Voter Suppression?

[Epoetker]

The evidence isn't to the contrary unless you get your evidence from conservative talking heads who want you to believe the evidence is to the contrary. Independent analysis confirms voter fraud to be extremely rare. But I have no problem with people having to have ID's to vote, my problem is with the road blocks states put in place to make it difficult and costly to obtain them. But ID's are not the only way that Republicans are attempting to suppress the vote, they just happen to be grouped in with all the other tactics they are doing. Funny how everyone seems to want to focus on the least controversial of these.

Whosagood meatpuppet! Whosagood meatpuppet! JimL's a good meatpuppet! Your masters trained you well!

Nobody makes decisions anymore. At least not personal decisions. At least not in the public sector. And guns are almost obsolete. You don't need a gun to herd sheep - much less swine. All you need is a story. (And slop for the swine.)

Who is the sovereign? Not a who but a what. The sovereign is the story. Of course, there is no story without a storyteller. There are a lot of storytellers. Professionals, even. They make a good living and they're all quite replaceable.

(I actually have great sympathy for the professional. In a bureaucratic oligarchy like ours, the professional both rules and is ruled. At the top, there is no one on top of him. Yet he cannot change his mind. He would simply be replaced. There are always younger, more eager professionals. Sovereignty is conserved; it is always humans who rule; and yet, it seems that no one rules. Who gets to put his hand on the wheel? He can stand there, and look like a captain. Chicks dig it. And yes, sir, it sure does pay.)

You have a gay friend who has frequent unprotected anal sex with strangers in bathhouses. "You should get tested for AIDS," you tell him. "But there's no evidence that I have AIDS," he protests. You point out that he has frequent night sweats and looks like a skeleton. "Sure," he says. "But lots of things can cause weight loss." A perfectly true statement. This is more or less the reasoning of the Brennan Center for Justice.

There are also a lot of things that could have created 200,000 more Ohio votes for B.H. Obama in 2012 than in 2008. Plenty of things! On the other hand, given our prior conviction about the popular mood in these years, the outcome seems a bit of a surprise. Bayes' Theorem is all about surprises.

You have a geek friend who's a system administrator - but not a good one. You portscan his server. "You have Microsoft RPC services open to the public internet and your Apache install appears to have been last updated in 2006," you say. "But the site is running fine," he says. "Is it?" you ask. "Has your intrusion detection picked up any anomalies?" "What's intrusion detection?" he asks.

So, for example, if you really wanted to know what was going on in American elections, you could audit one. Randomly chosen, after the fact. We'll take every vote and match it to an actual human being. In all the other precincts, we'll do what we do now, which is to treat the number as valid however it got into the computer. But in this one, we'll check every vote.

Has this ever been done? Of course it's never been done. It would be a gigantic violation of privacy, probably racist. And why? There is no evidence of election fraud.

Just like there's no evidence of independent thought in JimL's mind, and his 'independent verification teams' are all as liberal as they come.

[Psychic Missile]

You ignored the flaw in your logic, didn't you?

1. People break into houses.
2. These houses have locks.
3. Therefore, you shouldn't bother to put a lock on your house.

Now, when are you going to start arguing for this logic or are you just going to admit already that you have a very bad argument?

That's the opposite of my argument. My argument is:

1. People break into houses.
2. These houses have locks.
3. Therefore, these houses need more robust security measures.

[Cow Poke]

The evidence isn't to the contrary unless you get your evidence from conservative talking heads who want you to believe the evidence is to the contrary.

You used contrary twice in the same sentence, therefore, your point is invalid.

[Zymologist]

The evidence isn't to the contrary unless you get your evidence from conservative talking heads who want you to believe the evidence is to the contrary. Independent analysis confirms voter fraud to be extremely rare. But I have no problem with people having to have ID's to vote, my problem is with the road blocks states put in place to make it difficult and costly to obtain them. But ID's are not the only way that Republicans are attempting to suppress the vote, they just happen to be grouped in with all the other tactics they are doing. Funny how everyone seems to want to focus on the least controversial of these.

Could you explain what you mean by "the other tactics" Republicans are using to suppress the vote?

[lilpixieofterror]

That's the opposite of my argument. My argument is:

1. People break into houses.
2. These houses have locks.
3. Therefore, these houses need more robust security measures.

Which isn't anymore realistic. How much would it cost to make it so nobody could rob your house? Would you want to live in such a place?

[Cow Poke]

Which isn't anymore realistic. How much would it cost to make it so nobody could rob your house? Would you want to live in such a place?

Exactly. You take the reasonable and prudent precautions, and buy a good shotgun*. Even Uncle Joe Biden agrees!



