U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:The laws Republicans have been passing deliberately disproportionately affect young people, the old, the poor, and other minorities, because they are less likely to have the money to meet the requirements or the ability to take sufficient time off of work to get to the DMV for hours, or city hall for a passport, or what have you.


How the hell do they have jobs without ID? You need ID just to get a job in the first place. Unless you want to argue that Government workplace regulations tend to fuck over the poor, which is what we Libertarians have been saying for years.

Beyond the issues other people have brought up, adding barriers to voting for groups that are already low turnout (e.g. young people) can very easily cause them not to vote even if they meet the new requirements. Sticking with the young people theme, imagine a college student. This hypothetical student lives on campus, and is registered to vote in whatever town their campus is in. On election day, they go to vote, but when they get there, they're told they need a passport, driver's license (or NRA membership card?*) or similar ID, but not their school ID. They have a driver's license, and go to get it out, but realize they left it in their room- they don't actually need to drive around anywhere on campus, after all. Instead of walking back to their room, finding their license then going back to the voting location, they just leave and don't come back. Or maybe they would be willing to go back, but they have work / class / a big assignment to work on, so they don't have the time.

You also need to look at which groups are most affected by such changes. In this case, young people, college students (I feel this is worth being separate from "young people" as several states have specifically targeted college students), poor people, and minorities (mostly through affecting poor people) are probably the most disproportionately affected. Then you need to look at how those groups tend to vote: liberal, generally some of the most liberal voting blocks. Then you need to look at who is implementing these changes: republicans, generally opposed wholly by democrats. They claim it is to prevent voter fraud, but all my attempts to search for how much of an issue voter fraud is in the states have only resulted in purely partisan opinion pieces, with no real data one way or the other. I'm not even sure how exactly it would prevent voter fraud- most states require an ID to register to vote initially anyway. Taken all together, I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than voter suppression: the benefits are, at best, questionable, and the groups affected by it tend to vote very strongly in the other direction of the group proposing and passing this legislation.

* I tried searching around for this, but I couldn't find anywhere that stated what actual state has this exemption. It's too "perfect" for the point being made against such legislation, I think, so I'm not actually sure if this particular example is true. Anyone able to find anything specific?

------------
Closer to the original topic, what do people think about Gingrich being the new anti-Romney? I guess it was bound to happen eventually, as everyone else except Huntsman and Santorum have had their shot at it. I do wonder how "sticky" his boost will be though, as some of Romney's bigger issues (nobody likes him, career politician) apply to Gingrich as well. Actually, from what I can gather Gingrich is a hugely unlikable, if probably fairly intelligent, person. I could see him doing either really terrible or pretty ok in the general election, if he makes it that far.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Sorry, I'm going to have to say that identification should be needed, whether or not it helps one party over the other. Otherwise, a group of individuals could go around to polling stations casting the votes of people who stayed home, and steal the election. Quite a few small elections have been won by just a few votes; the entire 2000 Presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sorry, I'm going to have to say that identification should be needed, whether or not it helps one party over the other. Otherwise, a group of individuals could go around to polling stations casting the votes of people who stayed home, and steal the election. Quite a few small elections have been won by just a few votes; the entire 2000 Presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes.

Saying that something could happen doesn't mean it will or does. I can't find any evidence of voting fraud (on behalf of voters) in the US amounting to more than a talking point. Preventing that type of fraud would be possible without requiring IDs as well, and considering how abysmal voter turnout is in the states, we should be doing everything we can to increase it, not decrease.

Even assuming your scenario is entirely likely, and would be prevented entirely by the new ID laws, that doesn't mean it will create the best outcome. If you got 1000 less people to vote with the ID law- people that are allowed to vote (18 years old, not felons, citizens, etc.) in their state, and they would have voted for candidate A with 800 votes, and the other 200 for candidate B, then you'd need to prevent fraudulent votes in excess of the totals, otherwise you could swung the election in the wrong direction, against what the electorate would have voted. I highly, highly, highly doubt that the numbers work out such that more fraudulent votes would be prevented than voters suppressed with these laws.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:25 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sorry, I'm going to have to say that identification should be needed, whether or not it helps one party over the other. Otherwise, a group of individuals could go around to polling stations casting the votes of people who stayed home, and steal the election. Quite a few small elections have been won by just a few votes; the entire 2000 Presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes.
This might be a valid argument, if it happened. There's no evidence it does, though!

