|
The Vote
Dec 22, 2021 15:05:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Dec 22, 2021 15:05:35 GMT -5
Russell wrote, "Just about every study not conducted by a talk-radio host has found that pretty much the entire country "has minimal problems with voter fraud.'" David wrote, " All states have minimal problems with voter fraud." These two statements strike me as amounting to the same thing, so the answer to "which is it" would be "both of them." OK, my bad. So what does that have to do with what I said about Texas ID requirements?
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Dec 22, 2021 15:57:48 GMT -5
Russell wrote, "Just about every study not conducted by a talk-radio host has found that pretty much the entire country "has minimal problems with voter fraud.'" David wrote, " All states have minimal problems with voter fraud." These two statements strike me as amounting to the same thing, so the answer to "which is it" would be "both of them." OK, my bad. So what does that have to do with what I said about Texas ID requirements? That the ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, and are intended to make voting a little more difficult for certain populations. Proper ID is required to register to vote in the first place. Requiring specific IDs to be produced later in the process while rejecting others is annoying and redundant.
|
|
|
The Vote
Dec 22, 2021 16:35:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Dec 22, 2021 16:35:31 GMT -5
OK, my bad. So what does that have to do with what I said about Texas ID requirements? That the ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, and are intended to make voting a little more difficult for certain populations. Proper ID is required to register to vote in the first place. Requiring specific IDs to be produced later in the process while rejecting others is annoying and redundant. So it's somehow annoying and redundant to carry and show the ID you already have again when you actually go to vote? How about when you cash a check? Or withdraw money from the the bank? Or pick up a prescription? And do you think that just maybe that because you've always had to show ID to vote just might be the reason it's never been a problem before?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Dec 22, 2021 16:42:32 GMT -5
OK, my bad. So what does that have to do with what I said about Texas ID requirements? That the ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, and are intended to make voting a little more difficult for certain populations. Proper ID is required to register to vote in the first place. Requiring specific IDs to be produced later in the process while rejecting others is annoying and redundant. Actually, there is a problem that does exist, that of voter confidence. A Rasmussen survey found that 80 of Americans support a voter ID requirement. If establishing one solves that problem it is a huge step toward calming things.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Dec 22, 2021 16:43:35 GMT -5
Wait, only 80 Americans???
Um, 80%
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 22, 2021 17:39:57 GMT -5
The Rasmussen survey is from 2015, and it is in rough accord with similar earlier polls. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/29/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-most-americans-support-voter-id-/On the other hand, a Marist/NPR poll released last month found that "a majority of Americans trust that elections are fair, are confident in their state and local governments' ability to administer elections, and will trust the results in 2022 and in 2024 regardless of whether their preferred candidate wins." And if I'm reading the breakdown graphs right, 68% of Republicans questioned think that Trump lost because of "real cases of fraud that changed the results." There are some other interesting observations coming out of this poll, but the striking thing is that the core of Republicans that accept Trump's claims that the election was stolen--a Monmouth poll puts that number at 32%. www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-americans-support-voter-id-rules-but-fewer-worried-about-fraud-poll-finds/?sh=5fed414d1e0bwww.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050291610/most-americans-trust-elections-are-fair-but-sharp-divides-exist-a-new-poll-findsAnother thing that strikes me is the lack of coherence--that is, internal consistency, evidence of thinking through the issues--in these belief-sets, but that's a different conversation. Short take: "Voter confidence" issues have been driven by partisan--largely GOP--campaigns, aided by conservative think-tankery and the operations of ALEC. Every study I've encountered over the years finds voter fraud to be a non-problem--that is, it's not widespread, not systematic, and not a factor in deciding elections. But constant propagandizing from the right has its effects.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Dec 22, 2021 18:02:42 GMT -5
