Then you aren't reading this forum very closely.
SCOTUS ruling VA
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Did not Brad say if you lose your ID, tough luck, you can't vote?
To me, the bigger problem right now is perceived illegitimacy of the system and ease of administration.
Re "entitlement" and "disenfranchisement" I don't see it that way. We have limitations and requirements now on how to vote--timing, method, etc. This is just one extra requirement that is not going to prevent any competent person who truly wants to vote from voting, any more than requiring a driver's licence to buy liquor prevents people who want to buy liquor from purchasing it. I've never bought into the absolutely infantilizing argument that some people just can't get IDs because they're too stupid or so overworked.
I said ID. You can have a form of ID without a picture. Use one with a signature. Or, soon, maybe via thumbprint.
You sure about that?
What's So Bad About Voter ID Laws? | League of Women Voters
Voter ID laws have long been debated in the United States. While supporters argue that voter photo ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections, reality tells a different story. Not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and...
www.lwv.org
Kamala Harris Pushes Back on Voter ID Laws: 'Makes It Almost Impossible'
The vice president spoke to CBS News about Republican-led measures that she said restrict access to voting
Just a very noisy group who want to feel good about losing by making up reasons they lost. Next it will be the sun for in their eyes.
Vote IDs are fine, I haven't spoken against them. Just that there must be exceptions. But a few years ago Alabama struck by closing license branches in poor rural counties. Now for people who may not have a car, that is a legitimate imposition.
There is no 100% perfect system, we need to prevent the perfect from being the enemy of the good. The tighter we lock things down, the more likely disenfranchisement happens. The easier we make it to vote, the more likely fraud is. The trick, the real trick, is to balance those
I keep mentioning that loophole of states not reporting people that move, and it gets zero traction from the "zero fraud can happen" crowd. Why? We have known about this problem for a long time, and Florida led the charge AWAY from the solution. Not sending out registration reminders was more important than fraud.
Yes, I'm sure. I don't care how many links you provide or from whom, it's not an issue for serious discussion.You sure about that?
What's So Bad About Voter ID Laws? | League of Women Voters
Voter ID laws have long been debated in the United States. While supporters argue that voter photo ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections, reality tells a different story. Not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and...
Kamala Harris Pushes Back on Voter ID Laws: 'Makes It Almost Impossible'
The vice president spoke to CBS News about Republican-led measures that she said restrict access to votingpeople.com
This election cycle, the concern should be about the plans to disrupt the certification process. The groundwork has already been laid.
I’ve not made that argument. I’ve argued for voter ID and against the idea that it’s going to disenfranchise any voters. Basically, I’ve said any person that couldn’t be bothered with getting a free ID making him/her eligible to vote is probably not going to vote. Also, I’ve argued that even one fraudulent vote was too much, though I also realize eliminating it 100 percent is probably impossible. Eliminating it enough to ensure it won’t alter results is doable since it’s very, very rare now and hasn’t happened on a national level since JFK and that isn’t certain.
Or DNA analysis from the COVID vaccine implanted chip
Amish can go to their local courthouse and get an ID that doesn’t have their picture on it. No one has a legitimate excuse to not get an ID if they want to vote.
Kamala Harris disagrees with you. As do major left wing think tanks and organizations. So I don't understand your second sentence. Do you mean that those groups aren't being serious (I agree) or that you just don't care about it?
On your second point, I am worried about that. I'm still sceptical that Americans will go that far.
I guess my views on this are right wing. I don't think there should be a right or left on this, but so be it.
Shhhhhh. I'm burnishing my CV for the future Dream Team application. @hookyIU1990 needs a man on the inside for his upcoming coup.
Your invitation to Auburn is in the mail.
There is no serious case for Voter ID. There is no serious case against it either. At best it's a confidence enhancer, "election integrity theater." At worst it's an inconvenience. It's the political equivalent to "Great Taste!!! Less Filling!!!"
That's preposterous. Of course there is a serious case for it.
If the thrust of what you're saying is that "voter fraud is a rare thing" -- I'd just say the old maxim that "absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence."
In other words, I don't think anybody has (or even could have) a really good idea of exactly how much fraud goes on. Do I think it's rampant? No, I don't. But I also don't think it's non-existent. And I think states have a clear interest to take reasonable measures to prevent it.
As Justice Stevens wrote in the Crawford v. Marion County: it's not much more of a burden than the normal burdens of voting.
