Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest KJP

Voting

Recommended Posts

I don't think many Republicans want to outright deny blacks the right to vote.  But it is silly to try to dispute that the GOP, as a matter of party priority and self interest, stretches the legal bounds on tactics specifically designed to minimize black voter turnout.  There are countless court decisions establishing this.

 

without getting into a discussion on the direct issue of voting, your statement is a statement that does foster dialogue and discussion. Yes, it may still be a strong statement on the issue, but it does not demonize the other side to the extent of saying that the GOP wants to deny African American's the right to vote.

 

While I personally disagree with your statement, there are facts and instances that may lead you to your conclusion, and you do not attempt to make a statement of fact to demonize the other side because they may not completely agree with everything you say. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for many Republican leaders, efforts to discourage minorities from voting aren't based on racism but on a more pragmatic reason -- minorities typically vote Democratic.

 

But I must ask, if a party's political platform doesn't attract voters from the nation's fastest-growing population group, why not adjust your political platform to embrace that constituency instead of working so hard to deny its voice? To me, this doesn't sound like a strategy to ensure a party's long-term success and relevancy.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Actually, Asians are the fastest growing minority group, at more than twice the rate of blacks.  Latinos are the second fastest growing group and will very soon (probably next cycle) pass blacks as the largest minority voter group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I must ask, if a party's political platform doesn't attract voters from the nation's fastest-growing population group, why not adjust your political platform to embrace that constituency instead of working so hard to deny its voice? To me, this doesn't sound like a strategy to ensure a party's long-term success and relevancy.

 

Because you might disagree, as a matter of principle, with what that constituency believes.  What your suggesting is pursuing majoritarianism for its own sake, totally irrespective of ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for many Republican leaders, efforts to discourage minorities from voting aren't based on racism but on a more pragmatic reason -- minorities typically vote Democratic.

 

But I must ask, if a party's political platform doesn't attract voters from the nation's fastest-growing population group, why not adjust your political platform to embrace that constituency instead of working so hard to deny its voice? To me, this doesn't sound like a strategy to ensure a party's long-term success and relevancy.

 

I think part of it is not necessarily the platform but the way the GOP communicates with groups in general. I think their ideas of private free enterprise and economic empowerment would speak well to the African American audiences but the problem is more of connecting with them. Now there are certain instances that harm this and narratives develop that foster distrust but they are often not factually based. The biggest difference is that Democrats are made of many groups and coalitions that band together and vote as a group. With the GOP, outside of the evangelicals (whom many do not like) they are more independent minded and tend not to vote or think in group step. IMO This is partially why the GOP struggles with certain groups. In addition, it is why they are not as organized at the polls given they do not have as many coalitions behind them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is pretty safe to say that the Republicans don't favor voting rights for black people.  Just like abortion, they know they can't outright ban it anymore, but they do anything they can legally to undermine the right.

 

Sorry if that hurts anyone's delicate little feelings.  But you're being called out for behavior, not for some intrinsic nature of your humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you might disagree, as a matter of principle, with what that constituency believes.  What your suggesting is pursuing majoritarianism for its own sake, totally irrespective of ideology.

 

Wouldn't shaping a platform to the needs of constituents be in keeping with free-market principles?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get the level of discourse we deserve.

 

When the Republicans do everything they can to reduce minority participation, it's fair to say they don't favor black's voting rights.  When the Republican candidate for president claims that the election is going to be stolen by "certain other groups" in "certain areas" like Philadelphia and Chicago without any actual evidence of actual voting fraud I think it is a reasonable conclusion that he sees the black vote itself as illegitimate.  And those lines play to huge applause, so it's hardly a fringe idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you might disagree, as a matter of principle, with what that constituency believes.  What your suggesting is pursuing majoritarianism for its own sake, totally irrespective of ideology.

 

Wouldn't shaping a platform to the needs of constituents be in keeping with free-market principles?

 

No, free market principles allow individual actors to pursue their own path.  Majoritarian voting binds everyone to a set of choices 51% of people get to determine.  That is inherently anti-free market.  You can quite easily, get 51% of people to agree on profoundly anti-free market principles (See 2016 Election).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Oh shoot.  I'll bite.  What "profoundly anti-free market principles" are being discussed during the 2016 election?