The Rasmussen survey is from 2015, and it is in rough accord with similar earlier polls. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/29/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-most-americans-support-voter-id-/On the other hand, a Marist/NPR poll released last month found that "a majority of Americans trust that elections are fair, are confident in their state and local governments' ability to administer elections, and will trust the results in 2022 and in 2024 regardless of whether their preferred candidate wins." And if I'm reading the breakdown graphs right, 68% of Republicans questioned think that Trump lost because of "real cases of fraud that changed the results." There are some other interesting observations coming out of this poll, but the striking thing is that the core of Republicans that accept Trump's claims that the election was stolen--a Monmouth poll puts that number at 32%. www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/21/80-of-americans-support-voter-id-rules-but-fewer-worried-about-fraud-poll-finds/?sh=5fed414d1e0bwww.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050291610/most-americans-trust-elections-are-fair-but-sharp-divides-exist-a-new-poll-findsAnother thing that strikes me is the lack of coherence--that is, internal consistency, evidence of thinking through the issues--in these belief-sets, but that's a different conversation. Short take: "Voter confidence" issues have been driven by partisan--largely GOP--campaigns, aided by conservative think-tankery and the operations of ALEC. Every study I've encountered over the years finds voter fraud to be a non-problem--that is, it's not widespread, not systematic, and not a factor in deciding elections. But constant propagandizing from the right has its effects. Belief-sets aside, why not put the conspiracies to rest? (Yes, we all know Trump voters are dumb, right?) Even 38% is a huge number.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 22, 2021 18:10:59 GMT -5
The change of subject to "widespread voter fraud" has always been a purposeful misdirection. The way presidential elections are done, "widespread" is absolutely not the point. Ask Hillary. What is needed is the right victories in the right places. Not widespread victories.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 22, 2021 18:46:10 GMT -5
The imputation of "purposeful misdirection" is just a tad insulting--who is supposed to be arguing in bad faith?
As for winning elections "in the right places," that's pretty much how Trump pulled it off in 2016--not by fiddling the process but by shrewdly figuring where his voters were and campaigning accordingly. I didn't like the results, but given the way the electoral college works, it was a winning strategy. And in '20 it wasn't--not because of rigging, but because more people "in the right places" voted for Biden.
Nevertheless, there still isn't evidence of significant voter fraud in national elections, and not much in local ones. Most of the dishonesty remains where it belongs, in the stump speeches and ad campaigns and social-media swamps.
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 22, 2021 19:15:47 GMT -5
"Let's put the conspiracies to rest"
Wishful thinking sadly.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 22, 2021 19:41:42 GMT -5
You know what's so incredibly stupid? It would be so easy to put "these conspiracies" to rest. Just have an impartial investigation free from the influence of the officials who caused it and publish the results. Honestly (if that's even still possible from Democrats).
That would be it. Here's the numbers, this is what they show.
But Democrats, particularly Biden who's up to his neck in corruption, can't let that happen.
Until it does this constant poo pooing of "conspiracy theories" is the conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 22, 2021 19:51:22 GMT -5
Just have an impartial investigation free from the influence of the officials who caused it and publish the results. I believe that argument just met itself coming around a corner.
|
|
|
The Vote
Dec 22, 2021 19:51:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by robjh22 on Dec 22, 2021 19:51:42 GMT -5
Are those who point to the fact -- and I accept it as fact -- that "there is essentially no provable fraud anywhere" urging repeal of all identification requirements everywhere for everyone for every election? Why not?
If poor minorities don't have to produce an ID, because racism, how can you make me produce one? (You can't; see equal protection clauses of state and federal constitutions.)
Without some kind of ID, how would you record my vote and know whether I had already voted across town? How would you know whether I have reached voting age if I don't have to prove my identity?
If that's not what you want, what do you want?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 22, 2021 19:57:37 GMT -5
Just have an impartial investigation free from the influence of the officials who caused it and publish the results. I believe that argument just met itself coming around a corner. What on earth does that even mean?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 22, 2021 20:10:54 GMT -5
We had this discussion maybe a year and a half ago. It's a subject that I actually know a fair amount about.
But what I said then didn't change any minds, judging from the posts I've read in this thread. There's no reason to think that repeating what I said then would do so.
Have a nice evening, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Dec 22, 2021 20:16:21 GMT -5
“Without some kind of ID, how would you record my vote and know whether I had already voted across town? How would you know twhether I have reached voting age if I don't have to prove my identity?”
