Voter Identification

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Why should the students, as temporary residents in a college town, be allowed to dictate permanent changes to the town?
]

They're not. That's why elections are held on a regular basis.

[b]Yes, and as long as the college exists, there will always be a voting base comprised of transients. The faces may change from election to election, but the mentality does not. They will vote for whatever serves their own interest for the next four years. After that, it becomes someone else's headache.[/b

Yeah,well as long as they're living there they should have the right and the freedom to vote on issues that affect them.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Yeah,well as long as they're living there they should have the right and the freedom to vote on issues that affect them.

Yeah - to hell with the people who have established roots and are trying make a living and raise their families in a decent environment.
Screw them.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Yeah,well as long as they're living there they should have the right and the freedom to vote on issues that affect them.

[b]Yeah - to hell with the people who have established roots and are trying make a living and raise their families in a decent environment.
Screw them.[/b

Most likely a significant portion of those people make a living courtesy of those students. In fact I've never heard of a town requesting a school to pick up stakes and move because the locals are unhappy. So yeah,I think they're entitled to vote.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Yeah,well as long as they're living there they should have the right and the freedom to vote on issues that affect them.

Yeah - to hell with the people who have established roots and are trying make a living and raise their families in a decent environment.
Screw them.[/b

Most likely a significant portion of those people make a living courtesy of those students. In fact I've never heard of a town requesting a school to pick up stakes and move because the locals are unhappy. So yeah,I think they're entitled to vote.

The townspeople and students in many a college town have little but animosity for one another. The fact that a town may refuse to give up a huge chunk of its tax base does not necessarily make the individual citizens any happier. It is not the vague and amorphous ‘town’ that has to deal with the consequences of a transient voting base – it affects real people.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: The townspeople and students in many a college town have little but animosity for one another.

That just sounds like bullshit to me. Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

Posts : 1328

I've had neighbors turn snotty when they found out I was born in Valpo instead of coming to VU and staying.

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: The townspeople and students in many a college town have little but animosity for one another.

That just sounds like bullshit to me.

Exactly....

Quote :: Another notable development since the 1990s is the surge in popularity of retirees relocating to college towns. Retirees are attracted to these locations because of cultural and educational opportunities, college athletic events, good medical facilities (often at teaching hospitals affiliated with medical schools), a low cost of living, and often a pedestrian- or public transit-friendly development pattern. Several development companies now specialize in constructing retirement communities in college towns. In some cases the communities have developed formal relationships with the local institution.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_town#Settlement_in_college_towns

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Do you have any non-anecdotal
evidence at all that supports this contention?

Non-anecdotal?

No, sorry.

Now, can we get around to the question of how someone’s skin
color exempts them from providing proper identification?

Scorpion wrote:: Yeah. Well I specifically wanted
to discuss the impact on college students before expanding the discussion to
other groups. We can get around to discussing those other groups later, if
that's OK with you, Jack.

As I said earlier:

And whose responsibility is it to make sure that blacks
have a valid ID?

Is it the responsibility of the Republicans?

Or is it the responsibility of the blacks?

I think somebody needs to grow up.

I just feel that it's high
time to acknowledge that if blacks (or college students, or anyone else, for
that matter) want to see their candidate of choice in the White House or in any
other public office, then it is up to them to get off their collective asses,
live up to their civic responsibility, and do what it takes to make themselves
eligible to vote.

I have done it, and just about everyone I know
has done it.

All members of my family have kept themselves
eligible to vote in every election, regardless of residency relocations.

It is not difficult.

It is not the least bit difficult, and I'm not
demanding that anyone else do any more than I have done to remain eligible to
vote.

I'm really, really tired of these whiners.

And I'm tired of the whiners blaming everyone
but themselves for their own irresponsibility and laziness.

And I'm tired of those who make excuses for the
whiners.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:: Do you have a study that supports your statistics?

Good luck getting an answer to that one.

Now you're just confusing me with tiger. But I apologize for the lack of citations that are normally found in my posts. I always forget how many people can't use Google.

We can start with Dubya himself who it a high priority to stamp out voter fraud, and he utterly failed to find his boogey man:

Quote :: Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

. . .

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”

DOJ statistics echo the same:

Quote :: • Voter fraud is extremely rare. at the federal level, records show that only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year. The available state-level evidence of voter fraud, culled from interviews, reviews of newspaper coverage and court proceedings, while not definitive, is also negligible.

• The lack of evidence of voter fraud is not because of a failure to codify it. it is not as if the states have failed to detail the ways voters could corrupt elections. There are hundreds of examples drawn from state election codes and constitutions that illustrate the precision with which the states have criminalized voter and election fraud. if we use the same standards for judging voter fraud crime rates as we do for other crimes, we must conclude that the lack of evidence of arrests, indictments or convictions for any of the practices defined as voter fraud means very little fraud is being committed.

• Most voter fraud allegations turn out to be something other than fraud. a review of news stories over a recent two year period found that reports of voter fraud were most often limited to local races and individual acts and fell into three categories: unsubstantiated or false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.

• The more complex are the rules regulating voter registration and voting, the more likely voter mistakes, clerical errors, and the like will be wrongly identified as “fraud.” Voters play a limited role in the electoral process. Where they interact with the process they confront an array of rules that can trip them up. in addition, one consequence of expanding voting opportunities, i.e. permissive absentee voting systems, is a corresponding increase in opportunities for casting unintentionally illegal ballots if administrative tracking and auditing systems are flawed.

