Oh, I think they're both thinking in partisan terms. By that I mean that I'm sure that both parties strongly suspect that illicit votes favor the Democrats.
Voter Fraud Committee
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Oh, I think they're both thinking in partisan terms. By that I mean that I'm sure that both parties strongly suspect that illicit votes favor the Democrats.
Clever. Republican good! Democrat bad! You're being ridiculous, and it's really sad you don't realize it.
I don't have a clue in the ocean what you're talking about....be Pacific.
I didn't say that at all. I didn't even imply it. There's not the first value judgment in that comment.
It's speculative, sure. But I doubt anybody -- unless they were completely disingenuous -- would disagree.
Are you saying that votes from, say, illegal immigrants and/or felons wouldn't tend to favor the Democrats? If not, then what exactly is your problem with what I said? Because it certainly wasn't meant to convey anything approaching how you characterized it.
No, I am not advocating giving voter id cards. I am not advocating solving "problems" that do not exist. I am saying the way the voter Id laws are implemented is to quash turnout of people who have legal rights to vote. And adopting the usual "You have a problem with that? Tough ****!" attitude only proves it. This was my point.
For those who already have a drivers license, or a gun permit or any other sanctioned Id, there is zero compliance cost. For others there are.
I actually have the best ID possible. It's called a passport. They are increasingly hard to counterfeit with machine-readable information. The last country I went to, a machine read my passport and recognised my face. I didn't talk to a human to enter. Why not force everyone to get a passport? We could completely automate voting.
Last edited:
Zero *additional* cost. But most of these things cost money to get -- including those Transportation Suppression cards that most states call driver's licenses.
What's that...oh, driving is a privilege and not a right so it's a bad comparison? Well, then what about gun permits?
OK, but it's minimal. I think every state that's enacted a Voter ID statute has included free photo ID cards along with it. I know Indiana certainly has -- and SCOTUS cited it in blessing the law. So, since the cards themselves are free of charge, what additional costs are you talking about? An hour or so of their time? Some kind of transportation to/from the license branch? I imagine that would cover most people. I'm sure some might have a bit more challenge gathering the required documents. But how many? And are those costs what we'd term "significant"?
So you're going from dismissing an ID that's free and easy to acquire and instead endorsing compelling people to obtain one that is a (relative, anyway) pain in the ass to get, costs about $100, and currently carries about a 4-6 week turnaround time?
First of all, in case I wasn't clear the first time, I think it's a pipedream to think we could logistically pull off a truly universal photo ID card. We could try -- and I don't have any particular problem with it. But you can rest assured that we'd find it virtually impossible to issue one to a significant chunk of people.....particularly if part of the deal is that they have to go somewhere, fill out some forms, sit for a photo, etc. And....if they do....aren't those COSTS?!?!?
Good grief. There is a world of difference between "imagining a scenario" and actually doing so in real life.
The Republican party in the state on Indiana makes it as difficult as possible for urban citizens to vote. That's not debatable for me, because I've lived it.
That should be something much more bothersome than the fascination with "voter fraud", which in many ways defies human logic.
Let's see...Indiana has had a Republican Gov. now since the 2004 election. Prior to that, we had Dem govs for 16 years. And, until the Dems fled to Illinois a few years back, control of the GA was usually pretty competitive, too. So let's test your claim here with voter turnout data in Marion Co. going back to, say, 1992 (before the Republicans had the political power to order tacks and hot coals to be thrown in front of the doorways to urban polling places):
1992 - 69.8% (incumbent IN Gov, Dem)
1996 - 58.9% (IN Gov, Dem)
2000 - 50% (IN Gov, Dem)
2004 - 54% (IN Gov, Dem)
2008 - 55% (IN Gov, Rep)
2012 - 56% (IN Gov, Rep)
2016 - 53% (In Gov, Rep)
So, ever since the 2004 election (when we elected our first Republican governor in 16 years), turnout in Marion Co. has been pretty consistent. They did have a huge falloff between 1992 - 2000. But the state had Democratic governors then.
If Republicans, since gaining power in the state, have really made it hard for urban voters to vote, it doesn't show up in the turnout data.
any costs you accrued were sunk in, as you say, transport suppression.
I wasn't considering them. I don't know anything about how "easy" they are to acquire.
You have proved my point, thank you. At least you don't actually have to own property nowadays.
As I said, I am not advocating voter Ids. I don't think voter fraud is a significant problem. At all. The side effects of these laws (which I believe is the complete GOP motivation) far outweigh the benefits.
I don't care about what turnout numbers are now vs 20 years ago. I'm telling you it is much harder to vote in Marion County than it is in surrounding suburbs. And it's because of the GOP and the games they play....at least currently.
You don't live here, I do. And I've lived in most of the surrounding donut counties in my adult life (and my family still does) so I have a pretty good frame of reference on this topic.
Last edited:
I'm not saying you don't. I'm saying that the turnout numbers themselves don't show that fewer people are voting in Marion Co.
It may be harder to vote there than it used to be. But it's not having a discernible impact on voting data, at least.
Meanwhile, absentee and early voting numbers have skyrocketed. Do Republicans disallow that where you're from?
Yes.
As I've noted in this thread...the GOP has made it exceptionally difficult to early vote in Marion County (to the point there is now a lawsuit).
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-target-early-voting-marion-county/101170598/
And it's not legal to absentee vote, unless you are actually absent on election day. Not that they have any way to monitor that....but saying your best option is to violate the law is rather silly.
Also...early voting is a relatively new phenomenon.
If we really cared about maximizing voting, it would be allowed for a full week (7 days, 12 hrs/day). Or by mail, such as Oregon does it.
6a - 6p on a random Tuesday is absurd.
Last edited:
I'll admit it still sounds strange to me, but thinking objectively, I can't come up with any valid reason for all 50 states not to follow the Oregon model. Washington and Colorado have followed suit, and California is set to starting next year.
Last edited:
Serious question if only momentarily hypothetical. You approach your polling place, enter and identify yourself - no photo ID in that jurisdiction for this example. The poll worker says that you have already voted and shows you where your name has been signed on the book as voting. What do you do? What does the poll worker do?
Personally, I'm skeptical that these things have a significant impact on turnout one way or the other.
Extended voting hours, absentee voting, and such are no cure for cynicism, laziness, and apathy.
Bump.
Kobach has officially replaced Pruitt and Price as the biggest moron who works for Trump.
Kobach has officially replaced Pruitt and Price as the biggest moron who works for Trump.
