The GOP War On Voting

Has this been mentioned yet?

State employee fired after telling co-workers about photo ID policy

A low-level state employee was fired Thursday after he sent an email to his fellow employees telling them about the state Department of Transportation’s policy on giving out free photo identification cards for voting.

Chris Larsen, who had worked in the mail room at the state Department of Safety and Professional Services, sent an email Thursday morning to all employees at the agency’s headquarters explaining that the DOT would provide photo IDs to people only if they specifically asked to have the fee waived.

[...] In May, Republicans approved a requirement that voters show photo ID at the polls starting next year. They also told the DOT to give out free IDs for voting purposes to ensure the ID requirement was not an illegal poll tax.

The department began giving out the free IDs in July but told employees in a memo to provide them for free only if people asked not to be charged. If they don’t ask, they are charged $28.

So yeah, drivers license-less Wisconsinites can avoid paying a $28 fee for the privilege of voting, but only if they know to ask for a free ID. But don't tell them. And if you do, it's a firing offense.

bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

1,000 out of 250,000,000. That is such an infinitesimally small amount that spending the kind of money required to lessen it is absolutely not worth it. It's even more of a waste when you add in the additional costs of revamping how voter identification is conducted and not make it more of a burden.

How about the 100,000 votes in the Chicago Governor's election in 1982?

Filled with Citations and actual court findings for your pleasure. And oh, lookie, it was all Democrats. Whodathunkit.

Additionally, in this article, I love the reference to the "5,217 "students" who were registered to vote at a polling place located within the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who listed as their resi­dence an on-campus dormitory that housed only 2,600 students". Though I'm told there's nothing like that going on in Wisconsin, that there might be 10 fraudulent votes. Does anyone have any count on the number of ineligible votes that get tossed in elections? Every one of those that gets through is a corruption of the legal process.

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

bandit0013 wrote:

Here's another pretty famous case where a Democrat won by voter fraud.

Names of deceased persons and felons were found on the rolls, and dozens of additional votes were counted from voters living outside the district.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation investigated aspects of the election, and District Attorney Bill Gibbons obtained 37 indictments, 35 of which are felonies, against three Shelby County poll workers for alleged election fraud.

But really, there's no reason to worry here. GOP is just scaremongering. Besides, she only won by 13 votes before the investigation. Surely if there's only a small amount of fraud going on it won't impact an election right? I mean, when dead people are voting and people not in the district are voting, why would we want a current identification? Surely it's just to disenfranchise poor people.

You do realize that the majority of the incidents of voter fraud in both your examples were done by poll workers, and not the voters themselves, right? This does not lend any weight to your position, since it was not voters themselves trying to fraudulently cast votes, it was poll workers. In the quoted example, one of the poll workers was apparently impersonating an election official (who was their relative) for the purpose of certifying the ineligible voters. Stricter voter ID laws would not have stopped this, as the poll workers would have just claimed that the ineligible people met the stricter ID requirements.

Stengah wrote:

You do realize that the majority of the incidents of voter fraud in both your examples were done by poll workers, and not the voters themselves, right? This does not lend any weight to your position, since it was not voters themselves trying to fraudulently cast votes, it was poll workers. In the quoted example, one of the poll workers was apparently impersonating an election official (who was their relative) for the purpose of certifying the ineligible voters. Stricter voter ID laws would not have stopped this, as the poll workers would have just claimed that the ineligible people met the stricter ID requirements.

Actually stricter voter ID laws do help with this. If someone who isn't a resident or isn't alive is still on the rolls, that is a failure of the system to provide accurate and up to date information which is almost always due to lack of centralization and distribution of data. Having up to date eligibility lists would be EASILY fixed by a centralized national id registration system. I mean, if I change my address at the post office, why shouldn't it automatically update the voter registration lists? If I'm declared dead at a hospital, why doesn't that information flow through? Etc.

When you don't have compulsory IDs and a central tracking system you can have things like a homeless guy registered in 5 different districts at the same time. This makes the life of the fraudulent polling worker MUCH easier. The other weakness is without electronic polling stations being able to shut down when the vote is over polling workers can after the fact vote for no-shows (which is probably the most common form of fraud). With electronic voting you would be able to easily lock them down or even identify trends like "oh hey, look, 30 minutes before the polls closed there were a higher number of votes per minute cast and they were all for one candidate, that looks suspicious"

Stengah wrote:

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

Please cite where I called anyone a name? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I've been attacking arguments.

