Politics Voter Supression in Georgia

[BrianFromWA]

It's not their opinion that's at issue, it's their right to vote.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I wonder if the votes from the (D)'s candidate for FL governor's brother and sister were included in the "31 in a billion" fraud number. I tend to think not, but I've been wrong before.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...nvestigation-may-have-engaged-in-voter-fraud/

 

[barfo]

Kinda OT, but here's my question:

Let's pull 18-21 y/o's out of the equation. I'm down with them being required/enabled to register to vote similar to Selective Service (the draft) is for guys, but that isn't the case yet and I don't trust public schools to do anything remotely appropriate with "Civics" class. And maybe include newly-confirmed immigrant legal citizens... maybe they need a "get out the vote" campaign. I'm ok with this.

For literally anyone else:

If someone hasn't chosen to register to vote in at least the two (if not many, many more) election cycles since they've been eligible to vote, what makes you think that their opinion is one you want voting on? Not saying they can't (of course it's their right), but whatever side of the spectrum you vote on, why would you want a misinformed or disinterested voter?

Why would I want you as a voter, Brian? You are obviously informed and interested, but nevertheless maybe not the sort that I want voting.

So if we are casting voters out, I cast you out. How about them apples?

But the truth is, only one party wants to restrict voting rights. And that's because that party no longer represents a more-or-less majority of the population, so they have to resort to disenfranchising voters.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why would I want you as a voter, Brian? You are obviously informed and interested, but nevertheless maybe not the sort that I want voting.
So if we are casting voters out, I cast you out. How about them apples?
But the truth is, only one party wants to restrict voting rights. And that's because that party no longer represents a more-or-less majority of the population, so they have to resort to disenfranchising voters.
barfo

You also missed the point of the question, so it's probably my fault and will re-state:
"What is the impetus for 'register everyone to vote'?" Why do community organizers and activists want to get people who, for whatever reason, haven't voted, to vote? And why do you--barfo and Lanny--want them? Especially since I don't see (though you may privately think so) you clamoring for things like ensuring everyone has an ID? Or that everyone should be here legally? Or....?
To your first point, I don't trust the Democrats to enforce any law, and therefore am not shocked that they don't want to enforce voter ID laws. That's just part of being informed.

 

[barfo]

You also missed the point of the question, so it's probably my fault and will re-state:
"What is the impetus for 'register everyone to vote'?" Why do community organizers and activists want to get people who, for whatever reason, haven't voted, to vote? And why do you--barfo and Lanny--want them? Especially since I don't see (though you may privately think so) you clamoring for things like ensuring everyone has an ID? Or that everyone should be here legally? Or....?
To your first point, I don't trust the Democrats to enforce any law, and therefore am not shocked that they don't want to enforce voter ID laws. That's just part of being informed.

There's a big difference between enforcement and selective enforcement. What we are seeing from the Republicans is very selective enforcement targeting populations that are more likely to vote against them.

But your question is fundamentally elitist. Some people aren't <something> enough to vote, the country should be ruled by the few, not the many.
The goal of a democratic society should be to get everyone involved, not to exclude those who haven't been involved.

I'm totally fine with a national ID card, that would make a lot of things simpler. I thought it was the paranoid right-wingers who opposed ID cards as a violation of their "freedom". Once they know your name, they can take your guns!!!

I'm also fine with making sure that everyone is here legally, although I suspect my method for achieving that would involve a lot more 'amnesty' and relaxing/streamlining immigration rules than yours would.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I don't want anyone in Georgia voting.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There's a big difference between enforcement and selective enforcement. What we are seeing from the Republicans is very selective enforcement targeting populations that are more likely to vote against them.

We're literally just seeing ID laws enforced (except in the bus situation, which was a safety and policy issue). It's not my fault or a predisposition of human nature (though it may seem that way) that people who can't get their names spelled correctly in state databases, or who don't get an ID card, or have moved, vote Democrat. 200k in FL alone is a "selective enforcement targeting population?"

But your question is fundamentally elitist. Some people aren't <something> enough to vote, the country should be ruled by the few, not the many.The goal of a democratic society should be to get everyone involved, not to exclude those who haven't been involved.