If you and I were going to do your scenario, we'd need to: learn the names of people in that precinct who we know are staying home; hope the bipartisan election monitors don't notice we aren't the person we are claiming to be; and hope we don't do anything suspicious enough for a monitor to challenge us. If we truly changed the election, it would be close, so the parties would send their hoards of lawyers to comb over data. We'd have to hope that they don't notice the odd rise in turnout in certain precincts, or hope they don't catch it.

Obviously, smaller elections don't have that kind of scrutiny. There's still pretty much no evidence it happens. Making laws to fight imaginary voter fraud is only slightly more reasonable than regulating unicorns.

People without jobs, people in the lowest sector of employment (I'm not sure where you are where every job requires ID. Every job requires tax info, but that's not ID), and people in the underground economy (prostitutes deserve to vote as much as CPAs and engineers) all may not have IDs. Despite what people in this thread seem to thing, getting government assistance doesn't require the same kind of ID voting would under these laws. State IDs often require a fee, which is somewhat nakedly a poll tax.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:36 am UTC

I don't agree that the ID requirement is a poll tax. A nondriver photo ID in NYS costs a mere $13 every 8 years to renew, or $6.50 every 10 years if you are on welfare. 65 cents a year is NOT an insurmountable barrier.

Just require the same ID and scrutiny that is needed to apply for SNAP or Medicaid (I assume a SS card suffices, which is free assuming you have birth certificates and so forth; please correct me if I'm wrong). Any more is overkill, any less is folly.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:45 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:40 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Sorry, I'm going to have to say that identification should be needed, whether or not it helps one party over the other. Otherwise, a group of individuals could go around to polling stations casting the votes of people who stayed home, and steal the election. Quite a few small elections have been won by just a few votes; the entire 2000 Presidential election was decided by a mere 537 votes.

Learn to read.

You cannot prevent sections of the population from voting to prevent a largely imagined event that happens approximately as frequently as lightning directly striking a person, particularly in a way that disproportionately affects minorities.

ETA: and one which we're very good at catching because we have these things called voter registrations. We ALREADY have ways that EVERYONE is ALREADY subject to to make sure that each person who casts a vote casts only one vote and it is the person who we think cast it.

The vast majority of voter fraud, rare as it is, has to do with buying and selling votes.

I have altered the content of your post. Pray I do not alter it any further. (Or, if I were to say this any other time than immediately after watching Star Wars on bluray - don't be a dick to others. If you can't post without throwing unhelpful insults, take a break.) -Hawk
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jakovasaur » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:45 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Learn to read you stupid shit.

Maybe you should take a break, because you are full-on mad, bro. You look foolish.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:49 am UTC

Willful ignorance and privileged indifference have that effect on me.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:58 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:ETA: and one which we're very good at catching because we have these things called voter registrations. We ALREADY have ways that EVERYONE is ALREADY subject to to make sure that each person who casts a vote casts only one vote and it is the person who we think cast it.


And that does jack shit if someone pretends to be a dead person*, though dead voters tend not to notice things like their vote already being cast. Considering that this sort of thing is apparently recent, I'd say that the system isn't quite foolproof.

netcrusher88 wrote:Willful ignorance and privileged indifference have that effect on me.


Same here; apply the same scrutiny to yourself as you do to others.



Though in all honesty, more fraud risk is among those who count the *cough*MayorDaley*cough*, among those who decide how to count *cough*JohnBush*cough*, than among the people who actual vote.