Back a couple pages.

bandit0013, a centralized national ID registration system isn't what these laws provide for, and I'm becoming more confused that you keep conflating hypothetical benefits of generalized ID reform or improvements in the broader electoral process with the exclusively-focused-on-requiring-ID-for-voting provisions of the laws this thread is about.

Yeah, the facts are still in dispute (DOT, after their first interview with local media, has been claiming that Larsen had a history of workplace violations, while Larsen has maintained that he had never previously been disciplined). It seems likely that any potential court case should be able to sort out the truth of the matter relatively easily.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

bandit0013, a centralized national ID registration system isn't what these laws provide for, and I'm becoming more confused that you keep conflating hypothetical benefits of generalized ID reform or improvements in the broader electoral process with the exclusively-focused-on-requiring-ID-for-voting provisions of the laws this thread is about.

One of the main thrusts of requiring an up-to-date voter ID is to keep the registration rolls fresh. Laws like Wisconsin and Indiana are good first step. A national one would be a better step, more efficient, much cheaper.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Yeah, the facts are still in dispute (DOT, after their first interview with local media, has been claiming that Larsen had a history of workplace violations, while Larsen has maintained that he had never previously been disciplined). It seems likely that any potential court case should be able to sort out the truth of the matter relatively easily.

I still say regardless of previous history that you have a case here of a mailroom worker sending an email to the entire office hyperventilating about the policy and encouraging them to engage in behavior that is the exact opposite of what the people in charge have communicated. It's insubordinate, and I'm not surprised he got canned.

If he wanted to engage in civil disobedience he would have been much safer just verbally talking to the people handling the applications, or sending anonymous letters to the media. If he disagrees strongly with a management decision there are also documented open door policies where he could meet with the manager and potentially the HR department and discuss his views in a private manner that would never be able to be grounds for his termination and the documentation would have likely protected him from constructive termination.

I think his heart was probably in the right place but the way he handled it was pretty dumb.

bandit0013 wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

bandit0013, a centralized national ID registration system isn't what these laws provide for, and I'm becoming more confused that you keep conflating hypothetical benefits of generalized ID reform or improvements in the broader electoral process with the exclusively-focused-on-requiring-ID-for-voting provisions of the laws this thread is about.

One of the main thrusts of requiring an up-to-date voter ID is to keep the registration rolls fresh. Laws like Wisconsin and Indiana are good first step. A national one would be a better step, more efficient, much cheaper.

Again, while improving the accuracy of voter registration rolls may be a good thing, that's not what these laws provide for.

ALEC's model voter ID legislation (PDF)
2011 Wisconsin Act 23 (the voter ID bill) (PDF)

The best-case for you here seems to be that the ALEC-written voter ID laws do nothing to solve a nonexistent problem, while requiring additional expenditures to do so, and simultaneously ignoring a larger threat to the accuracy and transparency of our elections.

bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

Please cite where I called anyone a name? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I've been attacking arguments.

In this thread:

bandit0013, to Malor wrote:

You're coming off like a partisan shill,

In the education thread you called OG Slinger an ageist for saying old people don't handle technology as well as young people do, and called CheezePavilion a bigot for saying that Americans are likely to handle school vouchers poorly.

bandit0013 wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Yeah, the facts are still in dispute (DOT, after their first interview with local media, has been claiming that Larsen had a history of workplace violations, while Larsen has maintained that he had never previously been disciplined). It seems likely that any potential court case should be able to sort out the truth of the matter relatively easily.

I still say regardless of previous history that you have a case here of a mailroom worker sending an email to the entire office hyperventilating about the policy and encouraging them to engage in behavior that is the exact opposite of what the people in charge have communicated. It's insubordinate, and I'm not surprised he got canned.

If he wanted to engage in civil disobedience he would have been much safer just verbally talking to the people handling the applications, or sending anonymous letters to the media. If he disagrees strongly with a management decision there are also documented open door policies where he could meet with the manager and potentially the HR department and discuss his views in a private manner that would never be able to be grounds for his termination and the documentation would have likely protected him from constructive termination.

I think his heart was probably in the right place but the way he handled it was pretty dumb.

I'm probably with bandit on this one. If he truly was a lowly mailroom worker, why was he sending an all office email talking about policy? But if there is a lawsuit, I'm sure the facts will be brought to light.

Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

Please cite where I called anyone a name? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I've been attacking arguments.

In this thread:

bandit0013, to Malor wrote:

You're coming off like a partisan shill,

In the education thread you called OG Slinger an ageist for saying old people don't handle technology as well as young people do, and called CheezePavilion a bigot for saying that Americans are likely to handle school vouchers poorly.