Once again, we're not a democratic society, we're a representative republic. In large part due to the Founding Fathers' grasp of history, philosophy and law that demonstrated that mob rule was not the answer. I don't think it makes me "elitist", it makes me "civically and historically informed." But (for the third time, now) my question wasn't whether or not they should vote if they legally registered, it was "why do you want them to so badly?" If your answer to the question is "because everyone should be involved in civic, legal processes, even if they didn't want to" (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) then we're golden. Re-institution of the draft in 3....2.....1.....

I'm totally fine with a national ID card, that would make a lot of things simpler. I thought it was the paranoid right-wingers who opposed ID cards as a violation of their "freedom". Once they know your name, they can take your guns!!!

Um, no. Unless, somehow, the ACLU is now a paranoid redux of the KKK, like AntiFa is a re-skinned Brownshirts group.

I'm also fine with making sure that everyone is here legally, although I suspect my method for achieving that would involve a lot more 'amnesty' and relaxing/streamlining immigration rules than yours would.

barfo

I'm not going to pull the "obviously you don't read my stuff" card, but I don't think we're that far off. I'm not Denny-level libertarian on that front, but I've seen too many people exploited because they're here illegally to not want to get people legal.

In short, it seems as if (though please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're ok with the following:
- making sure everyone's here legally (even if that involves a lot of editing to current laws to make it happen, which I'm ok with),
- that everyone has a National ID card to verify they are who they say they are (which isn't a horrible stretch, since everyone in the military and their family members has a national ID card and 87% of everyone over 16 has a driver's license)
- that only people who should vote, do vote

So why is it that you think legally-passed voter ID laws are "selectively targeting populations"?

 

[barfo]

We're literally just seeing ID laws enforced (except in the bus situation, which was a safety and policy issue). It's not my fault or a predisposition of human nature (though it may seem that way) that people who can't get their names spelled correctly in state databases, or who don't get an ID card, or have moved, vote Democrat. 200k in FL alone is a "selective enforcement targeting population?"

You say 200k, but the article you posted says 200k "may have". Similarly, there are hundreds of republican politicians who "may have" murdered people.

Once again, we're not a democratic society, we're a representative republic.

Well, there is a difference between society and government, no? I accept your statement about our form of government, but I think it's not terribly on-point here.

In large part due to the Founding Fathers' grasp of history, philosophy and law that demonstrated that mob rule was not the answer. I don't think it makes me "elitist", it makes me "civically and historically informed." But (for the third time, now) my question wasn't whether or not they should vote if they legally registered, it was "why do you want them to so badly?" If your answer to the question is "because everyone should be involved in civic, legal processes, even if they didn't want to" (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) then we're golden.

Are we? Because I think that's what I said in the last post.

Re-institution of the draft in 3....2.....1.....

I'll assume you didn't mean that seriously, but I would be in favor of some sort of a national service requirement - it shouldn't have to be the military though - we don't need that big an army, and there are lots of other things that need doing.

Um, no. Unless, somehow, the ACLU is now a paranoid redux of the KKK, like AntiFa is a re-skinned Brownshirts group.

I can see that the ACLU would be against it too. I note that that article mentions guns as a factor, though.
I don't buy your antifa = brownshirts analogy. Who is Hitler?

I'm not going to pull the "obviously you don't read my stuff" card, but I don't think we're that far off. I'm not Denny-level libertarian on that front, but I've seen too many people exploited because they're here illegally to not want to get people legal.

Ok. I don't actually remember reading anything you posted on immigration before, maybe I missed it or maybe I just didn't disagree with it enough to recall it.

In short, it seems as if (though please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're ok with the following:
- making sure everyone's here legally (even if that involves a lot of editing to current laws to make it happen, which I'm ok with),
- that everyone has a National ID card to verify they are who they say they are (which isn't a horrible stretch, since everyone in the military and their family members has a national ID card and 87% of everyone over 16 has a driver's license)
- that only people who should vote, do vote

Yes.

So why is it that you think legally-passed voter ID laws are "selectively targeting populations"?