*Yeah, I was redundant.

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly. You take the reasonable and prudent precautions, and buy a good shotgun*. Even Uncle Joe Biden agrees!

*Yeah, I was redundant.

I'm kind of reminded of a comic I read awhile ago in which the king wants to increase his defenses in case the barbarians come back to raid his castle. After calculating the cost, he just throws the paper away and says it would be cheaper to just let them raid the place.

[Cow Poke]

I'm kind of reminded of a comic I read awhile ago in which the king wants to increase his defenses in case the barbarians come back to raid his castle. After calculating the cost, he just throws the paper away and says it would be cheaper to just let them raid the place.

When somebody would ask me how secure I could make their network, I would reply, "Depends, how much money do you want to spend?"

[lilpixieofterror]

When somebody would ask me how secure I could make their network, I would reply, "Depends, how much money do you want to spend?"

Pretty much, defenses reach a point where it would be cheaper not to bother. Hey, your house is pretty secure, too bad you can't afford to put anything in it and it keeps trying to melt you with the death laser you put on the front door.

[Cow Poke]

Pretty much, defenses reach a point where it would be cheaper not to bother. Hey, your house is pretty secure, too bad you can't afford to put anything in it and it keeps trying to melt you with the death laser you put on the front door.

I have a big sign out front that says we believe in the right to defend our home with lethal force, but our neighbors to the left do not, and they have much better TVs and stuff than we do!

(kidding)

[JimL]

Could you explain what you mean by "the other tactics" Republicans are using to suppress the vote?

I did already list some of the most agregious of them, but I will do so again.

1.They have selectively changed polling hours and changed polling stations, sometimes days before an election which mostly effects poor and minority voter districts.
2.If citizens should because of this change vote at the wrong polling site, their ballots are thrown out.
3.They have reduced early voting which again effects mostly poor and minority voters.
4.They reduce the number of polling places and establish an inequality of other voting day resources in order to create very long lines and waiting times to vote. (In Democratic leaning districts of course.)
5.Set up impediments to registering.
6.Purging of voter rolls.
7.Felon disenfranchisement.
8.Banned college students from voting in the state where they live, i.e. where they go to college.
9.Allowing challengers at polling stations in order to intimidate voters.
There is more, but I think that should suffice. All of these laws, and others, including Voter ID, are specifically targeted by Republican legislators to suppress particular groups of people. Yes, you guessed it, the poor, minorities, the elderly, students, or in other words particular factions of Democratic leaning voters.

[JimL]

Whosagood meatpuppet! Whosagood meatpuppet! JimL's a good meatpuppet! Your masters trained you well!



Just like there's no evidence of independent thought in JimL's mind, and his 'independent verification teams' are all as liberal as they come.

Why don't Republicans do just that then before enacting all of these underhanded Voter ID laws in all of these Republican states, Knucklehead? Besides voter ID laws are the least egregious of their tactics. But when you group it in with all the other tactics they are employing, all enacted in Republican governed states, their intent is obvious, and if it isn't, then, well, you're a knucklehead.

[Psychic Missile]

Which isn't anymore realistic. How much would it cost to make it so nobody could rob your house? Would you want to live in such a place?

It's not realistic to have more than the bare minimum security?

[seer]

I did already list some of the most agregious of them, but I will do so again.

1.They have selectively changed polling hours and changed polling stations, sometimes days before an election which mostly effects poor and minority voter districts.
2.If citizens should because of this change vote at the wrong polling site, their ballots are thrown out.
3.They have reduced early voting which again effects mostly poor and minority voters.
4.They reduce the number of polling places and establish an inequality of other voting day resources in order to create very long lines and waiting times to vote. (In Democratic leaning districts of course.)
5.Set up impediments to registering.
6.Purging of voter rolls.
7.Felon disenfranchisement.
8.Banned college students from voting in the state where they live, i.e. where they go to college.
9.Allowing challengers at polling stations in order to intimidate voters.
There is more, but I think that should suffice. All of these laws, and others, including Voter ID, are specifically targeted by Republican legislators to suppress particular groups of people. Yes, you guessed it, the poor, minorities, the elderly, students, or in other words particular factions of Democratic leaning voters.

One point at a time James, felony disenfranchisement; as you will see in the link all states but two have restrictions on voting for felons. Both liberal and conservative states. So why is this only a "Republican" thing?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

[lilpixieofterror]

It's not realistic to have more than the bare minimum security?

Did the point make a loud zoom, as it flew over your head? Biometrics would cost billions of dollars to enact. ID cards would not, since most Americans already have them anyway.