People hijacked and flew planes into buildings on exactly one day. Yet we have built up an entire security apparatus around protecting flights. School shootings are very rare, yet we have instituted great measures to secure schools. We have little to no studies on how many people underage buy alcohol or tobacco, yet we require ID to buy them. My school district requires a ton of ID, address verification, etc. to register a child for school because a handful of kids every year were registering from the west side of Chicago who didn't live in the district. Every home has a lock installed on the doors, yet what percentage of homes ever are actually broken into? Attempted to be? I could go on and on.
Putting preventative measures in place can be completely rational when you want to really prevent something, even if that something is rare.
And, by putting the measures into place, you make that thing more rare. That is, maybe the reason voter fraud isn't rampant is because of the very common sense security features (including laws making it a crime) at issue.
The certification process is pretty much bulletproof. All the “disruption” is just noise.
The groundwork for election fraud is in the registration and voting process. I’ve linked twice the new Pennsylvania statutes about this. The pathway to election fraud is unmistakable. There is already a smattering of examples of this happening including one prosecution. Any idiot would know that one example is not the only one, just the only one that was discovered. I don’t care what the polls or registration numbers show, I’ll be shocked if Trump carries Pennsylvania.
The Democrat organized and unwavering opposition to voter ID and other ballot integrity measures is to enable cheating— period. All the handwringing about having all eligible people vote is, and always was, just hogwash.
Think of any company’s financial systems, or other digital systems. Everything worth hacking or stealing from has been. That is why accountants and IT people recommend safety measures. The vote is the same. The Democrats oppose all safety measures for a reason.
I'm for the ID laws. But I strongly disagree that the people at the national level want to "enable cheating--period." The reason they oppose it is because of the data that shows that the more of these hoops put into place to ensure voter integrity, the fewer voters who lean Dem vote. That is a completely rational preference for them.
While I do believe there are candidates in local races in big cities and maybe some rural counties that want to cheat to win, I think they are few in comparison to those who want a fair election and rules that simply ensure more of their people will actually come out to vote.
Democrats want voting easy. I agree that simple ID doesn't necessarily impact that. But, there are interesting cases. Alabama closing down license branches was one. A full county without a branch DOES create a hardship to a poor person who has no vehicle.
VA has that same day registration. But those people kicked off must have either their passport or birth certificate to prove they are American. So hopefully they know that AND know they were kicked off in advance. 51% of Americans now have a passport, I myself have only had one since July. I have no idea where my birth certificate is. So for people who were incorrectly kicked off, this is a burden. I can see it even if my wealthy "travel out of the US all the time" brethren do not.
So that is the answer to CO's question about why the Democrats opposed a lot of this.
So why do Republicans want it to be annoyingly difficult? No handing out water bottles in Georgia? Oppose virtually all early and mail voting? Holiday for election day? I posted the link here many times, Marion County had one vote center and it was minimally open, where Hendricks had many vote centers open a lot. The reason, the election board has to be unanimous. The Republican in Marion wanted it to be hard. Hmmm. Eventually a new board member came around and Marion joined the rest of the civilized world.
Make it SAFE and EASY.
VA has that same day registration. But those people kicked off must have either their passport or birth certificate to prove they are American. So hopefully they know that AND know they were kicked off in advance. 51% of Americans now have a passport, I myself have only had one since July. I have no idea where my birth certificate is. So for people who were incorrectly kicked off, this is a burden. I can see it even if my wealthy "travel out of the US all the time" brethren do not.
So that is the answer to CO's question about why the Democrats opposed a lot of this.
So why do Republicans want it to be annoyingly difficult? No handing out water bottles in Georgia? Oppose virtually all early and mail voting? Holiday for election day? I posted the link here many times, Marion County had one vote center and it was minimally open, where Hendricks had many vote centers open a lot. The reason, the election board has to be unanimous. The Republican in Marion wanted it to be hard. Hmmm. Eventually a new board member came around and Marion joined the rest of the civilized world.
Make it SAFE and EASY.
I think Trump changed the paradigm.*. The Democrats without shame claim they should do anything to stop him. The list of efforts in that regard is a long one. The Democrats know that they will have little or no accountability because those who would hold them accountable (the free press) agree with the objective.
Voter fraud is almost impossible to discover when you have a few officials in the right places cooperating. The Democrat opposition to safety measures, both in the design of the system and operation of it is consistent and is tied to staying in power.
These days, Voter id is mostly about signature verification. Some states, like Pennsylvania, are way too lenient. I don’t think this has much to do with jumping through hoops for the voter.