 

The bi-partisan consensus against free trade is a great start.

 

Nothing against you Hootenany[/member] but generally, I'm reminded why I took a long and much enjoyed break from this site.  I'll drop in from time to time to check on stuff but I don't have the time or patience to engage in the brawl that plays out here every day (which I think I think is perfectly fine, just not for me at this particular time).  Have fun peeps!  :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is pretty safe to say that the Republicans don't favor voting rights for black people.  Just like abortion, they know they can't outright ban it anymore, but they do anything they can legally to undermine the right.

 

Sorry if that hurts anyone's delicate little feelings.  But you're being called out for behavior, not for some intrinsic nature of your humanity.

 

I would not argue that necessarily, but groups and parties crave power and seek to maximize their advantages to hold onto power. I would argue the Dem proposals to ease voting registration laws and offer instant registration is a way to consolidate their power. 

 

I do not find it unreasonable to have an ID to vote when a state ID is a very minimal cost and almost needed in almost all other aspect of your life, or if not a state ID, a utility bill, birth certificate, ss card. It is a small threshold to overcome to ensure fair elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, free market principles allow individual actors to pursue their own path.  Majoritarian voting binds everyone to a set of choices 51% of people get to determine.  That is inherently anti-free market.  You can quite easily, get 51% of people to agree on profoundly anti-free market principles (See 2016 Election).

 

 

Except when 49% or less of the population gets to make policy decisions for 51% or more of the population, it can become tyrannical.

 

And I wish you wouldn't leave on account of this conversation, which I consider to be very civil and thoughtful.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not find it unreasonable to have an ID to vote when a state ID is a very minimal cost and almost needed in almost all other aspect of your life, or if not a state ID, a utility bill, birth certificate, ss card. It is a small threshold to overcome to ensure fair elections.

 

Well, that is the argument.  The issue with it is that there is no evidence that voter ID laws are either necessary or effective.  But they have been proven, in courts of law under proper evidentiary standards, to disproportionately and adversely affect minority voting..... thus the theory that ulterior motives are the driving force behind those laws.  As for the other form of ID, I don't know that anyone has an issue with laws that require you to show some form of identification. I don't think anyone would argue that you should be able to walk into a polling station and just give your name.... although I'm sure that practice is prevalent in small town USA.  Here in Ohio, if you do so, the best you can hope for is a provisional ballot which doesn't even get considered if the vote differential is in excess of the amount of provisional ballots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not argue that necessarily, but groups and parties crave power and seek to maximize their advantages to hold onto power. I would argue the Dem proposals to ease voting registration laws and offer instant registration is a way to consolidate their power. 

 

I do not find it unreasonable to have an ID to vote when a state ID is a very minimal cost and almost needed in almost all other aspect of your life, or if not a state ID, a utility bill, birth certificate, ss card. It is a small threshold to overcome to ensure fair elections.

 

Of course politicians on the left and right support proposals that help them politically.  This applies to voting rights.  However, we live in a democracy and that makes the Republican position on this issue inherently untenable.  The goal of any democracy should be to encourage political engagement and high voter turnout because without both the democratic system starts to break down.  Generally speaking Republicans want to make it more difficult to vote out of an unsubstantiated fear of voter fraud.  Until these claims of vast voter fraud are proven we should continue to make it easier for people to vote.

 

I'm not completely opposed to ID requirements, but if we go down that path we need to make sure that obtaining the ID is not an undue burden on the voter.  It must be completely free (any cost subjects the law to constitutional challenges) and should be extremely easy to obtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not completely opposed to ID requirements, but if we go down that path we need to make sure that obtaining the ID is not an undue burden on the voter.  It must be completely free (any cost subjects the law to constitutional challenges) and should be extremely easy to obtain.

 

This is exactly how I feel about it. Think about a single mother who works the morning shift at a fast food restaurant, then travels by bus to the suburbs to clean office buildings every day. She doesn't have time off work. She doesn't have an extra $10 to buy an ID from the state, and certainly doesn't have 2 hours to make her way to the DMV, wait in line, and get her photo taken. This person shouldn't be denied the right to vote because she cannot make it to the DMV or afford a state ID.