*Anyone know if Ballotpedia.org is as 'credible' as Wikipedia?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:15 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I don't agree that the ID requirement is a poll tax. A nondriver photo ID in NYS costs a mere $13 every 8 years to renew, or $6.50 every 10 years if you are on welfare. 65 cents a year is NOT an insurmountable barrier.
So you're arguing a poll tax isn't a poll tax if it's small enough? And you are of course leaving out the travel time, expenses, and lost wages from your calculation, as well as making the assumption that people who need welfare are in fact on welfare.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:20 am UTC

Xeio wrote:Are you being purposefully obtuse for some reason?
Humor. I thought it amusing, given that prominent Republicans do often approve of massacres. (Hopefully not of gays, though.)

The "voting eligibility" game is one where both parties play very dirty. Republican voters are harder to dissuade, while marginal and illegal voters are more likely to vote Democrat. So, Republicans favor more stringent checks than Democrats.* I personally favor more stringent checks, since I prefer more legitimacy in the voting system to less. (Requiring photo ID for voting is a sensible thing that many countries, like, say, Mexico, do.)

*In districts where one party dominates- to the point that graveyard voters are significant- the dominant party doesn't want more stringent checks. But they don't really need the help of graveyard voters to win if they've got enough control over the local politics to get away with that.

Ghostbear wrote:Closer to the original topic, what do people think about Gingrich being the new anti-Romney?
In response to Gingrich rising to be his primary competition, Romney went anti-immigration. Romney will win that fight.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:21 am UTC

So, one recorded instance of two fraudulent votes being counted - results which were later invalidated? Not helping your case here.

Also, there's another thing - absentee ballots. If you pass a law requiring an ID check, you can't have absentee ballots. More disproportionate affect on minorities.

CorruptUser wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:Willful ignorance and privileged indifference have that effect on me.

Same here; apply the same scrutiny to yourself as you do to others.

Says the one who's decided it's totally okay to suppress thousands of voters disproportionately targeted against minorities.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:27 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I don't agree that the ID requirement is a poll tax. A nondriver photo ID in NYS costs a mere $13 every 8 years to renew, or $6.50 every 10 years if you are on welfare. 65 cents a year is NOT an insurmountable barrier.
So you're arguing a poll tax isn't a poll tax if it's small enough? And you are of course leaving out the travel time, expenses, and lost wages from your calculation, as well as making the assumption that people who need welfare are in fact on welfare.


The original poll taxes were as unfairly high as... umm... ~$12-20? Huh.

Alright, I'm wrong. Requiring even a small amount is definitely a poll tax. And by extension, since some ID is required just to have a legitimate job, this country is screwing people even more than I thought.

netcrusher88 wrote:Says the one who's decided it's totally okay to suppress thousands of voters disproportionately targeted against minorities.


I think you are hearing things I didn't say. Saying "there should be an ID requirement" is not the same thing as saying "beat down the black man". If the ID requirement is a poll tax (which I'm starting to agree with thanks to Marzi~), then there should be some subsidy or service or something to make it not a poll tax, or any kind of oppression/suppression/whathaveyou.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:56 am UTC

People complain about absentee ballots and all the fraud but in my experience they're rarely counted unless the election is close. I did a project tracking the mailing of absentee ballots a few election cycles ago but all my work was rendered moot when the election was a landslide.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:30 am UTC

Long lines at polling places on a work day (speaking of which, the fact that are elections are still held on Tuesday long after there being any actual reason for it is kind of gross) are also a form of voter suppression, which Republicans have capitalized on in the past year by cutting back on early voting and shutting down polling places.

actual illegal balloting is so trivial-- statistically speaking-- to how elections are fucked with in this country that it's borderline deceitful to even talk about it as a factor here.

The greater voter turnout is, the more likely Democrats are to win elections. Republicans are aware of this fact and every time they seek to alter election law this awareness is at play.
Image

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Alright, I'm wrong. Requiring even a small amount is definitely a poll tax. And by extension, since some ID is required just to have a legitimate job, this country is screwing people even more than I thought.
I'm not sure where you're getting that ID is required to have a legitimate job. Tax information is, but that is not enough to vote under these laws. There are some states with ID laws that require only a document with your name on it (bank statement, etc). SS card would apply in these circumstances. These are generally not what we're talking about.

