2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Well, there's always a passport, but that's almost $200 and a six week wait.

I have one for unrelated reasons.

It just really bothers me that the AZ state government is willing to massively inconvenience a huge number of citizens just to avoid admitting their own bone-headed intransigence.

Hmmm...that sounds like someone else I know... *cough* Trump *cough* :P

Well, I was bringing the passport up more as an ersatz national ID since it pretty much covers everything ID related, as opposed to proving you can, theoretically, operate a motor vehicle.

Liberty's Edge

CrystalSeas wrote:
Krensky wrote:
That's really sad because the I-9 lists the acceptable documents on the last page.
Apparently "I was told I had to see a Social Security card" overrides plain English on Federal forms

You know, at that point I'd be very, very hard pressed to actually wind up with that job. I try to tolerate a lot of atupid, but think that exceeds my limit and I don't think I would last very long working somewhere with a manager that dumb.


Krensky wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Krensky wrote:
That's really sad because the I-9 lists the acceptable documents on the last page.
Apparently "I was told I had to see a Social Security card" overrides plain English on Federal forms
You know, at that point I'd be very, very hard pressed to actually wind up with that job. I try to tolerate a lot of atupid, but think that exceeds my limit and I don't think I would last very long working somewhere with a manager that dumb.

Which is great, as long as you have options. Sometimes, you really need the job.


I actually think there is a decent likelihood of Trump dropping out, but not soon and not over any of these many many current controversies. I think that come October, if polls number consistently show he won't win, he will drop out. The Trump brand is invested in his him as being an icon of success. Him losing to Hillary, in potentially one of the worst run campaigns in living memory, doesn't advance that goal.

If he drops out, he will blame a rigged system, media bias, evil democrats, and a unsupportive Republican party, basically anything but himself.

The thing is...even if it happens early enough for the republicans to find someone, who can they pick? Trump will almost certainly refuse to endorse any new candidate, and his scorched earth policy versus his opponents means his base are not likely to be won over by any mainstream republican politician or any of the guys that ran against him.

Trump is already potentially going to take a lot of existing politicians with him with his refusal to endorse Paul Ryan and others. Trump I think is likely to go down as one of the single worst disasters to ever befall the party

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Krensky wrote:
That's really sad because the I-9 lists the acceptable documents on the last page.
Apparently "I was told I had to see a Social Security card" overrides plain English on Federal forms
You know, at that point I'd be very, very hard pressed to actually wind up with that job. I try to tolerate a lot of atupid, but think that exceeds my limit and I don't think I would last very long working somewhere with a manager that dumb.
Which is great, as long as you have options. Sometimes, you really need the job.

I'm not criticizing anyone (other than the hiring manager) here, I'm just stating I'm not sure I could bite my tongue and even if I could I'm not sure I could avoid getting terminated. So I'm glad I've neverx knock on wood, been in that circumstance.


MMCJawa wrote:

I actually think there is a decent likelihood of Trump dropping out, but not soon and not over any of these many many current controversies. I think that come October, if polls number consistently show he won't win, he will drop out. The Trump brand is invested in his him as being an icon of success. Him losing to Hillary, in potentially one of the worst run campaigns in living memory, doesn't advance that goal.

If he drops out, he will blame a rigged system, media bias, evil democrats, and a unsupportive Republican party, basically anything but himself.

The thing is...even if it happens early enough for the republicans to find someone, who can they pick? Trump will almost certainly refuse to endorse any new candidate, and his scorched earth policy versus his opponents means his base are not likely to be won over by any mainstream republican politician or any of the guys that ran against him.

Trump is already potentially going to take a lot of existing politicians with him with his refusal to endorse Paul Ryan and others. Trump I think is likely to go down as one of the single worst disasters to ever befall the party

It really is kind of impressive, isn't it. Really hard to guess where the party goes from here. Split? Collapse? Promise to never nominate someone like that again and be nicer to minorities, then win a bunch of seats back in the mid-terms because Democrats don't turn out for mid-terms then decide they really failed because they didn't nominate a "true conservative" and double down in 2020? That's my guess. It's what happened the last two cycles - even if they didn't manage to nominate a real conservative either time.

It may come out, even in this cycle that not getting endorsed by Trump is a blessing for Ryan and the others. I wouldn't tie myself to that anchor.

