Politics Who's Gonna Win?

The GOP knows voter fraud is happening because they're doing it. Really this call for photo ID's is nothing short of an attempt to suppress voting. By insisting people have Gov't picture ID they know exactly who is likely not to have such ID... poor people and very young/old people. At least 2/3 of those groups are going to vote Dem in large percentages. And really what is voter suppression? It's voter fraud with just another name.

 

Things the Republican party would be talking about if they cared about the integrity of our elections (in no particular order):
1)Receiptless voting machines which are easily hacked and whose security is totally beyond the capabilities of the poll workers deploying them
2) Efforts meant to trick various constituencies into voting on the wrong day or in the wrong place or not to vote at all
3) The injection of massive amounts of untraceable money into the political process
4) The de facto impossibility for anyone who isn't wealthy to be elected to national political office
5) Systematic corruption of the voting process at a local level

Things the Republican party would be talking about if they cared about making it difficult for various Democratic leaning demographics to be able to vote:
1) Voter ID laws

 

I am willing to discuss all of those issues. I fully understand the imperfections in our system. If I were to prioritize the list above, I would do it this way:

1) voter ID - or a system where those who vote prove they are who they say they are - there may be ways to do this other than photo ID if that is the major objection - I primarily want to address the concern noted.
4)Receiptless voting machines which are easily hacked and whose security is totally beyond the capabilities of the poll workers deploying them
6) Efforts meant to trick various constituencies into voting on the wrong day or in the wrong place or not to vote at all
5) The injection of massive amounts of untraceable money into the political process
3) The de facto impossibility for anyone who isn't wealthy to be elected to national political office
2) Systematic corruption of the voting process at a local level
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM ---

Yes.

I think that if people express a need for assistance (they have to make an effort to say they need help), I would support every effort to put in place mechanisms to help them vote. In NC when filing a state tax form we are asked if we want to make a donation for political elections, I always decline. If they asked for a donation toward helping those who need help to vote, get help to vote - not only would I donate, I would give more than the minimum. In addition, I would serve as a volunteer on election day to help people get out to vote - as I have done many times in the past - with no conditions regarding political affiliation.

Just because we ask people to show some form of photo ID or proof they are who they say they are, does not mean it has to restrict legitimate voters from voting.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 5:38 PM ---

Now I think I understand. I am not sure how best to clarify it, but in the flow of the discussion the logical argument was used that I applied to campaign finance, and used Edward's as an example. I agree the logical argument is flawed. My position is that the opportunity for fraud will result in fraudulent activity to some degree, and that even without massive proof of fraud, the fraud can be and most likely there - when it it as obvious as asking voters to prove they are who they say they are, it is a very simple step in reducing the opportunity for fraud.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 5:44 PM ---

I don't dispute the GOP has people involved in fraud, I don't dispute the above assigned motive to some people - just not all or even most or even close to most. Here is a headline illustrating what I think regarding voter surpression.

About 1.8 million dead people listed as active voters. | The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, Proprietor

Don't know if the number is accurate, but if the number is double or half, or however that translates into fraudulent votes - I think we need to address the problem, after all it is 2012 - we have the technology.

 

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) addresses the issue of dead voters or voters registered in more than one city by requiring states to maintain a statewide (rather than local) voter database that is also required to be coordinated with other govt databases (motor vehicle, social security, military.... Other provisions address voting machines and verification.

And it does it w/o disenfranchising any voters.

Spin it any way you want, Ace, but if you support these laws, you support the high likelihood that some voters, mostly seniors and minorities, risk being disenfranchised.

Moving on and out of the muck of your distractions and deflections.
--- merged: May 8, 2012 at 6:15 PM ---
I'm left with the thought if HAVA could even pass today, given the movement by the Republican party in the ten years since its enactment to a far more extreme and rigid anti-government ideology.

 

I was not aware of this legislation, on the surface it appears to be good.

My view on this subject is not spin. Like I said, I would make an effort to help people get out and vote. I actually have a track record of doing that - actually going door to door, giving people a ride to their polling place. I have no interest in disenfranchising people, and if a voter ID requirement is a problem - I suggest we address that problem by making it easy for people to get the ID they need or put in place a system so that we know voters are who they say they are.

 

Shouldn't a listing of issues needing remedial action be prioritized at least on the basis of the number of occurrences? Tackle the major offenders first?

If the list is meant to prioritize fraud in the election arena, where's is the logic of placing at the top, the issue which is proven to occur less frequently than all the others?