* Hunters lap top story suppression involved the Biden campaign, the CIA, the FBI, the secret service, big media, and big tech. The largest information rigging campaign ever. All of it intended to defeat Trump.
Last edited:
By the way, all of this brings up an interesting question: is it better for our democracy if a higher percentage of eligible voters actually vote? That's the underlying premise of much of the "get out the vote" programs.
I don't think it is. I think a much more important issue would be a better informed electorate.
Could deliberative democracy depolarize America?
Deliberative democracy – informed and moderated discussion that transcends partisan identities – can lead to a depolarized and more democratic society, according to Stanford research.
news.stanford.edu
Nobody gets kicked off until after due process. Only voters who previously said they were not a citizen are involved.
Republics don’t want voting to be an annoyance.
Thats a red herring designed to trigger rubes. It has nothing to do with anything. No contact rules are routine.
This has zero to do with ballot security. If you really wanna start a GOP bad thread, join the club. We have eleventy thousand already.
By the way, all of this brings up an interesting question: is it better for our democracy if a higher percentage of eligible voters actually vote? That's the underlying premise of much of the "get out the vote" programs.
I don't think it is. I think a much more important issue would be a better informed electorate.
Could deliberative democracy depolarize America?
Deliberative democracy – informed and moderated discussion that transcends partisan identities – can lead to a depolarized and more democratic society, according to Stanford research.
I think a more informed electorate would be great. The example in the article involved a weekend of discussing issues. What percentage of Americans would commit to that? How many would have time to do that way from other activities? So we really would have a weekend of the political class at this event. Would that make the people convinced we are run by elites less convinced elites run us? How often would it need to happen, yearly? Would it largely just be people who can afford to go to another city and stay overnight?
I think that article has a great deal of merit, but I can't see how it replaces trying to get people to vote. If people don't care enough to vote, they won't attend. That won't move them any closer. I cannot imagine the Bernie Bros or ardent Trump supporters wanting to take part in something like that. It seems those groups view the middle as more the enemy than the "other" side (a Trotsky belief that people who urge compromise are the true enemies of believers).
So maybe they were careful and brought in the extremes in their trial. Or maybe the people who were willing to go were self-selected and thus more willing to listen.
The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.
A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.
Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.
Supreme Court lets Virginia resume its purge of voter rolls before the election
Over the objection of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue purging people from its voter rolls.
www.usatoday.com
I don’t have time to read this entire thread, but you don’t have a full grasp of the details of this case. Research further. Here’s a clip from the attorney’s that filed the amicus brief on behalf of the St of VA:
What’s amazing is that a Federal Judge would set 1,600 people up for a felony charge if they follow through and vote! This is mind-boggling!!!
Those are all really good criticisms of Fishkin. I took a seminar from him at UT, with just 9 other students. I then worked as a RA for him for a year. I had many of the same questions and concerns. He didn't seem to like them.I think a more informed electorate would be great. The example in the article involved a weekend of discussing issues. What percentage of Americans would commit to that? How many would have time to do that way from other activities? So we really would have a weekend of the political class at this event. Would that make the people convinced we are run by elites less convinced elites run us? How often would it need to happen, yearly? Would it largely just be people who can afford to go to another city and stay overnight?
I think that article has a great deal of merit, but I can't see how it replaces trying to get people to vote. If people don't care enough to vote, they won't attend. That won't move them any closer. I cannot imagine the Bernie Bros or ardent Trump supporters wanting to take part in something like that. It seems those groups view the middle as more the enemy than the "other" side (a Trotsky belief that people who urge compromise are the true enemies of believers).
So maybe they were careful and brought in the extremes in their trial. Or maybe the people who were willing to go were self-selected and thus more willing to listen.
The advocacy groups quoted Prince William County Registrar Eric Olsen, who said at an election board meeting Sept. 30 that his office reviewed 162 people listed as noncitizens in the state’s computer system and found that 43 had voted before. But his office checked and found that all 43 had verified their citizenship − some as many as five times − but were still dropped from voter rolls.A Trump supporter who was purged from the rolls told Cardinal News that he suspects he forgot to mark his citizenship status on the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles form when he renewed his driver’s license.Another voter, who showed NPR her passport, said she doesn’t know why the DMV incorrectly recorded her as a noncitizen.Supreme Court lets Virginia resume its purge of voter rolls before the election
Over the objection of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court allowed Virginia to continue purging people from its voter rolls.www.usatoday.com