At this point, it would take a minor miracle for Trump to win - at the very least, he'd have to stop being Trump. It would take a major miracle for anyone replacing him to win. If he drops out in October, well he really can't drop out in October. His name will be on the ballot. Any replacement would be a write in. He could stop campaigning and endorse someone else, but that just means an absolutely historic victory for Clinton. Be funny if he endorsed Johnson, but it wouldn't make any difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

I actually think there is a decent likelihood of Trump dropping out, but not soon and not over any of these many many current controversies. I think that come October, if polls number consistently show he won't win, he will drop out. The Trump brand is invested in his him as being an icon of success. Him losing to Hillary, in potentially one of the worst run campaigns in living memory, doesn't advance that goal.

If he drops out, he will blame a rigged system, media bias, evil democrats, and a unsupportive Republican party, basically anything but himself.

The thing is...even if it happens early enough for the republicans to find someone, who can they pick? Trump will almost certainly refuse to endorse any new candidate, and his scorched earth policy versus his opponents means his base are not likely to be won over by any mainstream republican politician or any of the guys that ran against him.

Trump is already potentially going to take a lot of existing politicians with him with his refusal to endorse Paul Ryan and others. Trump I think is likely to go down as one of the single worst disasters to ever befall the party

If he drops out he would be the first to ever do so in such a fashion, risking the narrative of him being the biggest loser in history. He's more likely just laying the foundation to explain away a loss in November. Of course, this being Trump, we can't really be sure of anything.

The damage to his brand is likely to be immense no matter the outcome, especially if he takes the Republican party down with him. Loser will be another word for anyone foolish enough to deal with Trump.

Silver Crusade

captain yesterday wrote:
Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.

Can't agree with this one despite hearing it a lot. People are paid to get voters to the voting both. Some people are going to take advantage of the situation to get paid, just like tax fraud by identity theft, only easier. Proof of voter registration by ID to prevent fraud is required by almost every EU member, for example.

Now, discrimination is evil, and requiring proof the voter is a voter absolutely shouldn't be done in a discrimatory fashion. But claiming voter fraud doesn't exist only serves to disenfranchise voters.


@ Ajaxis - perhaps a better way to phrase it - while voter fraud exists, any meaningful way to commit it would not be stopped by the voter ID rules.

I mean, in Virginia, the polls simply have a checklist of all the registered voters in the district, and you get checked off the list when you go to vote.

(Virginia does require a photo ID, but allows a massive amount of leeway as to the ID, will allow you get a photo ID card for free, and even has rules for how you can vote if you don't have an ID handy.)

So in Virginia, the voter ID law is pretty much just to make sure you're you before you're checked off the list.

Any voter fraud that's going to reasonably happen isn't going to involve individual voters at all; it's going to involve someone with access to the voting machines and ballots #$%^&*(ing with them.

Against which the voter ID laws are irrelevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.

Can't agree with this one despite hearing it a lot. People are paid to get voters to the voting both. Some people are going to take advantage of the situation to get paid, just like tax fraud by identity theft, only easier. Proof of voter registration by ID to prevent fraud is required by almost every EU member, for example.

Now, discrimination is evil, and requiring proof the voter is a voter absolutely shouldn't be done in a discrimatory fashion. But claiming voter fraud doesn't exist only serves to disenfranchise voters.

Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades. You'd have to not only find people willing to do it - probably hundreds or thousands of them with no one blabbing, but you'd also have to identify people on the rolls they could go in and pretend to be - people you knew wouldn't vote. Screw that up - have someone show up claiming to be someone who's already voted - or the real voter coming in afterwards and people will start asking questions.

Much easier and more effective to make it hard for your opponent's likely supporters to vote - caging, purging lists, arranging for long lines, etc.


bugleyman wrote:
All hands abandon ship! Warp core breach on decks 7,8, and 9!

Abandon Ship!


Ajaxis wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.
Can't agree with this one despite hearing it a lot.

Yeah, people keep telling me that diseases are caused by germs, but I can't agree with that one. I know it's caused by demons and the only way to cure it is to drill a hole in the patient's head.

And this whole heliocentrism thing is just a myth. I can't agree with that one no matter how many times I hear it.