If it were simpler to obtain the form of photo ID you and yours are requesting, I'd tend to agree. Perhaps a photo ID which only requires proof of local and state residency (utility bill) in conjunction with a birth certificate, marriage license, or social security card. In the absence of any of those, a pay stub or a copy of a SS benefit check should be acceptable. Then again, shouldn't any ID required to get a photo ID also be acceptable when voting anyway?

The reason it would restrict legitimate voters is due to the fact that the sorts of identification documentation currently required to get a state issued photo ID are not easily replaced if they've been lost over the years. If you've never had to request a copy of your birth certificate, for instance, you might not be aware of just how difficult it's become since the creation of Homeland Security.

 

Risky, but I think the time is right with the majority of Americans accepting and polling positively on the issue of gay marriage He'll benefit from this declaration.

 

No. I think "severity" can be a more important factor than "frequency".

I can give an analogy to efficiently illustrate my point. I would place priority on landing a plane over anything else - less pilot time is spent landing than the other aspects of flight. And, please don't try to tell me I would ignore everything else - that logic is flawed. A pilot has to be competent, and dealing with imperfection during take-off and during flight can be corrected with much less potential for severe potential consequence as compared to getting landings wrong.

If you are saying we need to fix certain processes to make getting an ID easier, let's fix those processes. Because people, all people should have access to what they need to work, bank, travel, buy a home, or even get a library card. I will always stand on my view that voters should prove they are who they say they are to vote. If there is a system more efficient than Photo ID, I can support that. this is an "evolution" of my view based on our interactions here, if you recall at first I was simply saying make Photo ID required. That is as far as you or anyone else is going to move me. Celebrate the accomplishment.

 

Ace, the fact remains that if your position is that the "government should go door-to-door" providing photo IDs to those who could not otherwise obtain one and "make every effort" to ensure that no one is disenfranchised, then you would not support these bill that do neither. They do not "fix the process" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Obama made a political calculation rather than an expression of a core conviction. My guess is that he will neither benefit or be harmed in the minds of voters, those who support him generally will still do so, this one issue won't shift their view of Obama. From a political point of view, he will raise more money, but he lost some grass roots enthusiasm. The day after the NC vote, some of his core supporters see his announcement as a "in your face" insult. To others it is a "Tuesday I believed...", "Wednesday I believe...", Thursday, "If you don;t beleive what I believe you are intolerant/homophobic/support discrimination/etc." Neither plays well with socially conservative people, who are still evolving, who would ordinarily support Obama.

I heard he has some big Hollywood fund raisers this week, is that true? If so, why would a potential contributor believe him?[/quote]
--- merged: May 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM ---

I think my point was government should do what is needed to be done for people in need of assistance in getting a photo ID, even if it means going door to door. There may be better ways to get the job done. But in context of a 93 year-old woman, I would be the first to volunteer to help her in every way possible.

Nice try at twisting my words.

 

ace: I think that sounds fantastic; however, you will note that the national, coordinated movement to impose the ID stipulation on the voting process is NOT being rolled out as a phased process. There would likely be less opposition if your friends on the Koch Brothers' tab were laying out a plan that went as follows:

1. National campaign to ensure that every citizen of the United States has access to an acceptable form of picture identification that may be used to obtain driver's license, birth certificate and to vote. Set up community outreach options that could be coordinated through other programs catering to the poor, homeless, rural, elderly and other demographics less likely to have the means, opportunity and other driving factors to obtain photo IDs such as driving license and/or passport.

2. After this program is in place and FUNDED, study the efficacy and impact of the ID push.

3. Phase in regulations requiring this ID be presented in order to vote.

I would, however, counter that your stress on this issue is completely counter to all studies on the subject. Voter fraud, in terms of people showing up with claims to be someone in the district who is either 1. not going to vote, or 2. who is dead in order to affect the vote is statistically NOT A PROBLEM. A professor here at the University of South Carolina, Dr. Duncan Buell, who once worked for the CIA has a large body of work on voter fraud by manipulation of the electronic voting machines. Despite having shown that there is, statistically and scientifically speaking, a problem with this fundamental voting technology...you don't seem to want to focus your efforts there.

Nope. Voter IDs.

You mentioned something about the campaign financing and how it should be viewed as First Amendment Free Speech. I think that's horseshit. Here's why, in analogy form so you'll dig it.