I suppose if those laws were dreamed up in a isolation chamber, with no idea of who would be affected, you'd have a good case that they are just laws.
But when a Republican legislature passes a law that they know will selectively disenfranchise democrats, then yeah, I think a little skepticism is in order.
For example the North Dakota law that said you have to have a residential address on your ID, knowing that people on reservations did not have residential addresses and were largely D voters.

Let's not pretend that voter ID laws are the only voter suppression front, either. There's a number of other gambits that Republicans are using, such as moving polling places out of town (GA and KS, I think), shortening polling hours, etc.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Also, this would seem to bolster the argument that the more education a voter has the more tendancy there is to vote Democrat. Why is that?

You're mistaking brainwashing for education.

 

[MARIS61]

I believe it's in Texas where your student ID cannot get you the privilege of voting but your gun permit can. Why do you suppose that is? It's because our youth tend to vote for Democrats.

It's because a student ID is not a verified ID. It's given to any and all students, foreign or domestic, law-abiding or felonious.

A gun permit holder has been UnConstitutionally forced to go through a complete FBI background check.

 

[Lanny]

We're literally just seeing ID laws enforced (except in the bus situation, which was a safety and policy issue). It's not my fault or a predisposition of human nature (though it may seem that way) that people who can't get their names spelled correctly in state databases, or who don't get an ID card, or have moved, vote Democrat. 200k in FL alone is a "selective enforcement targeting population?"
Once again, we're not a democratic society, we're a representative republic. In large part due to the Founding Fathers' grasp of history, philosophy and law that demonstrated that mob rule was not the answer. I don't think it makes me "elitist", it makes me "civically and historically informed." But (for the third time, now) my question wasn't whether or not they should vote if they legally registered, it was "why do you want them to so badly?" If your answer to the question is "because everyone should be involved in civic, legal processes, even if they didn't want to" (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth) then we're golden. Re-institution of the draft in 3....2.....1.....


Um, no. Unless, somehow, the ACLU is now a paranoid redux of the KKK, like AntiFa is a re-skinned Brownshirts group.


I'm not going to pull the "obviously you don't read my stuff" card, but I don't think we're that far off. I'm not Denny-level libertarian on that front, but I've seen too many people exploited because they're here illegally to not want to get people legal.

In short, it seems as if (though please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're ok with the following:
- making sure everyone's here legally (even if that involves a lot of editing to current laws to make it happen, which I'm ok with),
- that everyone has a National ID card to verify they are who they say they are (which isn't a horrible stretch, since everyone in the military and their family members has a national ID card and 87% of everyone over 16 has a driver's license)
- that only people who should vote, do vote

So why is it that you think legally-passed voter ID laws are "selectively targeting populations"?

State ID cards are not free. Some of these people are barely getting by. I once worked with a guy who was on swing shift. He used to show up at work during the day shift when the checks were first issued for the day. He would come in a half an hour before checks were distributed on payday at about noon just so he could deposit his paycheck and cover checks he had written the day before. Yep, there are people like that out there. I even tried to get him to do direct deposit but that took an extra day for his pay to get credited to his account and that was a no go.
Now, you've got people who can't afford a car and take the bus back and forth to work while walking to the store.
There are people who can't wait in line for an ID card either because they can't afford it or if they take time off work to get their ID card, they don't get paid.
You're dealing with people who are living on the edge and don't know how to get ahead.
So, now you want to deny U. S. citizens the right to vote because of that which they have almost no ability to control.
Do you think everyone in this country lives like you?

 

[Lanny]

It's because a student ID is not a verified ID. It's given to any and all students, foreign or domestic, law-abiding or felonious.

A gun permit holder has been UnConstitutionally forced to go through a complete FBI background check.

How much fraud do you encounter with student voters?
Gun permit holders are predominantly Republican, students no so much. There's your real notice for this nonsense.

 

[Lanny]

You're mistaking brainwashing for education.

Not quite. It's strictly calculated from the numbers and types of degrees, high school and college.
Of course, if one sees education as brainwashing I guess you'd have a point. Certainly, the more ignorant one is the less brainwashed. Talk about gibberish.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Meanwhile, you've documented one of the 31 out of one Billion fraudulent votes. Good job securing our Democracy, eliminating that 0.000000031% fraud.