 

There are a lot of people who don't have state IDs. About 25% of African Americans don't have a government issued ID. If there is a concerted effort to make access easier and entirely free, I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is turning Voter ID's into a political issue, it's Democrats. It's only common sense and has nothing to do with "preventing" anyone to vote. This is 2016, where you pretty much need a photo ID to do anything. If someone really can't afford a government issued ID, then they should get if for free. Other countries, including Canada, which we're constantly being lectured about by liberals as some sort of utopia we should seek to emulate, requires photo ID to vote. Please, enough.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421292/voter-id-other-countries-require

 

The World Requires Voter ID, but George Soros and Hillary Clinton Are Determined the U.S. Won’t

 

"What the rest of the world calls an anti-fraud measure, Democrats call racist. It’s been over seven years since the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision that was written by liberal favorite John Paul Stevens, declared that voter-ID laws don’t constitute an undue burden on people attempting to vote. But that hasn’t stopped liberals from fighting in legislatures and courts against those laws and other efforts to promote voter integrity. The lawsuits are often brought by Marc Elias, who doubles as the attorney for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. And their efforts have paid off: Only about 18 states currently require a photo ID to vote."

 

"The vast majority of countries require voter ID — usually photo ID — to prevent fraud and duplicate votes at the polls. Our neighbors do. Canada requires voter ID. Mexico’s “Credencial para Votar” has a hologram, a photo, and other information embedded in it, and it is impossible to effectively tamper with. Confidence in the integrity of elections has soared since its introduction in the 1990s."

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not find it unreasonable to have an ID to vote when a state ID is a very minimal cost and almost needed in almost all other aspect of your life, or if not a state ID, a utility bill, birth certificate, ss card. It is a small threshold to overcome to ensure fair elections.

 

Well, that is the argument.  The issue with it is that there is no evidence that voter ID laws are either necessary or effective.  But they have been proven, in courts of law under proper evidentiary standards, to disproportionately and adversely affect minority voting..... thus the theory that ulterior motives are the driving force behind those laws.  As for the other form of ID, I don't know that anyone has an issue with laws that require you to show some form of identification. I don't think anyone would argue that you should be able to walk into a polling station and just give your name.... although I'm sure that practice is prevalent in small town USA.  Here in Ohio, if you do so, the best you can hope for is a provisional ballot which doesn't even get considered if the vote differential is in excess of the amount of provisional ballots. 

 

I would argue there is nothing wrong with a provisional ballot. Your vote still counts, it is just the last one to get counted and only if needed.

 

As far as disenfranchisement goes, does a $10 state ID really create an undue burden, I think it is a bit overblown. If you do not want to get an ID, you should be able to provide a SS card or other form of official ID in lieu of that. Sort of like the I-9 process. If the government can require the id to get a job, is it really a burden to require one to vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, 25% of African Americans don't have government issued ID. Clearly you don't need a government ID to function in society. It makes it easier, but in no way is it required. I can't understand the justification for requiring a photo ID to vote. Some identification? Sure. But why a specific kind of identification that can often take hours waiting in line to get?

 

And requiring any amount of money in order to participate in our Democracy is appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other countries, including Canada, which we're constantly being lectured about by liberals as some sort of utopia we should seek to emulate, requires photo ID to vote. Please, enough.

 

Wrong again, EVD - http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

 

I would argue there is nothing wrong with a provisional ballot. Your vote still counts, it is just the last one to get counted and only if needed.

 

Not really.  It might count.  It might not.  You don't know and won't know.  I was a poll observer in 2008 and 2012.  I witnessed the anger and frustration of voters after being told they had to vote provisionally because something wasn't done right, quite possibly an administrative error at the BOE.  The image of an elderly gentleman, who had lived through the Civil Rights era, crying at the Maple Heights location because he was told he could not cast a regular ballot, will forever be burned into my memory.  It took quite a bit of convincing to get that man to vote provisionally.  He honestly believed he was being subjected to voter suppression efforts and that the provisional ballot was a waste of time, not to mention insulting.  Others simply left when they were told they couldn't cast a real ballot.

 

As far as disenfranchisement goes, does a $10 state ID really create an undue burden, I think it is a bit overblown. If you do not want to get an ID, you should be able to provide a SS card or other form of official ID in lieu of that. Sort of like the I-9 process. If the government can require the id to get a job, is it really a burden to require one to vote?