In addition, not having a legitimate job, or even being unable to get a legitimate job is no reason someone should not be able to vote.

Every legal resident of a state should be capable of voting without significant burden imposed by the state. Fighting fraud that does not happen is an extremely poor reason to prevent legitimate voters from voting.


And yeah, voter ID laws are not the only way Republicans suppress votes. Republicans tend to oppose restoring voting rights to ex-felons, for example.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:49 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Alright, I'm wrong. Requiring even a small amount is definitely a poll tax. And by extension, since some ID is required just to have a legitimate job, this country is screwing people even more than I thought.


I'm not sure where you're getting that ID is required to have a legitimate job.


Third time I'm linking this. This is an I-9 form. If you don't have the documentation to fill it out, employers are not legally allowed to hire you.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:00 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Third time I'm linking this. This is an I-9 form. If you don't have the documentation to fill it out, employers are not legally allowed to hire you.
Two words: Independent contractor.

It's very possible to be legitimately employed without showing official documentation of any kind.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:14 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Third time I'm linking this. This is an I-9 form. If you don't have the documentation to fill it out, employers are not legally allowed to hire you.
Two words: Independent contractor.

It's very possible to be legitimately employed without showing official documentation of any kind.


Also, too: you can show any number of forms of ID to get employment. Getting a State ID can be a much more onerous process. A passport doesn't count as a State ID and I believe isn't admissible as a form of ID in the acquisition of a State ID in some states. So that means you need things like birth certificate, proof of address and other such things. Those things can be difficult to acquire for someone like a college student. Disenfranchisement is a much more serious problem than voter fraud.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:17 am UTC

When your voter turnout is like 40% in a good year and voter fraud is like one in a million, no shit.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Hawknc » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:49 am UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:Long lines at polling places on a work day (speaking of which, the fact that are elections are still held on Tuesday long after there being any actual reason for it is kind of gross) are also a form of voter suppression, which Republicans have capitalized on in the past year by cutting back on early voting and shutting down polling places.

Holy crap you don't have elections on Saturdays? You're all just "let's do democracy while everyone is at work/college"? The mind, she boggles.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:54 am UTC

Well it's the first, what, Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I think.

So the idea was harvest would happen and everybody would go to market on Monday and be back in time to get to their polling place for the election at some point on Tuesday.

Which was great when the US was an agrarian society. Like 150 years ago.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:01 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Holy crap you don't have elections on Saturdays? You're all just "let's do democracy while everyone is at work/college"? The mind, she boggles.

No kidding. If you work a nine-to-five then you usually go do early voting which is occasionally on a weekend. If you're lucky you can get in before they close. If your polling station isn't closed or you work longer hours or you drive a commute, good luck!

As a college student, I am not allowed to vote in my current county - I'd have to do either an absentee ballot or drive 4 hours to cast my ballot. Absentee ballots must be requested by mail two months in advance, at least. You must register for voting two months in advance, at least. This often requires driving god knows where during business hours to physically request papers.

Removing early voting is bullcrap, making it hard for college students to vote is bullcrap, the lack of same-day-registration in Texas is bullcrap, the fact that our elections might be postponed because the Republican State Congress gerrymandered the new districts that badly that they are being completely re-drawn by a handful of judges is bullcrap, and the voter id laws are bullcrap.

Voting day should be a national holiday, registration should not be a hassle, early voting is very important, absentee ballots should actually be counted, and specifically naming types of acceptable ids should not be ok.

As to the Work ID thing, I had to remind my employer for a month straight to get him to remember to fill out the tax forms. And the passport that I used to prove my information? It cost $200.