In doing some research on another topic I came across this.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/nineteen-foreign-nationals-charged-voting-2016-election

I'm not saying voter fraud is widespread and rampant, but it's obviously not just 31-billionths of a problem. No matter what the Brennan Center or the WaPo or other political scientists say. Now, is it one order of magnitude higher? 3? more? We have somewhere on the order of 11 million people residing illegally in the US. The contention that less than one of those 11 million ever voted (and that's assuming, which I don't, that only illegal immigrants fraudulently vote). Another 6M people are felons without voting rights. Less than 1 (not 1%...one) of that population ever had a fraudulent vote?

This article details how, in August, a grand jury in NC indicted 19 people for fraudulently voting in the 2016 election in NC alone. And some of those had been registered for over a decade. It's conceivable that 31 fraudulent votes were found in one district in one state.

 

[barfo]

Voting is one of those jobs that most Americans just aren't willing to do - that's why we need immigrants.

barfo

 

[oldmangrouch]

So, what is the accepted margin of error? How many American citizens do you get to disenfranchise for every actually illegal vote you catch?

Frankly, my answer is zero.

 

[Lanny]

Voting is one of those jobs that most Americans just aren't willing to do - that's why we need immigrants.

barfo

Look, we had 3 Million of them vote surreptitiously for Hillary, else Trump would have won the popular vote. What more do you want? Oh, I know, you want that Caravan to hurry up and get here so we can disguise those folks and hire some buses to take them from polling place to polling place thereby stealing the House from the Republicans. Typical Democrat type of thinking.

Okay, you're not a Democrat but you're devious and that's pretty much the same thing.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So, what is the accepted margin of error? How many American citizens do you get to disenfranchise for every actually illegal vote you catch?

Frankly, my answer is zero.

Mine is as well. Yet no one has been able to show that requiring someone to show they are who they say they are (and are in the records) is disenfranchising. Yet in a country where a few hanging chads were the difference between W and Global Warming Al, and especially when politicians try to take more control of my life and money, I don't want a single illegal voter messing with it. And if that means that you need to get your information correct in the system,

 

[Lanny]

In doing some research on another topic I came across this.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/nineteen-foreign-nationals-charged-voting-2016-election

I'm not saying voter fraud is widespread and rampant, but it's obviously not just 31-billionths of a problem. No matter what the Brennan Center or the WaPo or other political scientists say. Now, is it one order of magnitude higher? 3? more? We have somewhere on the order of 11 million people residing illegally in the US. The contention that less than one of those 11 million ever voted (and that's assuming, which I don't, that only illegal immigrants fraudulently vote). Another 6M people are felons without voting rights. Less than 1 (not 1%...one) of that population ever had a fraudulent vote?

This article details how, in August, a grand jury in NC indicted 19 people for fraudulently voting in the 2016 election in NC alone. And some of those had been registered for over a decade. It's conceivable that 31 fraudulent votes were found in one district in one state.

What could the incentive be to take a chance on getting caught and then extradited by voting illegally? I would imagine that the number of offenders would be extremely small. Generally speaking, their population is more well behaved than the general population of U.S. citizens.
Don't forget that many states allow

Mine is as well. Yet no one has been able to show that requiring someone to show they are who they say they are (and are in the records) is disenfranchising. Yet in a country where a few hanging chads were the difference between W and Global Warming Al, and especially when politicians try to take more control of my life and money, I don't want a single illegal voter messing with it. And if that means that you need to get your information correct in the system,

Apparently, a lot of people think you're wrong about the disenfranchising of citizens because of the lack of ID. These people would include the Pennsylvania House Republican leader, Mike Truzai.
I would like to add that voter ID ain't free and it takes time. State issued ID costs something like $50 that the poor really can't afford just to cast a single vote. Also, while they're waiting their turn, they're taking time off from a low paying job where when you don't work you don't get paid. Also, in some places like Georgia they've made some of the registration places inaccessible by public transportation plus you can only register twice a month and then the place is only open for a couple hours.

Oh, there are cads out there that want nothing better than to guarantee a Republican victory.

And how big is the problem? Minuscule at most.