12 of 17
12
New voter ID laws politically motivated?
Posted: 08 September 2012 08:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
asanta - 08 September 2012 07:50 PM
Bryan - 08 September 2012 07:14 PM

Right.  Forty-seven percent of poll respondents identifying as Democrats want to disenfranchise legitimate voters.  It’s all political.

Source please. Otherwise, you’re just pulling it out of your nether regions.

The appeal to ignorance is like rolling out of bed for some of you.  wink

My bad.  It’s only 43 percent.  I’ll correct a couple of spots where I’ve used the wrong number.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/public-opinion-on-voter-i_b_1683873.html
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/166803/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

There is no way we can find empirical evidence of ghosts with our current technology, but ghosts may actually exist, and attack our system of one person-one vote.  So the solution is to pass laws that insure that ghosts don’t interfere with the voting process.  Too bad that certain “one persons” won’t get to vote.  It is the price we must pay for protecting our system from ghosts.  It is only a coincidence that most of those “one persons” who won’t get their one vote happen to be ones who would have voted against the party that is protecting us from the evil ghosts.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4625
Joined  2007-10-05

Well said, Tim.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
DarronS - 09 September 2012 09:57 AM

Well said, Tim.

Aside from the analogy being a tad rigged, it was well said.

The rigging, of course, comes from his choice of “ghosts” to interfere with voting.  People (I assume?) are predisposed to disbelieve in the existence of ghosts.

That said, if one doesn’t allow the prejudicial language to get in the way, Tim’s analogy works pretty well.  The key is to institute not just measures that keep ghosts from voting but also measures that help identify whether ghosts vote.

ID is a pretty reasonable threshold.  And I think that’s why 43 percent of Democrats appear to favor it even it if costs a few legitimate votes.

Perhaps that 43 percent is trying to remind the other 57 percent (of Demorats) that it’s important whether we can trust the electoral process going in.  If we (seriously) allow the possibility of ghosts and the possibility that ghosts affect the election along with the possibility that our system isn’t detecting them then it should be easy to see the need for changes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

99% of Republicans support voter suppression laws.  Perhaps they are more patriotic than democrats in wanting to protect us against something of dubious existence.  Surely it is not because as many as 5 million voters will have a more difficult time voting.  Surely it is not because the voter suppression laws that were already passed in 2011, are in states that by themselves can deliver 2/3 of the electoral votes that the Empty Chair Party needs to win the Presidency.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/

Surely the Repubs are not wanting to fix the election.  Surely they just want to protect us.

If some voters only have to show a utility bill with their current address, instead of a photo id, our election process will surely be undermined irrevocably, even though George W. Bush was somehow elected to two terms by that system.

[ Edited: 09 September 2012 01:15 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 09 September 2012 12:54 PM

99% of Republicans support voter suppression laws.

Plus the 43 percent of Democrats.  Don’t forget about them.

Perhaps they are more patriotic than democrats in wanting to protect us against something of dubious existence.

Apparently your use of “ghosts” was deliberately intended as prejudicial language.  I had hoped that wasn’t the case.  Why is the existence of individual voter fraud of “dubious existence” if you admit we can’t detect it given our current system?  That doesn’t make sense.

Surely it is not because as many as 5 million voters will have a more difficult time voting.  Surely it is not because the voter suppression laws that have already been passed are in states that by themselves can deliver 2/3 of the electoral votes that the Empty Chair Party needs to win the Presidency.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012/

Let’s talk about how the Brennan Center put together its estimate.  Because they’re not biased at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

Maybe we should bring back the Jim Crow laws to protect us from the possibility (that allegedly cannot be detected, like ghosts, Bigfoot, and aliens from another dimension cannot be detected) of “voter fraud”.

Better yet, let’s just pass laws that only allow Republicans to vote, as they are clearly more patriotic and interested in protecting us than poor people who might have difficulty coming up with a photo id.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 09 September 2012 01:27 PM

Maybe we should bring back the Jim Crow laws to protect us from the possibility (that allegedly cannot be detected, like ghosts, Bigfoot, and aliens from another dimension cannot be detected) of “voter fraud”.

Better yet, let’s just pass laws that only allow Republicans to vote, as they are clearly more patriotic and interested in protecting us than poor people who might have difficulty coming up with a photo id.

Maybe you should address serious issues seriously.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

Maybe it is simply not credible that voter fraud is a serious enough issue to warrant voter suppression as a solution.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 02:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 09 September 2012 02:05 PM

Maybe it is simply not credible that voter fraud is a serious enough issue to warrant voter suppression as a solution.

Maybe so.  I proposed discussing the data from the Brennan Center just above.  You don’t seem interested.  Why is that?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2012 02:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 09 September 2012 12:46 PM
DarronS - 09 September 2012 09:57 AM

Well said, Tim.