More on topic: I really can't see Gingrich being supported that heavily in the actual nomination. Speaking to my father, a non-christian republican, he likes his ideas, but dad thinks he's a big jerk and is hugely unlikeable. Anyway, I can't really see the christian right supporting a guy who divorced his wives and cheated on them. A lot. It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Cathy wrote:More on topic: I really can't see Gingrich being supported that heavily in the actual nomination. Speaking to my father, a non-christian republican, he likes his ideas, but dad thinks he's a big jerk and is hugely unlikeable. Anyway, I can't really see the christian right supporting a guy who divorced his wives and cheated on them. A lot. It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o

Yeah well it's cool as long as the guy with four failed marriages protects the sanctity of marriage by fighting against committed lifelong couples getting married.

Clinton was sleeping with his aide?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:37 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Holy crap you don't have elections on Saturdays? You're all just "let's do democracy while everyone is at work/college"? The mind, she boggles.

I think this sentiment is what has inspired the rise of mail-in ballots.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5940
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Angua » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:08 am UTC

Here's an idea to stop people voting twice - get them to dip a finger in indelible ink after voting. It wouldn't work for absentee voting, but it will stop people driving around to different polling stations.

NB - the above is actually done in at least one country that I know of.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:13 am UTC

Having been a poll worker for 4 years, I favor requiring ID's for voting. Down in Florida, prospective voters are asked to confirm their information when found on the voter register, which contains your address and party affiliation information. That information should remain off-limits unless identity can be established with a picture and signature ID.

If people can't be bothered to vote after a history filled with centuries of bloodshed and oppression to keep sectors of the population from voting, that lack of appreciation for struggles will mark a kind of person who won't even take the time to inform themselves on whom they're voting for.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:17 am UTC

While I'm a favor of informed voters, ID is not a conceivably relevant way you could possibly gauge one's level of informedness.

Also, you don't get to set requirements to vote. It goes both ways - nobody can set requirements to vote that exclude you either.

I made a blag about this back when CNN found some dumbass black guy (because, you know, his opinion in favor of Jim Crow laws is more valid because he's black) to advocate literacy tests for voting.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:56 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
Cathy wrote:More on topic: I really can't see Gingrich being supported that heavily in the actual nomination. Speaking to my father, a non-christian republican, he likes his ideas, but dad thinks he's a big jerk and is hugely unlikeable. Anyway, I can't really see the christian right supporting a guy who divorced his wives and cheated on them. A lot. It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o

Yeah well it's cool as long as the guy with four failed marriages protects the sanctity of marriage by fighting against committed lifelong couples getting married.

Clinton was sleeping with his aide?

Wasn't Monica Lewinski... okay, don't mind me, I was like 4 when the whole thing happened. But yeah, lol at Gingrich's family values.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Decker » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:17 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o

I want to imagine it was EXACTLY at the same time. It's funnier that way.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:57 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:More on topic: I really can't see Gingrich being supported that heavily in the actual nomination. Speaking to my father, a non-christian republican, he likes his ideas, but dad thinks he's a big jerk and is hugely unlikeable. Anyway, I can't really see the christian right supporting a guy who divorced his wives and cheated on them. A lot. It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o


"aide". Also, I'm sure we will all be routinely reminded that Clinton was not impeached for adultery but for perjury and obstruction of justice. I also seem to be reading that Gingrich has turned over a new leaf spiritually in the past dozen years or so and is repentant of his philandering. Long story short, I think many conservatives will find themselves able to support Gingrich once they decide to.

I also think he may be able to beat Obama. He isn't likable, but I remember 1994 and the Contract With America was very popular and electrifying and transcended the characters of the individuals who were running for Congress. If he formed a commonsense centrist message of that sort today, he might get the same result. (Of course, if he doesn't, then he's just a grumpy ex-lobbyist and goes down like a Dukakis or a Kerry.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Having been a poll worker for 4 years, I favor requiring ID's for voting. Down in Florida, prospective voters are asked to confirm their information when found on the voter register, which contains your address and party affiliation information. That information should remain off-limits unless identity can be established with a picture and signature ID.

If people can't be bothered to vote after a history filled with centuries of bloodshed and oppression to keep sectors of the population from voting, that lack of appreciation for struggles will mark a kind of person who won't even take the time to inform themselves on whom they're voting for.