Seriously, how do you think that people are able to avoid being detected doing this? People are indeed paid to bring voters to the voting booth, but if they bring non-voters or fraudulent voters, and get caught doing that, they'll not only not get paid, they might spend some time in jail.

Here's a fairly detailed analysis of the situation in Indiana. :

Quote:


[N]ot one of the citations offered by Indiana or its allies refers to a proven example of a single vote cast at the polls in someone else’s name that could be stopped by a pollsite photo ID rule.

[...]

Even including suspected but unproven reports of fraud, the State and its allies have uncovered remarkably little evidence of any misconduct that Indiana’s law could prevent. Out of almost 400 million votes cast in general elections alone since 2000, the briefs cite one attempt at impersonation that was thwarted without a photo ID requirement, and nine unresolved cases where impersonation fraud at the polls was suspected but not proven. Nine possible examples out of hundreds of millions — and these nine cases might just as well have been due to clerical error. Not one of these cited reports occurred in Indiana.

Nine allegations -- not even demonstrated cases -- out of 400 million votes cast. In what sense is this a problem?

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades.

Cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate. And the structural issues vs individual fraud issues is a fair point especially in light of cost vs benefit.

"There hasn't been a trace if it in decades" were going to have to disagree on.

See ABC's reporting here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades.

Cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate. And the structural issues vs individual fraud issues is a fair point especially in light of cost vs benefit.

"There hasn't been a trace if it in decades" were going to have to disagree on.

See ABC's reporting here.

Re-read your own report:

Quote:


Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Furthermore, remember that "voter fraud" is much broader than the sort of thing that the voter ID laws will catch. Again, from your own source:

Quote:


Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Basically, your own source says it's not a problem. If voter ID laws prevent one person per election from casting a ballot, they disenfranchise more people than they catch, according to your own sources.


Ajaxis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades.

Cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate. And the structural issues vs individual fraud issues is a fair point especially in light of cost vs benefit.

"There hasn't been a trace if it in decades" were going to have to disagree on.

See ABC's reporting here.

That was intended to be "a trace of it found in decades" on a scale worth paying for. You're not going to pay one guy to go vote in the place of his incarcerated brother. If you're paying people to do it, you're going to do it on a big scale because one vote here and there will make no difference.

Silver Crusade

@ Orfamay Quest

At least you moved from "not a trace" to not worth it (if I understand you correctly, not trying to put words in your mouth). I wonder how many people would be caught if we actually looked for voter fraud by requiring ID for voting, like most of the industrialzed world.

I do see the point that non ID fraud is possibly (likely?) a bigger source of voting fraud.


Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
More open trade with Arab countries can actually help stabilize them, politically and economically. People who can get jobs, buy food and send their kids to school don't need to start wars or murder their neighbors.
Absolutely. And the reverse happens in the West. People lose jobs, the countries destabilize. It's not mutual benefit. Plus for some, minus for others.

No, we've seen improvements in the West as well. Cheaper goods, more available goods. It also reduces the impact of recessions, by stabilizing our economy. You're also over estimating the actual unemployment impact of trade deals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:

@ Orfamay Quest

At least you moved from "not a trace" to not worth it (if I understand you correctly, not trying to put words in your mouth). I wonder how many people would be caught if we actually looked for voter fraud by requiring ID for voting, like most of the industrialzed world.

I do see the point that non ID fraud is possibly (likely?) a bigger source of voting fraud.

And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.

Silver Crusade

Here's a large list of potential voter fraud issues. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with the website, so if it is a bunch of scary nuts, I disavow the source.)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.

That's easier. Fine people who neither vote or file an excuse card, similar to jury duty.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Voter fraud is a myth, it doesn't exist enough to warrant action.

Can't agree with this one despite hearing it a lot. People are paid to get voters to the voting both. Some people are going to take advantage of the situation to get paid, just like tax fraud by identity theft, only easier. Proof of voter registration by ID to prevent fraud is required by almost every EU member, for example.

Now, discrimination is evil, and requiring proof the voter is a voter absolutely shouldn't be done in a discrimatory fashion. But claiming voter fraud doesn't exist only serves to disenfranchise voters.

Except for the fact theres absolutely no evidence of in person voter fraud in any meaningful fashion. There have been something like 31 suspected cases of it over the past fifty years.