 

Again, which state doesn't require some form of ID?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think many Republicans want to outright deny blacks the right to vote.  But it is silly to try to dispute that the GOP, as a matter of party priority and self interest, stretches the legal bounds on tactics specifically designed to minimize black voter turnout.  There are countless court decisions establishing this.

 

I think both sides do this.

 

When I lived by the University of Akron the polling site was basically hidden behind project housing. Barely any signage or anything.

 

With literally tons of safer, more accessible options at their disposal why would they choose to locate there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would who choose to locate there?  And for what purpose?

 

This is just a theory, but we believed it was a way for the establishment to dissuade the college kids from affecting the local races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps.  But another 'theory' could be that they placed it in a location which was in close proximity to that part of the population who are either disabled in one form or another or have no mode of transportation other than walking.  Either way, clearly not the same thing as tactics specifically designed to suppress the vote of a suspect classification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps.  But another 'theory' could be that they placed it in a location which was in close proximity to that part of the population who are either disabled in one form or another or have no mode of transportation other than walking.  Either way, clearly not the same thing as tactics specifically designed to suppress the vote of a suspect classification. 

 

I could buy that if it were some large complex, but it was a small two story place off the beaten path. And have you ever voted some place that had virtually no outwardly visible signs that it was a polling station?

 

Anyhow if we ever meet up at an UO happy hour I'd be glad to personally fill you in on some of the lovely stories about the political cesspool that was Akron, Ohio.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ They aren't deceiving at all if you know what a map is. Those 'maps' with "w/county size scaled to proportion of the population" are truly deceiving because they are an attempt to misconstrue numerical data as land area. That's what bar graphs are for, not maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ They aren't deceiving at all if you know what a map is. Those 'maps' with "w/county size scaled to proportion of the population" are truly deceiving because they are an attempt to misconstrue numerical data as land area. That's what bar graphs are for, not maps.

 

I literally had to explain to someone this weekend that in past elections that just because, "there was more red area" that didn't equate to more people voting in favor of red candidates. People are dumb. On all parts of the spectrum. They don't understand the vast difference between the population / weight of an urban county like, say, the 5 that make up NYC, or a rural county out west that has less people than the block I live in in Brooklyn.

 

This same person also stated she thought it should be majority rules on a state basis. And truly didn't understand why a state like Wyoming shouldn't have as much power as  a state like California or New York or Texas.

 

People need things that are visually representative to reference the actual maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A panel of three federal judges said Monday that the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2011 redrawing of State Assembly districts to favor Republicans was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, the first such ruling in three decades of pitched legal battles over the issue.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/wisconsin-redistricting-found-to-unfairly-favor-republicans.html

 

Dems won a challenge to WI legislature redistricting in 2011 and it could move up to the Supreme Court.  It's stated that past challenges lacked the right method of determining a threshold that shouldn't be crossed when redistricting.  This time, however, they're using what's being referred to as the 'efficiency gap.' 

 

More about it can be read here: https://newrepublic.com/article/118534/gerrymandering-efficiency-gap-better-way-measure-gerrymandering

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That would be voter registration fraud not voter fraud.  I think it's an important distinction.

 

And if this data is representative of the entire country it shows that up to 2 million illegal immigrants may be illegally registered to vote.  So how did, as President Trump claimed, 3 to 5 million illegals vote on election day if less than half that are potentially even registered?  Maybe there is a problem in our country with non-citizens registering to vote and potentially voting on election day, but it's completely obscured by President Trump's habit of telling absurd, bold faced lies to the American public.  This voter registration investigation is also tainted by previous GOP led investigations which led to laws that systematically disenfranchised likely Democratic voters. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Ohio Secretary of State:

 

Husted: Investigation Uncovers Non-Citizens Who Registered to Vote & Illegally Cast Ballots

 

https://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/mediaCenter/2017/2017-02-27.aspx

 

COLUMBUS– Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted today announced that his office has identified an additional 385 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio, 82 of whom have been identified as having voted in at least one election. This brings the total number of non-citizens on Ohio’s voter rolls Secretary Husted has been able to identify using available resources to 821, with 126 of those individuals having actually cast ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ratio of illegal voters in Ohio (126) to illegal immigrants in Ohio (100,000) is relatively true throughout the country, that would mean about 13,860 of 11 million illegal immigrants have voted across the US in the last ~4 years. Definitely something states should look at ways to stop, but by no means a crisis.