Let's say I walk in to my boss' office tomorrow and drop $1000.00 down and tell him that I appreciate the cut of his jib, his basic moral fiber, and his overall management style. I mention that as an example of his management style, I appreciate the promotions he has given out to some of his employees in key, strategic areas. I don't specifically remind him that he promoted me, and that I work in those areas, but of course we both know that's the fact. I tell him I don't want to affect his management style, but I'd sure like to express my First Amendment right to show how much I like his jib-cutting features and management decisions, and in fact I could see myself regularly expressing myself if I continue to like his management style. I just love the First Amendment that way. Now, let's say he were to change his management style to support other areas...well, I might have to start expressing my First Amendment rights to someone else in the management chain...but for now, I'm quite happy to express them to him, free speech and all that being so important to the American Way.

Well, that's clearly bribery. I'm clearly an unethical piece of shit for trying it, and he'd clearly be an unethical piece of shit if he took it, and if my co-workers found out they'd clearly be right to be pissed off and work to get us both fired.

Now, what if I tell him I probably shouldn't give it directly to him, so I'm going to deposit into an account that a mutual friend controls. While my boss can't directly access the account, he can make it known how he wishes it spent. While he might not have access to the money directly, he still has access to how the money is spent, and thus the power associated with the money, and thus it gives a completely different but very important power to him to use as leverage in other transactions.

Is that suddenly ethical? Is that that not bribery? Is that not more important than going after my boss and the management team where I work because I'm claiming that someone is stuffing the complaint and suggestions box with multiple entries, or on behalf of other employees, despite the fact that there is no evidence this is actually happening?

If I have to resort to an analogy using wolves, china berries, wind patterns and the fundamental elemental natures of market trends and tidal patterns I can probably pull it off, but I think this will suffice for now.

 

I think we are closer to agreement than you may think. Part of the problem with the debate on voter ID, is the assumption that anyone in support of voter ID is simply trying to disenfranchise people. We are all lump together, having nefarious motives. Some do, perhaps the Koch brother do - I don't know. I think the key is to have a real dialog - and then we can come up with real solutions - in spite of those with nefarious motives.

 

Fine, Ace.

If you want to nitpick, let's go with the "government should do what is needed to be done for people in need of assistance..."

These laws, like the one in PA, do not. They do the reverse and place a new burden to vote on some citizens.

Again, these laws do not support your position of"doing what is needed to be done for people in need of assistance..." so it seems to me that you should not support them.

It really is not be that difficult to understand.
--- merged: May 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM ---
If I understand the conservative mindset when it comes to a government role in anything...."if it aint broke, dont fix it."

There is no evidence that the present voter ID system (requiring photo id OR other id verifying residency) is broken.

 

Do you have an issue with non-US citizens voting in US elections?

 

Do you have an issue with US citizens voting in US elections?

Do you have a problem having a non-US citizen serve a President of the United States? Governor of North Carolina? The president of the local Shiners, Kiwanis, or Free Mason societies?

Do have a problem with the opposition of females 30-34 to cosmetic penile jewelry?

Did you know that an interesting defensive tactic has been observed in native populations of the Diladug West African horse swallow? As part of the determination of social order, the males of the species must perform a complex series of maneuvers referred to in international Audubon circles as the "Movement de las Swallows du Cheval." This involves a coordinated series of moves with other males in the same mating pool, wherein a series of tomfoolery and and feints are made to throw other males out of synchronization or correct position within this apparently instinctual dance-like behavior, akin to the game of Twister. In addition to the typical maneuvers of spitting at each other, pooping on each others' feet and exposure of the genitals, the interesting observation is that often a bird will begin to draw attention to non-existent threats to the other males in the ritual. This can have the effect of throwing off the concentration of others in the ritual to the actual "movement de las Swallows" so as allow the male or males making the feint to eliminate competition, all by using non-existent threats. If you understand the basic premise in this tactic, you may understand why many of us do not think that the voter ID movement is actually about eliminating voter fraud, but rather something else entirely.

 

Nearly 16 million health insurance policyholders (individuals, businesses) will be receiving $1.3 billion in rebates in the coming months as a result of violations by insurance companies of the Affordable Care Act 80-20 rule requiring 80 percent of premiums to be spent on patient care.

A lot of people in swing states getting an unexpected check in the mail this summer.

 

i wouldn't say he's quitting in the traditional sense. he simply has no funds to continue, and couldn't even beat santorum in my state last week.