national uniform voting laws.

 

You can never eradicate all voter fraud. Or theft, or tax fraud, or anything else. You need to examine the opportunity costs e.g. disenfranchising legitimate voters, massive expense. It's not a bad goal itself, but if we're really concerned about it, in-person is the last place we should be looking. Yet, it's the only form Republicans seem to care about and the measures to address it 'just happen' to result in substantial disenfrachisement.

 

If my absence-of-evidence argument is annoying, imagine how annoying it is to be arguing against people who repeatedly assert that something is real with no evidence or in direct contradiction to voting data analysis?

 

If you want to say that politicians attempt to game the system for their own gain, fine. I agree. It's pretty bad that elected politicians are in charge of districting and voting regulations. Both parties gerrymander, even if Republicans did it more heavily than Democrats in 2010. But if you want to argue about Voter ID laws and the motivations behind each party's stance, there's no equivalence.

[StrangeSox]

It's 10 years later and still to this day, none of the people involved in making the decision can articulate anything we were actually supposed to accomplish via what became the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. They don't even have the decency to feel shame for what they did nor are they embarrassed by how horribly wrong they were. In fact they feel like we are supposed to show gratitude for their "courage" or "resolve" or something like that. Donald Rumsfeld actually tweeted this today:

 

@RumsfeldOffice 10h

10 yrs ago began the long, difficult work of liberating 25 mil Iraqis. All who played a role in history deserve our respect & appreciation.

 

That is such unmitigated gall that it's almost funny. These people take basically all of what credit there is to be had and none of the blame, and pay phony lip service to those who ACTUALLY made sacrifices and showed courage in spite of them. Oh, they pretend to care, but the concept of actually paying taxes for this war is beneath them. Abhorrent, actually, but I do wonder exactly how many hundreds of billions (or trillions) more we could've spent on the war before they actually acknowledged it was costing money, and a lot of it. So today you can see members of this same tribe hemming and hawing about the budget, so as a result we end up indiscriminately slashing money and benefits and not taking care of the veterans... they'll blame everyone BUT themselves for it even if you go so far as to acknowledge there might be other factors at play. But they swear they care so much. Yeah right.

 

I don't really have the English vocabulary that can accurately convey my disgust and contempt for these people. It's frankly pretty f***ing embarrassing that I share the same nationality with them.

 

I was tempted to bump some old threads or choice quotes but...effort.

 

That guys like Wolfowitz are still regarded as Serious People worthy of listening to says a lot. This was a completely avoidable disaster from the start and was painfully obvious at the time, and time and information has made it only more absurd. These people were obsessed with Saddam since the 90's and believed all sorts of conspiracy theories about him. Namely, that he was really behind the original WTC attacks and that AQ was and remained a false-flag, even after 9/11. Pure ideology.

 

[Soxbadger]

Right your basically arguing that spitballs are okay but corking bats isnt okay.

 

You think .00005% is fine, I say why not try to get better. In fact, you cant even prove that number, you really have no idea how much voter fraud there is, because we only know about people who get caught, which are the dumbest of the dumb.

 

So once again, instead of burying my head in the sand and saying "Stay Calm Everything will be okay", I am being proactive and saying "Why risk it, why not try and get better?"

 

You keep talking about Republicans, why do I care about them? I care about both sides, I want to stop both sides. I guess it just seems like what you are really arguing for is an edge for your party and I dont really agree with that.

 

I want a system where neither party has an advantage, even if that means I lose. Playing fair is more important than winning sometimes.

[lostfan]

I was tempted to bump some old threads or choice quotes but...effort.

 

That guys like Wolfowitz are still regarded as Serious People worthy of listening to says a lot. This was a completely avoidable disaster from the start and was painfully obvious at the time, and time and information has made it only more absurd. These people were obsessed with Saddam since the 90's and believed all sorts of conspiracy theories about him. Namely, that he was really behind the original WTC attacks and that AQ was and remained a false-flag, even after 9/11. Pure ideology.

Even the most wild conspiracy theories from 2002 don't make any f***ing sense anymore.

 

You see these douchebags on TV and they talk about the next thing (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.) like nothing ever happened.

[StrangeSox]

Right your basically arguing that spitballs are okay but corking bats isnt okay.

 

You think .00005% is fine, I say why not try to get better. In fact, you cant even prove that number, you really have no idea how much voter fraud there is, because we only know about people who get caught, which are the dumbest of the dumb.

 

So once again, instead of burying my head in the sand and saying "Stay Calm Everything will be okay", I am being proactive and saying "Why risk it, why not try and get better?"

 

Opportunity cost. At best, it's simply a bureaucratic expense. More likely, it results in some level of disenfranchisement.

 

You keep talking about Republicans, why do I care about them? I care about both sides, I want to stop both sides. I guess it just seems like what you are really arguing for is an edge for your party and I dont really agree with that.

 

I want a system where neither party has an advantage, even if that means I lose. Playing fair is more important than winning sometimes.

 

Great, maybe don't jump into the middle of a conversation about a specific issue and, in particular, a specific Supreme Court case and comments made by a specific Justice and assume that everything I'm saying is applicable to whatever novel ideas you'd like to try?

[Soxbadger]

One side wants less people to vote and is blatant about what group of people that would be (likely opponent voters). The other wants more people to vote.

 

I feel pretty comfortable prescribing sinister, anti-democratic motives to one side in this case.

 

 

Opportunity cost. At best, it's simply a bureaucratic expense. More likely, it results in some level of disenfranchisement.

 

 

 

Great, maybe don't jump into the middle of a conversation about a specific issue and, in particular, a specific Supreme Court case and comments made by a specific Justice and assume that everything I'm saying is applicable to whatever novel ideas you'd like to try?

 

Oh Im sorry, you wanted to create rules where you could only talk about a very specific subject and then not have to answer questions about other subjects? That seems really fair.

 

Look at the post above, you said that one side was "anti-democratic", I merely said that both sides are anti-democratic, and acting like only 1 side tries to get an advantage is just blatantly misleading.

 

So you are right, after I discussed your specific case and argued why I disagree with voter ID, I actually came up with other solutions to try and solve the problem.

 

You dont like my solutions because they could potentially prevent a member of your side from voting, thus you keep trying to paint me into a corner about an issue Ive already clearly discussed. If you dont have the ability to defend your overall position, that is fine, just admit that you are arguing for your side and trying to get an advantage.

 

Its what most people do. But dont act magnanimous about voter rights, if you actually dont want to really address voting issues and instead just want to say how bad the other party is because of X, Y, Z reason.