 

EDIT: And for the record, I support Husted looking into this. I just don't think it's an issue that should concern the President or Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there have been 126 illegal voters in Ohio in the last six years. I'm glad Husted got these individuals purged from the rolls. However, the press release does not actually state how many illegal votes were cast in any particular election year. 82 illegal voters were "identified" in this most recent investigation but that doesn't necessarily mean they all voted in the 2016 general election. But let's be generous and say that all 82 did: that's still only 0.0027% of the 3 million illegal votes that President Trump has alleged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I don't think the analysis was of illegal aliens. Seems like the 126 were most likely legal aliens who were mistakenly registers to vote when they got some form of ID at a BMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also of note is that this is Ohio, a state with marginally strict voter ID laws, and a very small number of non-citizens. Who knows what the number is in states with lax or no ID laws, which tend to be the most liberal states with the highest numbers of non-citizens.

 

I didn't post this to reference any of Trump's claims, which are typical hyperbole, I posted it because I thought it was relevant to the discussion of voter ID laws. If anything, Ohio needs to get a little bit stricter and require photo ID so as to avoid a need for ongoing audits like this - most states very likely need to significantly improve their laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ohio wants to require photo IDs in order to vote, it needs to offer citizens the ability to obtain a valid photo ID free of charge. Otherwise it would be requiring citizens to spend money in order to vote, which is a poll tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ohio wants to require photo IDs in order to vote, it needs to offer citizens the ability to obtain a valid photo ID free of charge. Otherwise it would be requiring citizens to spend money in order to vote, which is a poll tax.

 

It also needs to go out into the communities to provide a photo ID service in neighborhoods that aren't close to a BMV office. They need to expand hours on weekends and evenings. There have to be thousands of people in Hamilton County alone who would struggle to get to the BMV during their regular hours with their jobs (which might not offer time off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ A free non-driving permit photo ID is fine by me.

 

^ The level of handout you're looking for isn't, though. I'll agree that forcing people to pay any nominal fee at all for an ID in order to vote is akin to a poll tax, but asking people to show up once every 4 or even 8 years to get/renew a photo ID is not an unreasonable burden. I'd say that requirement fairly distributes the burden between the sate and the individual. Expecting the state to perform curbside photo ID service for every single adult is a bit of a stretch and would ultimately be a huge waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say curbside for every adult. I'm just saying they have to go into the communities and make sure people have access to IDs. People in all settings; rural, suburban, and urban; all have trouble reaching the BMV for various reasons. Sometimes this is a bigger hurdle than you could appreciate.

 

If the address doesn't match the one on your ID, would you have to get a new ID? If so, that would disproportionately affect the poorest citizens and those who live in cities the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the state was truly rolling out voter ID laws as an effort to make elections more secure and reduce fraud, then they would do what ryanlammi[/member] is suggesting and make an effort to educate communities about the new laws, perhaps offer extended hours at the BMV and run shuttles from various communities to the BMV, etc.

 

Now, if the state's actual motivation in rolling out voter ID laws is to reduce the number of voters, then they obviously would not make these efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHIO: Liberal activist jailed after voter fraud guilty plea

 

https://www.theamericanmirror.com/ohio-liberal-activist-pleads-guilty-jailed-14-counts-voter-fraud/

 

A paid liberal activist from the battleground state of Ohio was sentenced to six months in jail after she pleaded guilty to 14 counts of voter fraud on Monday.

 

Rebecca A. Hammonds was originally charged with 35 counts of “falsely registering people to vote and forging signatures on voter registration forms,” and admitted to 14 counts, Salem News reports.

 

Hammonds was a paid canvasser for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a group pushing people to register to vote in Columbiana County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Booth said Hammonds was caught because his office “take the precautions and double check to make sure that all the information matches up, from their first name, middle name, last name, to all the identifiers.”

 

Sounds like the system worked as planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Well this is Ohio after all - you don't see a lot of these stories coming out of coastal states, nor blue parts of our red state for that matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...