You are I-deed when you register to vote. At that point they know your age, where you live, etc. When you mail in your vote, it is entered into computers. If you vote more than once, you get flagged and a visit from the local constabulary follows. That’s how they’ve busted the few right wing whackos who tried to vote for The orange narcissist more than once.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Dec 22, 2021 20:40:53 GMT -5
Are those who point to the fact -- and I accept it as fact -- that "there is essentially no provable fraud anywhere" urging repeal of all identification requirements everywhere for everyone for every election? I'm getting a whiff of the law of the excluded middle here. As far as I can tell, any number of states have perfectly reasonable systems for voter registration and validation at the polls. I live in one of them, and I posted a link to the Minnesota rules, which (again, as far as I can tell) have worked fine for the 44 years we've lived here. The fact that our system ain't broke makes it strange to hear calls to fix it. And I'm not aware of anybody calling for "repeal of all identification requirements everywhere for everyone for every election"--which doesn't mean that there's not some crank somewhere doing so. I do, however, see attempts at what might be called social gerrymandering--crafting regulations that have the effect of minimizing voting for various demographics. Egregious examples can be seen in Georgia: cutting the number, placement, and availability times of drop boxes; cutting the absentee-voting period; purging registration rolls. Several parts of Texas' new law has the effect of making it less convenient to vote, harder to vote absentee, and easier for partisan poll-watchers to get underfoot on election days.
|
|
|
Post by robjh22 on Dec 22, 2021 21:21:24 GMT -5
I can't imagine any kind of serious voter ID requirement that would not serve to exclude someone, somewhere, thus imperiling democracy and setting the stage for fascism and the end of the world, or somesuch.
I am open to any idea at all to reasonably insure the integrity of elections, but simply railing against "voter suppression" without suggesting some means -- any means -- to insure that a voter is old enough to vote, a citizen of the USA, has not already voted in a given election, and is not ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, strikes me as onanism.
So we do something, or we do nothing. If it's the former, what is it?
But you know what? Without both sides agreeing in advance to respect and abide by whatever voter ID rule (if any) the majority comes up with, this after reasoned debate and review by the Supreme Court, we're wasting our time. And the cable news/entertainment channels will insure that we not respect anything the "other side" proposes. Heck, we can't even do it here.
|
|
|
Post by james on Dec 22, 2021 21:50:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 22, 2021 22:18:06 GMT -5
I can't imagine any kind of serious voter ID requirement that would not serve to exclude someone, somewhere, thus imperiling democracy and setting the stage for fascism and the end of the world, or somesuch. I am open to any idea at all to reasonably insure the integrity of elections, but simply railing against "voter suppression" without suggesting some means -- any means -- to insure that a voter is old enough to vote, a citizen of the USA, has not already voted in a given election, and is not ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, strikes me as onanism. So we do something, or we do nothing. If it's the former, what is it? But you know what? Without both sides agreeing in advance to respect and abide by whatever voter ID rule (if any) the majority comes up with, this after reasoned debate and review by the Supreme Court, we're wasting our time. And the cable news/entertainment channels will insure that we not respect anything the "other side" proposes. Heck, we can't even do it here. A) The individual states are responsible for their elections, not the Federal government. B) Most, if not all, states have voter ID requirements despite what those that don't want them think. Normal SOP for decades. C) Due to the "deadliest threat of all time" COVID, some jurisdictions relaxed or outright removed them or simply worked around them in order to facilitate election fraud. Most of these changes were justified by the bogus claim that voter ID disadvantages some oppressed classes of voters. Granted, it makes voting hard for the severely stupid and lazy, but beyond that it's easy to get a government ID card in any state of the union. If one finds it problematic, you obviously don't really give a damn about voting. D) There were only about 6 contested jurisdictions- Detroit, Cobb County Georgia, Marcicopa County Arizona, Philidelphia, and a couple more I can't remember. Lawsuits requesting review up to and including the Supreme Court were dismissed without hearing based on technicalities- too early, too late, no standing, etc. E) All outside 3rd party audits have been actively thwarted by the very officials who ran the questioned elections. G) The continued loud whining about "conspiracy theories" only strengthens the belief that Democrats cheated. It ain't going away. H) January 6th was not by any rational definition an insurrection. I) Watch as this post sets off the resident Proboards Soundhole "disinformation" censor despite no objective disinformation. J) You probably didn't notice that there's no F. That's because I have none left to give.
|
|