The GOP War On Voting

Pages

In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year.

Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud. "Our democracy is under siege from an enemy so small it could be hiding anywhere," joked Stephen Colbert. A 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a leading advocate for voting rights at the New York University School of Law, quantified the problem in stark terms. "It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning," the report calculated, "than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls."

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Paleocon wrote:

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Wow. Just wow. Is this standard tea party dogma? Taking this argument to it's logical extension, you'll go back to only allowing property owners to vote. In fact, screw congress, why not go for full on House of Lords style representation?

I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

Dysplastic wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Wow. Just wow. Is this standard tea party dogma? Taking this argument to it's logical extension, you'll go back to only allowing property owners to vote. In fact, screw congress, why not go for full on House of Lords style representation?

I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

Fairly common from my observation. This is not even the worst of it as far as I've seen.

There was one idea that had a great deal of currency among teabaggers in the past that proposed apportioning representation by the amount you pay in federal taxes. There are a number of reasons why this would be impracticable let alone batfeces crazy. One of which is that changes in the tax code would necessarily amount to changes in enfranchisement.

One of my bagger buddies introduced me to this very argument. It took all of 30 seconds for me to think of and reply with "Hmm. So the writer of the song 'Cop Killa' should have greater political representation than the entire LAPD, right?".

He shut the hell up.

Dysplastic wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Wow. Just wow. Is this standard tea party dogma? Taking this argument to it's logical extension, you'll go back to only allowing property owners to vote. In fact, screw congress, why not go for full on House of Lords style representation?

I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

I am willing to be a number of them would have been all over that.

NathanialG wrote:

I am willing to be a number of them would have been all over that.

Would you also be for this slight paraphrase?

Why are right-wing activist groups so keen on voter suppression in working class neighborhoods?

Because they know the rich can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing kleptocratic politicians. Corporate welfare recipients are particularly open to astroturfing and outright theft.

Registering them to vote is like handing out flamethrowers to mass murderers. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the greedy, unproductive, generational wealthy of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why the Tea Party zealously supports voter suppression programs in working class neighborhoods..

You'd think the GOP wouldn't be too worried this campaign season. Obama's not exactly a popular guy right now, on either side.

LobsterMobster wrote:

You'd think the GOP wouldn't be too worried this campaign season. Obama's not exactly a popular guy right now, on either side.

Dubya wasn't terribly popular either, but he managed to destroy a pretty tepid candidate. I suspect the big worry among the Republicans is that any candidate capable of winning the primary is likely to be too batfeces insane to win the general.

Dubya didn't destroy Kerry. Jerome Corsi and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - an Orwellian name if there ever was one - did that.

Paleocon wrote:
NathanialG wrote:

I am willing to be a number of them would have been all over that.

Would you also be for this slight paraphrase?

Why are right-wing activist groups so keen on voter suppression in working class neighborhoods?

Because they know the rich can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing kleptocratic politicians. Corporate welfare recipients are particularly open to astroturfing and outright theft.

Registering them to vote is like handing out flamethrowers to mass murderers. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the greedy, unproductive, generational wealthy of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why the Tea Party zealously supports voter suppression programs in working class neighborhoods..

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that some of the founding fathers would have been for limiting the voting rights of people without property. I am not for any sort of limits on voting.

NathanialG wrote:

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that some of the founding fathers would have been for limiting the voting rights of people without property. I am not for any sort of limits on voting.

Not once they saw the kind of people who own property these days.

The GOP here in Wisconsin passed a Voter ID law which is widely expected to disenfranchise poor, students, and elderly. It's discussed over the course of a couple pages in the State Senate Recall thread (starting here).

Not surprising that they're trying this elsewhere.

I sadly can't remember what state it was in, but there was a youtube clip going around a few months ago from some Tea Party convention where a speaker talked about how only property owners should vote because of their "greater ties to the community" got a lot of cheers.

Well, there is some truth in that. I live on a street where there are lots of 'stay six months or a year' travellers. Europeans, Australians etc., that come to the UK and work for a bit then leave. They have no reason to think about the long term future of place when it comes to things like new buildings going up, keeping the street tidy, considering neighbours and so on.

For many years - and they still aren't gone - we had a succession of horrible backpackers that treated the place like sh*t.