On the other hand, we have lots of evidence that the whole voter ID thing is a red herring used to suppress voter turnout.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.
That's easier. Fine people who neither vote or file an excuse card, similar to jury duty.

And if they didn't vote because the lines were 4 hours long and they had to get back to work or pick up their kids?

Or because their names were dropped from the rolls because they were similar to a felon's name?

Now you're going to fine them for being prevented from voting? That's not the damn problem. We're talking about deliberate and successful attempts to keep certain demographics from voting. That's disenfranchisement. That's what the courts found when they struck down the election law changes in North Carolina (I believe in the other recent cases too.)


Ajaxis wrote:

Here's a large list of potential voter fraud issues. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with the website, so if it is a bunch of scary nuts, I disavow the source.)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

You, um, might want to check out the home page before you start citing from that one....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.
That's easier. Fine people who neither vote or file an excuse card, similar to jury duty.

That's not what disenfranchisement means.

Disenfranchisement doesn't mean "I don't want to vote." It means "other people [usually the State] won't let me vote."

It's the difference between my deciding I want to walk to work and the city deciding to cancel all the bus lines that run through my neighborhood.

Silver Crusade

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:

Here's a large list of potential voter fraud issues. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with the website, so if it is a bunch of scary nuts, I disavow the source.)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

You, um, might want to check out the home page before you start citing from that one....

I admit to being lazy and not checking. Still, do you agree that people shouldn't be on the voting lists in two states at the same time?

EDIT: OK now checked, they do look a little nutso so disregard.


Ajaxis wrote:
Still, do you agree that people shouldn't be on the voting lists in two states at the same time?

Not relevant. That's not the kind of things voter ID laws will catch. Whether or not that's a problem, it's not a problem to which this is any sort of a solution.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:

Here's a large list of potential voter fraud issues. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with the website, so if it is a bunch of scary nuts, I disavow the source.)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

You, um, might want to check out the home page before you start citing from that one....

Yeap, Ajaxis is really really digging to make this a deal when its not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pulls cord, collects belongings.

Yeah, I'm getting off this Crazy Train while I can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

Pulls cord, collects belongings.

Yeah, I'm getting off this Crazy Train while I can.

*loads the captain into another*


Pan wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:

Here's a large list of potential voter fraud issues. (Note: I'm unfamiliar with the website, so if it is a bunch of scary nuts, I disavow the source.)

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

You, um, might want to check out the home page before you start citing from that one....
Yeap, Ajaxis is really really digging to make this a deal when its not.

Well, when the reality-influenced part of the Web is against you, that limits the sources you can cite. Frankly, given the rest of that site, I don't even give basic credence to the factual claims there, let alone the interpretations.

And, oddly enough, neither of those matter, because the type of fraud alleged by that entirely untrustworthy site would still not be an argument for voter ID laws, because they're not voter impersonation, which is the only kind caught by voter ID laws. (The address on your driver's license doesn't need to match the address on your voter registration, and many forms of ID -- a US passport, for example -- don't even have addresses on them.)

So, basically, he's arguing in favor of mandatory seatbelt laws as a way of preventing cancer of the lightbulb. Ignoring the fact both that lightbulb cancer is not actually a widespread health issue, and the fact that there's no reason, even in theory, to believe that wearing a seatbelt would solve it if it were.....

Silver Crusade

Not having sufficient places to vote and long lines are legitimate concerns. I've had to wait two hours to vote, I can't imagine doing that when having to pick up kids, get to work, ect.

FYI, compulsory voting has been required in Australia since 1924. It works for the most part. You either vote (more precisely show up, you don't actually have to vote), or mail an excuse form, or pay a small fine. In these days of absentee voting, and early voting, it would work wonders to get everybody voting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:


FYI, compulsory voting has been required in Australia since 1924.

And the Gregorian calendar has been in use since 1582.

Neither of those factoids is relevant to the (non-)issue of voter impersonation, or the much more real issue of voter disenfranchisement.

Silver Crusade

I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.

But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Voter fraud is a non-issue. It does not happen in numbers distinguishable from background noise.

All of your purging the rolls stuff will hurt far more people than it will prevent from fraudulently voting.

If you want to increase the quality of the elections, focus on election fraud. Things like caging, fraudulent roll purge, not putting enough voting machines in polling locations, etc.