Aside from the analogy being a tad rigged, it was well said.

The rigging, of course, comes from his choice of “ghosts” to interfere with voting.  People (I assume?) are predisposed to disbelieve in the existence of ghosts.

On the contrary, people are inclined to believe in the existence of ghosts. Tell me that scriptures are not beliefs to assure entrance into the ghostworld of the spiritual hereafter, “just in case” that hell does exist. What percentage of the population are practising theists?

(edit)
Suspicion (looking for potential enemies) has been a survival tool since the age of the dinosaur.
These laws at this time are based on “suspicion” of potentially significant voter fraud. The unintended consequence is the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population who cannot produce, say, a birth certificate in order to get a legal picture ID. These seemingly perfectly reasonable laws will negatively and permanently disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause.

[ Edited: 10 September 2012 02:07 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 01:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 09 September 2012 02:23 PM
TimB - 09 September 2012 02:05 PM

Maybe it is simply not credible that voter fraud is a serious enough issue to warrant voter suppression as a solution.

Maybe so.  I proposed discussing the data from the Brennan Center just above.  You don’t seem interested.  Why is that?

Thanks Bryan for the Brennan link. Good stuff.
Just d/l a pdf from a senate resolution re voter ID.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that any effort to impose
photo identification requirements for voting should be
rejected.
Whereas the most fundamental right accorded to United
States citizens by the Constitution is the right to vote,
and the unimpeded exercise of this right is essential to
the functioning of our democracy;
Whereas historically, certain citizens, especially racial minorities,
have been prevented from voting because of significant
barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and property
requirements;

etc, etc…...

and

Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—
3 (1) a requirement that United States citizens
4 obtain photo identification cards before being able to
5 vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity
6 and places an undue burden on the legitimate voting
7 rights of such citizens;
8 (2) the Department of Justice should—
9 (A) vigorously enforce the Voting Rights
10 Act of 1965; and
11 (B) challenge any State law that limits a
12 citizen’s ability to vote based on discriminatory
13 photo identification requirements; and
14 (3) any effort to impose national photo identi15
fication requirements for voting should be rejected.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 02:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

1)  It’s very doubtful I was the first to link the Brennan Center study, so thanking me is kind but probably misdirected.

2)  I’ll thank the person who will show a willingness to discuss the methodology of the Brennan Center.  If we end up with appeal to authority plus the same old appeal to ignorance then we haven’t advanced the argument much on your side.

3)  Any word on how many votes the senate resolution received?  Twenty sponsors out of ... how many Democrat senators in 2005?  Looks like 45.  So if only the sponsors voted in favor (I don’t know whether it ever came to a vote) then the percentage is about 45 percent of Democrats (20/45).  That’s similar to the percentage who supported voter ID with the least positive framing in the survey we’ve discussed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Bryan - 10 September 2012 02:01 AM

1)  It’s very doubtful I was the first to link the Brennan Center study, so thanking me is kind but probably misdirected.

2)  I’ll thank the person who will show a willingness to discuss the methodology of the Brennan Center.  If we end up with appeal to authority plus the same old appeal to ignorance then we haven’t advanced the argument much on your side.

3)  Any word on how many votes the senate resolution received?  Twenty sponsors out of ... how many Democrat senators in 2005?  Looks like 45.  So if only the sponsors voted in favor (I don’t know whether it ever came to a vote) then the percentage is about 45 percent of Democrats (20/45).  That’s similar to the percentage who supported voter ID with the least positive framing in the survey we’ve discussed.

IMO, when there is such a significant portion of the population which has a fundamentally different ethical (moral) viewpoint of rights and restrictions, a patchwork of different laws by different states only serves to create further confusion and complications. It is time for a national discussion on this constitutional problem, including addressing the status of current undocumented immigrants in the US.

But, I agree, eventually it would be “perfect” when all persons in the US could be accounted for….at any time, any location, under surveillance by Big Brother, by issuing a federal picture ID with built in GPS and tracking signal…... cheese

No more fraud, guaranteed!

[ Edited: 10 September 2012 02:40 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2012 07:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Write4U - 09 September 2012 02:35 PM

...
Suspicion (looking for potential enemies) has been a survival tool since the age of the dinosaur.
These laws at this time are based on “suspicion” of potentially significant voter fraud. The unintended consequence is the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the population who cannot produce, say, a birth certificate in order to get a legal picture ID. These seemingly perfectly reasonable laws will negatively and permanently disenfranchise a portion of the population without the state ever having had sufficient evidence to show a compelling cause.

Write, the consequence is not “unintended”.  That is why it is so sickening that anyone would argue for them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/02/v-print/2829960/the-gop-demographics-and-voter.html

[ Edited: 10 September 2012 07:39 AM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 17
12