There needs to be some kind of mechanism to take into account people who are invested - perhaps emotionally - in the area. I'm not sure that owning property should be that measure, but I don't see anything wrong with discussing it as part of the topic at large.

EDIT:

To be fair, it was the Italians and Spanish that were the troublemakers. Italians mainly. The core issue was the woman who owns the property where they lived was...nigh on a slum landlord, so even ownership by itself isn't a good enough criterion.

Yonder wrote:

I sadly can't remember what state it was in, but there was a youtube clip going around a few months ago from some Tea Party convention where a speaker talked about how only property owners should vote because of their "greater ties to the community" got a lot of cheers.

I'm fine with that as long as they include provisions that prohibits mobile home (aka trailer) and junk cars. If your property has a trailer or an abandoned car on it your property rights don't count and you're not eligible to vote.

That should successfully eliminate about 65% of the Tea Party vote.

Yonder wrote:

I sadly can't remember what state it was in, but there was a youtube clip going around a few months ago from some Tea Party convention where a speaker talked about how only property owners should vote because of their "greater ties to the community" got a lot of cheers.

You think they'd like Obama more than they do for being a 'community organizer' if they feel that way.

Wrong community, I guess.

Most Tea Partiers aren't trailer trash, guys, they're educated white professionals. Moves to disenfranchise the poor largely won't affect them, because they're not poor.

In North Carolina many Republicans believe it's illegal immigrants who are registering to vote - despite an existential void of evidence. Our Voter ID bill passed, but was vetoed by the governor and the Republicans couldn't override it. An example of the kind of arguments you see was in the Charlotte Observer, written by Pat McCrory, who will probably be the Republican candidate for NC governor in 2012.

The problem with these laws is insidious, and goes far beyond the disenfranchisement effects - essentially, Republicans wish to make the exercise of citizenship dependent on government approval. I can't imagine a more totalitarian outlook than having to show your papers in order to vote.

Showing your "papers" isn't the problem - your presence at the voting site must be verified and recorded. It's what you have to do to *get* those papers that is the issue.

Dysplastic wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Interesting. One of my teabagger buddies just sent me this.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Wow. Just wow. Is this standard tea party dogma? Taking this argument to it's logical extension, you'll go back to only allowing property owners to vote. In fact, screw congress, why not go for full on House of Lords style representation?

I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

Er what? In order to cast a vote in the new democracy of America, one had to be white (except in a few Northern states), male (except in New Jersey, where women voted until 1807), and a landowner (nearly everywhere). In some places, that left more than 85 percent of the adult population out of the political process. That was the system set up by the founding fathers. I'm not so sure they would be rolling in their graves.

Robear wrote:

Showing your "papers" isn't the problem - your presence at the voting site must be verified and recorded. It's what you have to do to *get* those papers that is the issue.

Just about every state in the union has a free state id available to its residents. If you can't be bothered to head down to the BMV for an hour I really don't have a problem with you missing the vote.

Dysplastic wrote:

I think the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

bandit00013 wrote:

Er what? In order to cast a vote in the new democracy of America, one had to be white (except in a few Northern states), male (except in New Jersey, where women voted until 1807), and a landowner (nearly everywhere). In some places, that left more than 85 percent of the adult population out of the political process. That was the system set up by the founding fathers. I'm not so sure they would be rolling in their graves. ;)

Very true. Blame it on my fundamental Canadian misunderstanding of the founding fathers - I'm still trying to figure them out since I saw them deified all over DC early this year.

Let me rephrase that to say that the pop-culture, do-no-wrong hollywood script founding fathers who are obviously all about our freedomz n' such would be rolling in their graves.

Just about every state in the union has a free state id available to its residents. If you can't be bothered to head down to the BMV for an hour I really don't have a problem with you missing the vote.

"Just about every state", yes. We've seen efforts to roll that back from, you guessed it, the GOP, the latest in Wisconsin.

But do you know *why* we have those free ids?

We've got this going on in Maine too. We had same-day voter registrations for almost 40 years, until our Republican led senate decided to repeal it "to ease Election Day burdens on municipal clerks." They've also been making a lot of noise about voter fraud, mostly aimed a college students (they says they've found a little over 200 instances of voter fraud, but 80% of them are merely instances where the student is still registered to vote in their home state, with no evidence of them actually voting there as well as here).