The one person who remotely agrees with me is Lucrece? The hell?

Decker wrote:
Cathy wrote:It still boggles my mind that he was impeaching Clinton for sleeping with his aid, and at the same time, was sleeping with with his own aid. O.o

I want to imagine it was EXACTLY at the same time. It's funnier that way.


I want to imagine it was in the same room.

Anyway, Clinton was not being impeached for sleeping with his aide, but for lying under oath about sleeping with his aide. Which, you know, should never have even been required in the first place. Seriously, you should only be under oath when you are on trial. The whole thing was bullshit and everyone knew it. At least Russ Feingold had the wherewithal to vote to continue the trial to give the Republicans 'every reasonable opportunity'; when your opponents obviously have fatal foot-in-mouth syndrome, you laugh at them, make jokes at their expense, show everyone how deep that foot is lodged in the mouth, but you never help them remove the foot from the mouth or give them a way to argue they never had a foot in their mouth. Sigh, miss you Feingold.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

Contract For America wasn't centrist by any sensible measure. Requiring a 3/5ths majority to pass a tax increase is a radical departure from the constitution and not a centrist idea at all. Also, too: It didn't really fucking work at all. None of the reforms promised actually did anything. It was just a bunch of sturm und drang, much like Gingrich's current candidacy. Boy, he's going to sell a lot of books.

I'm okay with requiring an ID for voting. HOWEVER, I think you need to make it a priority to help people get their photo ID and accept IDs like a passport. Cutting staff to DMVs in Democratic districts like Scott Walker did in WI isn't conducive to helping people vote. Moving voting to Saturday would also help, I think but whatever. My point is that if you are going to make voting more onerous in order to make it more secure/accurate, then you have a responsibility to make sure that everyone has access to the tools required for voting so that they can exercise their rights.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:04 pm UTC

Herman Cain is apparently considering ending his book tour.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dauric » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Herman Cain is apparently considering ending his book tour.


At this point he's pretty much a disaster for the social conservatives, and his "9-9-9" plan really doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of the fiscal conservatives.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:38 pm UTC

Now we get to see how Gingrich's "get chummy with Herman Cain so that Cain's supporters rub off on him when Cain inevitably leaves the race" strategy worked.

I've been trying for a while now to come up with something that will satisfy people who think that voter fraud is an actual problem without actually depressing turnout. At the moment I've been thinking in terms of something like a username and password, but I get the sneaking suspicion that there's something I'm missing that makes it a bad idea.
Image

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Xeio » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:44 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:I've been trying for a while now to come up with something that will satisfy people who think that voter fraud is an actual problem without actually depressing turnout. At the moment I've been thinking in terms of something like a username and password, but I get the sneaking suspicion that there's something I'm missing that makes it a bad idea.
There essentially is no such policy that would fulfill both criteria. I mean, after all even a username/password has to be setup somewhere, doesn't it? At least as much effort as getting a new ID since you'd still have to verify you are you. And we all know how good the general public is at picking (and then remembering) passwords too...

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:01 pm UTC

Garm wrote:Contract For America wasn't centrist by any sensible measure. [...] Also, too: It didn't really fucking work at all. None of the reforms promised actually did anything.


Fair enough. Perhaps I should have called it "populist" rather than "centrist", because the most discussed issues of term limits, the line-item veto, tort reform, and so on resonated quite a bit beyond the conservative base. If Gingrich could throw some raw meat toward the center like that again instead of just playing to the base, well, it starts to sound like Bill Clinton's vote might be up for grabs.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:26 pm UTC

It's worth noting that the Contract, and more specifically the deadlock between Gingrich and Clinton, were all significantly important to balancing the budget in the late 90's.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:34 pm UTC

@Xeio: It can be set up upon registration, and made optional for people who are already registered to vote.

@Dark567: And the gutting of the welfare state that came with it has had fairly disastrous results that weren't felt during the boom years.
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests