In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 30 2014 07:25 oneofthem wrote: obvious general direction here would be to have an independent, non politically chosen body do these things. politicians will not relent control of their game though
What counts as "non-political"? At some point or another somebody's getting picked by somebody else.
there's the administrative technocrat side of things, with academic input on design of these systems.
the idea that certain actors are completely binded to those that choose them is far too crude. institutional integrity can be a thing, especially very public ones that are conscious of their public and sensitive role. there is a certain body of technical knowledge, be it legal or administrative, that can take on a life of its own and power respective institutions.
On October 30 2014 06:11 Introvert wrote: Right now i can only skim, but
A) there are obviously things that go wrong, and the guy will get his due. B)With respect to the turnout question for those states, I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn since it didn't affect other subgroups, just those two. And that's only in two states. If that's the whole of the opposition, then it seems kind of weak. The general trend is pretty clear. 5 studies found no reduction, 4 found some, and one an increase. And I know in some states it has gone up.
So best case scenario they do nothing, worst case they disenfranchise millions. Seems pretty obvious that they should be abandoned unless the sole objectives are the motives I mentioned.
No. Best case it prevents any fraud that would otherwise occur, worst, it doesn't. And just like you can argue that fraud doesn't disenfranchise enough legitimate voters to require laws, I could say that not enough are disenfranchised by the laws to make them objectionable on that basis.
You pulled the millions from thin air. Or from the Al Jazeera panic piece. The study found that in those two states turnout was down 3% tops? And I saw no mention of why- it didn't affect Asians or Hispanics- only blacks and young people. In only two states, with their own laws. (Edit: and the downtrend was across all voters, just some more than others. Given that earlier in the peice it mentions that ID ownership is similar between blacks and whites, it doesn't seem like the ID part of it is the issue.) It seems more of a quirk or anomoly than a systemic problem. In other places it increased. You are going to oppose laws everywhere because in a few states there is some sort of blip? I'll just say thst I obviously would oppose laws that would be discrinatory, but having an ID is not one of them.
Don't the EU countries require some ID? How does it work over there?
I'll be content so long as we can agree that this isn't an effort at voter suppression. If you think we don't need voter ID, fine. That's perfectly reasonable.
Yeah it sucks, most people can get away with a 1040EZ though
Lucky them. For the rest, what you owe the government depends on who you talk to. Some people earn quite a bit of money for their abilities just to figure that number out.
On October 30 2014 07:32 oneofthem wrote: there's the administrative technocrat side of things, with academic input on design of these systems.
the idea that certain actors are completely binded to those that choose them is far too crude. institutional integrity can be a thing, especially very public ones that are conscious of their public and sensitive role. there is a certain body of technical knowledge, be it legal or administrative, that can take on a life of its own and power respective institutions.
Lol care to give an example of an institution with such integrity?
Washington (CNN) -- Don't say Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't have a plan.
The Texas Republican took it upon himself to lay out the vision of what he thinks a Republican-led Congress should do in 2015 if they retake the Senate after the midterms, outlining a 10-point agenda in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday. With plans to abolish the IRS and repeal Obamacare, Cruz acknowledged that Republicans would likely face vetoes from President Barack Obama and filibusters from Senate Democrats. But the potential 2016 presidential candidate appeared to look further than next month's election, saying obstruction from Democrats would drive Republican success in 2016.
"We should lead boldly. No Washington games," Cruz said. "We will either pass a serious agenda to address the real priorities of the American people ... or the Democrats will filibuster or veto these bills. And, if they do so, we will have transparency and accountability for the very next election."
Cruz's Op-ed marks a shift in the 2014 elections, which Republicans have sought to define as a referendum on Obama. Now, Republicans are being pressed to say what taking back the Senate would be -- rather than focusing on what it wouldn't be -- and Cruz is offering that vision.
The junior senator said the top priority of a Republican Congress in 2015 would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs with a focus on American energy. Republicans would authorize the controversial Keystone pipeline and cut down on environmental regulations that hamper fracking, have cracked down on coal and stymied the growth of natural gas, Cruz said.
And Republican talk about repealing Obamacare is anything but hot air. Cruz, who is a tea party favorite, said his party would "pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare" -- repealing the act "and then pass bill after bill to mitigate the harms of Obamacare."
election procedure is not especially difficult to get objective about. there are politically intriguing tradeoffs, but existing institutions balance tradeoffs all the time as well. you would at least get some uniformity and publicly checked competency.
that or accept the reality of self reinforcing political power, characterizing local power enclaves. i'm not sure what you will accept as "integrity" given the probable complete cynicism underneath.
Washington (CNN) -- Don't say Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't have a plan.
The Texas Republican took it upon himself to lay out the vision of what he thinks a Republican-led Congress should do in 2015 if they retake the Senate after the midterms, outlining a 10-point agenda in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday. With plans to abolish the IRS and repeal Obamacare, Cruz acknowledged that Republicans would likely face vetoes from President Barack Obama and filibusters from Senate Democrats. But the potential 2016 presidential candidate appeared to look further than next month's election, saying obstruction from Democrats would drive Republican success in 2016.