If you can't be bothered to head down to the BMV for an hour I really don't have a problem with you missing the vote.

It is usually much, much more involved than that.

Malor wrote:
If you can't be bothered to head down to the BMV for an hour I really don't have a problem with you missing the vote.

It is usually much, much more involved than that.

Not sure what it's like in the US but over here the Town Hall is open between 11:00 and 16:00 on workdays. I can imagine that if you have two jobs to make ends meet, you can't actually afford the time to visit.

Malor wrote:
If you can't be bothered to head down to the BMV for an hour I really don't have a problem with you missing the vote.

It is usually much, much more involved than that.

How to Obtain an Ohio Identification (ID) Card

Applicant must provide proof of the following:
Full legal name
Date of birth
Social Security number (if one has ever been assigned),
Legal presence (U.S. Birth Certificate, valid U.S. Passport/Passport Card, Naturalization Papers, USCIS documents),
Residency.

See Acceptable Documents.

You may apply for an Ohio Identification Card at any local Deputy Registrar License Agency

-----

In Ohio you have 10 choices for primary document, 18 choices for secondary document, and for proof of residency all you need is a utility bill in your name with current address. But basically as long as you have a copy of your birth certificate (easily gotten via mail if you don't have on from your state of birth) and just a print out from the social security office (don't even need the card), you can get an ID, same day.

I once needed a copy of my birth certificate. You can get it for free if you go to where you were born, or via mail, I think they charged me like $10 or something for a notarized copy.

-----

I also know for a fact (having gone through the legal immigration process) that even being a foreign born citizen as long as you have your acceptable docs getting your driver's license or state id takes about half an hour depending on the lines.

Here's the interesting thing to me that no one has brought up. In a democratic republic like ours there are these "get out the vote" drives. I recall Michael Moore was doing one for college students where they were giving away dorm staples like pop tarts and ramen noodles, etc in exchange for registering, voting, etc.

Does anyone think there's a moral hazard with going out and rounding up people who you think are likely to vote for you, giving them gifts, and then delivering them to the polling station? One would think that if voting was important to you you'd get down to the polls and do it, or mail an absentee ballot, or something?

Lucan wrote:

Not sure what it's like in the US but over here the Town Hall is open between 11:00 and 16:00 on workdays. I can imagine that if you have two jobs to make ends meet, you can't actually afford the time to visit.

Phoenix proper is one of the largest geographical cities in America. With budget cuts on the state, county and city level, DMV places have closed to be consolidated (where one goes to get a state ID) and our meager bus system (we only have one light rail line) was cut back as well.

Imagine this past July when we went for several weeks of 110+ degree weather and thinking that someone can just walk a half mile to the nearest bus station and wait for the bus in the heat and then spend an hour on the bus (assuming no connections) to get to the nearest DMV. That is, of course, assuming they have a job that doesn't keep them there from 8 AM to 5 PM or they even have a job where they get paid time off (which would exclude low income workers who are wait staff working at a local diner).

Why should it be a requirement to invest hours upon hours of time to garner an ID just so you can exercise the constitutional right to vote?

bandit0013 wrote:

Here's the interesting thing to me that no one has brought up. In a democratic republic like ours there are these "get out the vote" drives. I recall Michael Moore was doing one for college students where they were giving away dorm staples like pop tarts and ramen noodles, etc in exchange for registering, voting, etc.

Does anyone think there's a moral hazard with going out and rounding up people who you think are likely to vote for you, giving them gifts, and then delivering them to the polling station? One would think that if voting was important to you you'd get down to the polls and do it, or mail an absentee ballot, or something?

I have no real problem with getting more people to vote. As long as they aren't walking people incapable of making their own decisions into the ballot station, then it is fine.

Does anyone think there's a moral hazard with going out and rounding up people who you think are likely to vote for you, giving them gifts, and then delivering them to the polling station? One would think that if voting was important to you you'd get down to the polls and do it, or mail an absentee ballot, or something?

They are not telling you who to vote for... You seem to be arguing that there's a moral hazard in motivating people to vote...?

Pages