Silver Crusade

I don't think purging dead people should have a insidious impact on elections. I certainly can't disagree with stopping caging, "fraudulent" roll purge, needing an appropriate amount of polling booths, in appropriate locations, with enough ballots, ect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:
FYI, compulsory voting has been required in Australia since 1924.

I'll also note that Australia has about 7% of the US's population. (23 million vs. 324 million). And Australia's population is largely confined to the coastal region.

I suspect mandatory voting would be a staggering logistical nightmare in the US.

It could possibly be done, but holy crap it would be a mess.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ajaxis wrote:
I don't think purging dead people should have a insidious impact on elections. I certainly can't disagree with stopping caging, "fraudulent" roll purge, needing an appropriate amount of polling booths, in appropriate locations, with enough ballots, ect.

Except when they try to purge living people, like my father in law. He is very much alive. :-)


Two words:

Indelible ink.

If people really wanted to solve the "voting more than once in person at the ballot box" that would be the way to do it. Just put the stamp on the forehead.

Now applying the security triad to non-paper voting and handling the possibility of mail fraud is another matter but again on the individual level voter fraud at our population level simply is non-viable.

Box stuffing, falsifying of logs and higher end stuff is where there is room to make a difference and to actually would something in because of the way our districts are formed and the way the ballot collection is left to a hodge podge of accounting methods.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Honestly? If I'm worried about anything, it's electronic voting machines. Who knows what safeguards (or lack thereof) are on those things?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Honestly? If I'm worried about anything, it's electronic voting machines. Who knows what safeguards (or lack thereof) are on those things?

Oh oh oh but if we resurrect Robin Williams the machines will make him President! It's happened before!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ajaxis wrote:

I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.

But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.

I've got nothing against mandatory voting in theory. I've even got nothing against the other things you mention, in theory. I don't even really have anything against requiring voter id - it could be done well.

In practice though voter id is a ruse to keep people in unfavorable demographics from voting. Even all the roll purging tactics have been used to kick real voters off the rolls. Done well, they can be a good thing, but they get applied in a partisan manner.

If you want low-hanging fruit, stop the attempts to keep people from voting first, then we'll look at the other stuff.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ajaxis wrote:
I don't think purging dead people should have a insidious impact on elections. I certainly can't disagree with stopping caging, "fraudulent" roll purge, needing an appropriate amount of polling booths, in appropriate locations, with enough ballots, ect.

The problem is how many mistakes are made. Both with malicious intent and just with mistakes. The issue is how close to the actual voting that people propose these things. You should never have calls to do ANYTHING regarding voting in an election year. And for instance, it should be super easy to check and make sure you are properly registered to vote. But none of these people proposing 'fixing fraud' have any interest in for instance, spending tax money to set up a website to confirm you are registered to vote, where you polling station will be and what you need to bring with you. Even though that should be a universal thing for all citizens by any reasonable measure.


Ajaxis wrote:
I don't think purging dead people should have a insidious impact on elections.

It shouldn't -- if done competently and in good faith. In practice, it's very easy to set up the list of dead people to be "purged" in such a way that it has a strongly insidious impact.

Here's an (alleged) example of biased voter purging. One of the key issues, is that "an analysis of the zip codes of the voters who were removed in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, showed that they came disproportionately from black and Hispanic neighborhoods."

Just to be clear, this is an illustrative example taken from alleged misconduct; I don't know the final finding. But the allegation is certainly possible, and given the legislative history of a number of these measures, I'd go as far as plausible. Which is to say, neither good faith nor competence can be taken on trust.

Similarly, how many people have been purged because they have the same name (but a different birthday) as someone who shouldn't be voting? "At first, Florida specified only exact matches on names, birthdates and genders to identify voters as felons. However, state records reveal a memo dated March 1999 from Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for the state elections office who was supervising the felon purge, asking DBT to loosen its criteria for acceptable matches. When DBT representatives warned Mitchell that this would yield a large proportion of false positives (mismatches), Mitchell's reply was that it would be up to each county elections supervisor to deal with the problem.

"In February 2001, in a phone conversation with the BBC's London studios, ChoicePoint vice-president James Lee said that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon"." That suggests -- arguably proves -- bad faith on the part of the state of Florida.