Um, if someone continuously rants about Republicans that's what they're coming off as. It's name calling to point that out? I didn't even say he is a partisan shill, just that he's giving that appearance.

Not really looking to bring other threads into it, but if you suggest that an old person can't do something a young person can (that is demonstrably false), that's ageism. Ageism, also called age discrimination is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination. Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant. If you suggest that old people shouldn't be teaching a class because "old people don't understand technology" that is textbook ageism. If OG was in charge of a school district and uttered that he'd be fired and sued into oblivion so fast his head would spin.

I'm not for name calling, but if you engage in an activity like Ageism, is it forum policy that I can't point it out? I would consider name calling to be like "Bandit, you're stupid". If someone on this forum were to make an assertion that, I don't know, women should be in the kitchen. Would we be name callers for saying "hey, that's sexist"?

bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

Please cite where I called anyone a name? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I've been attacking arguments.

In this thread:

bandit0013, to Malor wrote:

You're coming off like a partisan shill,

In the education thread you called OG Slinger an ageist for saying old people don't handle technology as well as young people do, and called CheezePavilion a bigot for saying that Americans are likely to handle school vouchers poorly.

Um, if someone continuously rants about Republicans that's what they're coming off as. It's name calling to point that out? I didn't even say he is a partisan shill, just that he's giving that appearance.

Not really looking to bring other threads into it, but if you suggest that an old person can't do something a young person can (that is demonstrably false), that's ageism. Ageism, also called age discrimination is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination. Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant. If you suggest that old people shouldn't be teaching a class because "old people don't understand technology" that is textbook ageism. If OG was in charge of a school district and uttered that he'd be fired and sued into oblivion so fast his head would spin.

I'm not for name calling, but if you engage in an activity like Ageism, is it forum policy that I can't point it out? I would consider name calling to be like "Bandit, you're stupid". If someone on this forum were to make an assertion that, I don't know, women should be in the kitchen. Would we be name callers for saying "hey, that's sexist"?

Except no one said old people can't do something a young person can, just that the average old person can't do it as well as the average young person.

All I was doing was saying that you're much more pleasant to discuss things with when you make informed counterpoints instead of dismissing entire posters because you perceive offense in one of their statements or their line of argument. Malor certainly does like to employ hyperbole, but his points are valid none-the-less, and deserve to be considered.
Edit - And ranting about Republicans does not a partisan shill make. It assumes that the only reason one would be against Republicans is that they themselves are a Democrat, which Malor is not (I believe he considers himself a small "l" libertarian).

bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Stengah wrote:

See how much better your arguments are when you actually make valid points instead of calling people names?

Please cite where I called anyone a name? If I did I apologize, but I'm pretty sure I've been attacking arguments.

In this thread:

bandit0013, to Malor wrote:

You're coming off like a partisan shill,

In the education thread you called OG Slinger an ageist for saying old people don't handle technology as well as young people do, and called CheezePavilion a bigot for saying that Americans are likely to handle school vouchers poorly.

Um, if someone continuously rants about Republicans that's what they're coming off as. It's name calling to point that out? I didn't even say he is a partisan shill, just that he's giving that appearance.

Not really looking to bring other threads into it, but if you suggest that an old person can't do something a young person can (that is demonstrably false), that's ageism. Ageism, also called age discrimination is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination. Age discrimination in hiring has been shown to exist in the United States. Joanna Lahey, professor at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M, found that firms are more than 40% more likely to interview a young adult job applicant than an older job applicant. If you suggest that old people shouldn't be teaching a class because "old people don't understand technology" that is textbook ageism. If OG was in charge of a school district and uttered that he'd be fired and sued into oblivion so fast his head would spin.

I'm not for name calling, but if you engage in an activity like Ageism, is it forum policy that I can't point it out? I would consider name calling to be like "Bandit, you're stupid". If someone on this forum were to make an assertion that, I don't know, women should be in the kitchen. Would we be name callers for saying "hey, that's sexist"?

Just to take this to its logical conclusion. If someone is acting like an asshole, why can't I point out that he's an asshole? I'm not calling him an asshole, I'm just saying he's acting like one. Only, that's your opinion. It's not a fact. Now all of a sudden the discussion turns into whether or not the other person is an ageist, partisan hack, asshole, etc.

It drags us off point and destroys good conversation. Don't assume your perception is truth when it comes to the motivations or positions of others. Stick to the arguments, not the person making them.