"We should lead boldly. No Washington games," Cruz said. "We will either pass a serious agenda to address the real priorities of the American people ... or the Democrats will filibuster or veto these bills. And, if they do so, we will have transparency and accountability for the very next election."
Cruz's Op-ed marks a shift in the 2014 elections, which Republicans have sought to define as a referendum on Obama. Now, Republicans are being pressed to say what taking back the Senate would be -- rather than focusing on what it wouldn't be -- and Cruz is offering that vision.
The junior senator said the top priority of a Republican Congress in 2015 would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs with a focus on American energy. Republicans would authorize the controversial Keystone pipeline and cut down on environmental regulations that hamper fracking, have cracked down on coal and stymied the growth of natural gas, Cruz said.
And Republican talk about repealing Obamacare is anything but hot air. Cruz, who is a tea party favorite, said his party would "pursue all means possible to repeal Obamacare" -- repealing the act "and then pass bill after bill to mitigate the harms of Obamacare."
Remove limits on fracking (that are their to protect locals and the environment) Remove healthcare from several million people. Secure the border without having an actual plan to do so. (show up with a plan, not a slogan) Not take on judges who are living in a time before 1800 (still thinks gays are evil) Abolish the IRS (because fuck taxes, i heard that worked great for Greece) Not actually do anything about the financial market (auditing the federal reserve is meaningless, if you want to fix the system look to wall-street instead) Balanced budget (well yes i actually agree with him there, god knows how you do it without the IRS tho) Repeal Common Core (so we can brainwash our kids again like we did in the old days, screw this evolution crap) Deal with Iran (despite them never having done anything other then overthrow the puppets we used to control them)
Sounds great. Cant wait for him to win the Republican primary off the back of the tea party and then utterly bomb in the general election because no one but the far far fringe can take his idea's seriously.
On October 30 2014 06:11 Introvert wrote: Right now i can only skim, but
A) there are obviously things that go wrong, and the guy will get his due. B)With respect to the turnout question for those states, I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn since it didn't affect other subgroups, just those two. And that's only in two states. If that's the whole of the opposition, then it seems kind of weak. The general trend is pretty clear. 5 studies found no reduction, 4 found some, and one an increase. And I know in some states it has gone up.
So best case scenario they do nothing, worst case they disenfranchise millions. Seems pretty obvious that they should be abandoned unless the sole objectives are the motives I mentioned.
No. Best case it prevents any fraud that would otherwise occur, worst, it doesn't. And just like you can argue that fraud doesn't disenfranchise enough legitimate voters to require laws, I could say that not enough are disenfranchised by the laws to make them objectionable on that basis.
You pulled the millions from thin air. Or from the Al Jazeera panic piece. The study found that in those two states turnout was down 3% tops? And I saw no mention of why- it didn't affect Asians or Hispanics- only blacks and young people. In only two states, with their own laws. (Edit: and the downtrend was across all voters, just some more than others. Given that earlier in the peice it mentions that ID ownership is similar between blacks and whites, it doesn't seem like the ID part of it is the issue.) It seems more of a quirk or anomoly than a systemic problem. In other places it increased. You are going to oppose laws everywhere because in a few states there is some sort of blip? I'll just say thst I obviously would oppose laws that would be discrinatory, but having an ID is not one of them.
Don't the EU countries require some ID? How does it work over there?
I'll be content so long as we can agree that this isn't an effort at voter suppression. If you think we don't need voter ID, fine. That's perfectly reasonable.
Well you won't get any contentment here. I don't know why you keep trying to pretend it isn't what it is.
“The [voter ID] law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” Yelton said
People waiting for HOURS in line to vote so Republicans want to cut times and days... We all know Sunday is when all the fraudsters vote too!
Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the AJC, this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist. Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb. Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state
On October 30 2014 06:11 Introvert wrote: Right now i can only skim, but
A) there are obviously things that go wrong, and the guy will get his due. B)With respect to the turnout question for those states, I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn since it didn't affect other subgroups, just those two. And that's only in two states. If that's the whole of the opposition, then it seems kind of weak. The general trend is pretty clear. 5 studies found no reduction, 4 found some, and one an increase. And I know in some states it has gone up.
So best case scenario they do nothing, worst case they disenfranchise millions. Seems pretty obvious that they should be abandoned unless the sole objectives are the motives I mentioned.
No. Best case it prevents any fraud that would otherwise occur, worst, it doesn't. And just like you can argue that fraud doesn't disenfranchise enough legitimate voters to require laws, I could say that not enough are disenfranchised by the laws to make them objectionable on that basis.