And the effects are pretty clear: From the same source, "among other problems with the list, although blacks accounted for 88% of those removed from the rolls, they made up only about 11% of Florida's voters."

(On a semi-related note, I find it interesting that the same government that conservatives scream can't effectively prevent welfare fraud without shutting the entire program down is nevertheless believed able to purge voting rolls with 100% accuracy.... Cognitive dissonance? Or just outright lying?)


Based on the conservatives I know, I'd err on the side of cognitive dissonance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:

I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.

But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.

I've got nothing against mandatory voting in theory.

I have. Mandatory voting means more voting by the uninformed, which introduces all sorts of cognitive biases -- for example, people will vote for the most familiar name, people will vote for the first name on the list, and so forth. Voting is a right, but not necessarily a duty, and I'd argue that if you don't know enough about the election to be able to name any of the candidates before you enter the voting booth, you have a moral (if not legal) duty not to vote.

More importantly, though, is that mandatory voting doesn't address the actual issue, which is deliberate voter disenfranchisement. The state can't fine me for failure to do something that the state has legally prevented me from doing.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ajaxis wrote:

I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.

But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.

I've got nothing against mandatory voting in theory.

I have. Mandatory voting means more voting by the uninformed, which introduces all sorts of cognitive biases -- for example, people will vote for the most familiar name, people will vote for the first name on the list, and so forth. Voting is a right, but not necessarily a duty, and I'd argue that if you don't know enough about the election to be able to name any of the candidates before you enter the voting booth, you have a moral (if not legal) duty not to vote.

More importantly, though, is that mandatory voting doesn't address the actual issue, which is deliberate voter disenfranchisement. The state can't fine me for failure to do something that the state has legally prevented me from doing.

The second part, I've repeated again and again.

The first I'd deal with. I'm not hugely in favor, but I do know how badly the demographics of who votes skews power in this country. I think most of that can be addressed by making it easier to register and vote, but we don't seem to be able to do that. Possibly making it mandatory would mean that really would have to be dealt with.


According to CNN, Johnson is now polling at 15% among midwest states.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Honestly? If I'm worried about anything, it's electronic voting machines. Who knows what safeguards (or lack thereof) are on those things?

Electronic voting machines CAN be made perfectly trustworthy / verifiable, but virtually none of them are.

One version I saw a report on would print a copy of who you voted for and show this printed copy to the voter behind a glass screen. If anything looked wrong they could cancel and try again. Otherwise, the votes were transmitted electronically and the paper copy retained for verification if need be.

Perfectly verifiable system. The only problem... it's more expensive, so nobody buys it. Instead most electronic voting is a black box and you are just supposed to assume that there is no way to mess with the results.

That said, voter disenfranchisement is the biggest problem right now... and the biggest form of that isn't ridiculous ID requirements or purged voting rolls... it is long lines. Go to virtually any heavily GOP dominated polling place and you are in and out in five minutes. Go to most heavily Democrat dominated polling places and you are lucky if the line if under half an hour. It has been this way for decades and if it is ever fixed it will result in a paradigm shift across all layers of government.


We live in a "purple" (emphasis on "blue") area, and the voting lines have always been long (30+ years). To be fair, the state elections board has 13 hour days at every school/location for voting and if you're in line at the last minute you will be allowed to vote regardless of how long it takes to complete. The lines are longest at the beginning and end of the 13 hour window, considerably shorter even in "blue" areas when many are nominally at work.

For all the flak Virginia gets, she accommodate these matters better than most states if the posts on this thread are any indication.

Edit: just saw an amusing moniker for fans of Trump's campaign: Trumpkins.

Dark Archive

captain yesterday wrote:

In the small town I used to live in, the county DMV office was only open every other Tuesday.

Good luck getting an I.D. with those hours.

In Nashua, for most of the time I've lived here, you had to go to Merrimack (a neighboring town) for your driver's license, as Nashua (a town of 86,000 people) didn't have it's own DMV.

If you didn't have reliable transportation (I took the bus or walked everywhere), it was pretty much a non-starter. Elderly, without a personal chauffer to run you over there? No DMV for you.

It's finally improved, and you can now get your license renewed in town, but Nashua's the second-largest town in the state, so it always seemed weird to me.

451 to 500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards