Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

More voter disenfrancise goodness


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
47 replies to this topic

#46 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 04-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,107
  • Reputation: 612
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:06 PM

A good percentage of votes are counted by machine these days unless a re-count is needed. There's also a big difference between actively manipulating the vote count (which is plainly illegal) and turning someone away at the poll on a legal technicality.

Registration process almost always requires a Social Security or Driver's License number AND ID..


Exactly. So why are these ID laws needed then? This is why I say that the amount of actual fraud is overrated. And all this debate doesn't change the fact that voter fraud isn't the primary motivation behind these laws being passed in the first place. It's not even just the ID laws either, it's the laws that say college students can't vote in the town where they attend school if they live on campus, but have to vote in their parent's hometown.

That's blatantly aimed at reducing a growing democratic voter base. And very many of these laws have such provisions in them.

#47 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:58 AM

A good percentage of votes are counted by machine these days unless a re-count is needed. There's also a big difference between actively manipulating the vote count (which is plainly illegal) and turning someone away at the poll on a legal technicality.


Machine voting is not immune to election staff manipulation.

http://caef.us/elect...lectoral-fraud/



In the case of machine voting, the election staff has, if properly equipped, easier ability to grossly change vote counts.

So... yeah... if you're really worried about disenfranchisement because of Election staff bias... I'd say you should be much more concerned about the integrity of the election process on much more wider levels than telling a guy who can't produce ID he can't vote.

Exactly. So why are these ID laws needed then?


Because the more accurate our election process can be, the more it represents the will of the people, rather than the will of those who would see the will of the people subverted.

And in this case, THE PEOPLE, are legal Citizens of the voting precinct.

This is why I say that the amount of actual fraud is overrated. And all this debate doesn't change the fact that voter fraud isn't the primary motivation behind these laws being passed in the first place. It's not even just the ID laws either, it's the laws that say college students can't vote in the town where they attend school if they live on campus, but have to vote in their parent's hometown.


And this is the problem. Saying "Fraud is Overrated" means you are willing to accept election manipulation. ONE case of Fraud destroys the integrity of an election's results. Why?

Because the losing party has the right to say the election was a farce, and in some cases, this can be actionable.

As far as your college concerns... If they aren't going to be home or can't be during the election... they can fill out an absentee ballot. Why is that a problem?

That's blatantly aimed at reducing a growing democratic voter base. And very many of these laws have such provisions in them.


No... it isn't.

It's paranoid racism to think a whole political party is trying to keep an ethnic group from voting. However it's a fact that both political parties have had grass-roots groups commit fraud in elections on their behalf.

And that's what is completely stupid about the liberal argument here... in the long run this benefits BOTH parties. You would only be arguing against this if you are TRYING to defraud elections.

#48 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • Joined: 16-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,447
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:48 PM

Oh yeah I keep forgetting the one case of voter fraud justifies it. The process is completely screwed up because of it. That's why the Voting Rights Act was passed - if the process worked that would not have been needed.

Your argument is based on nothing. Nothing at all.
My argument is based in pure statistics. I've proven over and over, to the point where I'm pretty sick of it, that the evidence shows clearly that voter fraud is much, much less of a disenfranchising activity than the mechanics of voting itself. It's not an arguable point, the two are so out of whack.

You go on and feel good about yourself and your desire to make sure that people can't vote because they don't vote the way you want them to - I'll stick with the evidence, the statistics, and the law, since they all point my way.

Thanks for the ACORN reference, been what? A week?


lol he still posts about ACORN like it was a thing