You pulled the millions from thin air. Or from the Al Jazeera panic piece. The study found that in those two states turnout was down 3% tops? And I saw no mention of why- it didn't affect Asians or Hispanics- only blacks and young people. In only two states, with their own laws. (Edit: and the downtrend was across all voters, just some more than others. Given that earlier in the peice it mentions that ID ownership is similar between blacks and whites, it doesn't seem like the ID part of it is the issue.) It seems more of a quirk or anomoly than a systemic problem. In other places it increased. You are going to oppose laws everywhere because in a few states there is some sort of blip? I'll just say thst I obviously would oppose laws that would be discrinatory, but having an ID is not one of them.
Don't the EU countries require some ID? How does it work over there?
I'll be content so long as we can agree that this isn't an effort at voter suppression. If you think we don't need voter ID, fine. That's perfectly reasonable.
Well you won't get any contentment here. I don't know why you keep trying to pretend it isn't what it is.
Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the AJC, this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist. Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb. Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state
We reached the end in record time! By the way, the Sunday voting in GA is a new thing. It's not exactly a time honored tradition. And I'm sure the Democrats endorsed it out of the goodness of their hearts. (And here is the former GOP head in GA saying that the early voting is a good thing).
Let's see, ignoring everything not related to voter ID we are left with...a post about a guy who thinks that voter ID will stop Democrats from winning- cause you know, the guy in the video you posted above got that right. Most people have ID's, anyway.
We went from the GAO and random statistical blips to some other crazy person saying something crazy. Every time a new law is passed, Democrats run around screaming, and so far they have little backing for their hysteria. 5 studies say no effect, 4 say some negative, 1 says a net gain. In some states there IS a net gain (Georgia, Indiana), in some a loss that doesn't seem to have an easy explanation (TN, KY). If the goal was suppression you'd think those states could do a better job at it. I mean, they let Hispanics vote unaffected? How could they!?!
A random side question, are expensive gun licenses an intentional suppression of citizens trying to exercise their second amendment rights? That must also disproportionately hurt minorities!
You can argue ID laws are not needed, but I still contend that you can't cry "suppression!"
On October 30 2014 11:10 Introvert wrote: You can argue ID laws are not needed, but I still contend that you can't cry "suppression!"
Except they keep being used for that. You don't see these laws going into effect just after an election so there is the maximum amount of time to get one and inform people, its always as close as they can get without it being to blatant.
Said it before and will say it again as a European its very weird that there is no ID law already but if you implement it you have to do it properly and not like the last dozen times we have seen it come up.
ps. I would talk about the different between a gun and a vote but we've had that dance before and the nuance appears to be lost on you.
A random side question, are expensive gun licenses an intentional suppression of citizens trying to exercise their second amendment rights? That must also disproportionately hurt minorities!
You laugh, but I've seen NRA activists make this very argument with a straight face.
On October 30 2014 11:10 Introvert wrote: You can argue ID laws are not needed, but I still contend that you can't cry "suppression!"
Except they keep being used for that. You don't see these laws going into effect just after an election so there is the maximum amount of time to get one and inform people, its always as close as they can get without it being to blatant.
Said it before and will say it again as a European its very weird that there is no ID law already but if you implement it you have to do it properly and not like the last dozen times we have seen it come up.
ps. I would talk about the different between a gun and a vote but we've had that dance before and the nuance appears to be lost on you.
It seems like more confusion comes from the courts, with all their delays, then the removal of delays. For instance, with the North Carolina law that everyone is up in arms about, the full Photo ID requirement doesn't go into effect until 2016. Elections are every 2 years, it's always going to be a "short" time span. A year and ~11 months is not a short amount of time.
And I don't recall ever discussing guns vs votes with you, or anyone, before.
A random side question, are expensive gun licenses an intentional suppression of citizens trying to exercise their second amendment rights? That must also disproportionately hurt minorities!
You laugh, but I've seen NRA activists make this very argument with a straight face.
I hadn't actually thought of it before, but I think there is something to it. Both are constitutionally guaranteed rights, one just as legitimate as the other (ok, not technically in the case of voting). So if having to spend money on a piece of paper that allows you exercise your rights is inherently bad, then I think there is something to be said there. I don't see a substantive difference if I were say, a judge ruling on the matter.
But feel free to tell me why it's different. I would be oh so disappointed if the only argument was that voting was somehow just "more important, man."
Edit: or, if this discussion has already been had, direct me to it please. I'm ready to be persuaded.
Yes I know. I was wondering if you were going to mention that. The most we get are in some later amendments that deal with discrimination in voting, but there is no affirmative right. Not sure if it's germane to my point though (in fact I think it would help it). I'll clean up my wording for you, though.
Most people don't like it when I pull out my pocket Constitution, so to speak, thus, I stopped doing it and just go with the flow for the most part. It's easiest to call it a right and move on, since we as a nation now think of it as such.
The issue being considered is cost, not possession of ID per se. One of the arguments about voter ID has to do with the supposed cost and hardship of acquiring an ID. I just wonder if the same thing can't be applied to owning guns. Instead of ID, it's expensive licenses.