• There is a long history in America of elites using voter fraud allegations to restrict and shape the electorate. in the late nineteenth century when newly freed black americans were swept into electoral politics, and where blacks were the majority of the electorate, it was the democrats who were threatened by a loss of power, and it was the democratic party that erected new rules said to be necessary to respond to alleged fraud by black voters. Today, the success of voter registration drives among minorities and low income people in recent years threatens to expand the base of the democratic party and tip the balance of power away from the republicans. consequently, the use of baseless voter fraud allegations for partisan advantage has become the exclusive domain of republican party activists.

This article, while old, talks about the disappearance of the American Center for Voting Rights, a voter fraud watchdog group that closed in 2006 after the EAC issued their report detailing the complete lack of voter fraud.

It's written by the same election law expert mentioned above, and he explains why the logistics simply don't work:

Quote :: Third, and perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead, or missing people on the registration rolls are, and then pay a lot of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be Mary Poppins or Old Dead Bob, without any return guarantee—thanks to the secret ballot—that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate. Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected ("You're not my neighbor Bob who passed away last year!") and charged with a felony. And for what—$10? As someone who's thought about this a lot, if I really wanted to buy votes in an enforceable and safe way, I'd find eligible voters who would allow me to watch as they cast their absentee ballots for the candidate of my choice. Then, I would pay them. (Notably, ACVR and supporters of voter-ID laws have generally supported exemptions from ID requirements for voters who use absentee ballots.) Or, I might find an election official to change the votes. Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.

So, yeah... These aren't the droids you're looking for. "Voter fraud" is just another in a long line of Made Up Republican Bullshit.

The easiest and far more effect way of tanking an election remains to be election fraud. Voter ID's certainly won't stop either registration fraud or phony absentee ballots, either.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

Non-anecdotal? No, sorry.

And yet you're whining about me not citing my sources? Classy.

happy jack wrote:: Now, can we get around to the question of how someone’s skin color exempts them from providing proper identification?

Bottom line is not everyone has them. They cost money to get (quite a bit, depending on what documents are necessary) and time off of work. So we end up making people pay money to vote. Hmmm.... That sounds familiar...

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Do you have any non-anecdotal
evidence at all that supports this contention?

Non-anecdotal?

No, sorry.

So this point is irrelevant. I just seriously doubt your entire premise. I was hoping that it was based on something other than your opinion.

happy jack wrote:: Now, can we get around to the question of how someone’s skin
color exempts them from providing proper identification?

Patience, Jack. I'm going to need to do a little research before discussing that in a meaningful manner. You've stated your position. I want to make sure that I also understand the "other sides" position.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced that college student participation in local elections has anything at all to do with the Republican efforts to suppress the college vote. IMHO, your posts on this subject read like a list of fabricated rationales rather than solid reasons for changing the election laws for college kids.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:: Do you have a study that supports your statistics?

Good luck getting an answer to that one.

Now you're just confusing me with tiger. But I apologize for the lack of citations that are normally found in my posts. I always forget how many people can't use Google.

There is an 87% chance that you didn't realize I was kidding.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Do you have any non-anecdotal
evidence at all that supports this contention?

Non-anecdotal?

No, sorry.

So this point is irrelevant. I just seriously doubt your entire premise. I was hoping that it was based on something other than your opinion.

Anecdotal does not equate to untrue or irrelevant, just unproven.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Non-anecdotal?
No, sorry.

So this point is irrelevant. I just seriously doubt your entire premise. I was hoping that it was based on something other than your opinion.

Anecdotal does not equate to untrue or irrelevant, just unproven.

If you're going to use a premise in an argument and you cannot prove that the premise is true, then it's irrelevant (useless) for the purpose of making an argument.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So this point is irrelevant. I just seriously doubt your entire premise. I was hoping that it was based on something other than your opinion.

Anecdotal does not equate to untrue or irrelevant, just unproven.

If you're going to use a premise in an argument and you cannot prove that the premise is true, then it's irrelevant (useless) for the purpose of making an argument.

Of course.
But it is no less true.

Posts : 2141

Yeah, but it brings us back to my original point....

Scorpion wrote:: College students have been able to vote on campus for a long, long time. So why change the law now? There should always be a compelling reason to change election laws.

If you're saying that breaking up "convenient little electoral blocs" is the "compelling reason" for the change, at least I can give you points for honesty. But if this is the reason, then would the Republicans change the laws if the colleges provided a "convenient little electoral bloc" that was reliably Republican? I think that we both know the answer to that question, don't we?

I've still not seen a compelling reason to change the election laws regarding college students. Like I implied, it looks like the "compelling reason" is to rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency. Are you prepared to admit it yet?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I've still not seen a compelling reason to change the election laws regarding college students. Like I implied, it looks like the "compelling reason" is to rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency. Are you prepared to admit it yet?

To rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency, or to bust up a pre-rigged system?
Tomato, to-mah-to.
Eye of the beholder.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Now, can we get around to the question of how someone’s skin color exempts them from providing proper identification?

Bottom line is not everyone has them. They cost money to get (quite a bit, depending on what documents are necessary) and time off of work.

That's no answer.
Why is this being framed as a black/white issue?
What is it, in your mind, that makes blacks so inferior to whites that they cannot accomplish the incredibly simple task of obtaining an ID card, while whites apparently have no problem doing so?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I've still not seen a compelling reason to change the election laws regarding college students. Like I implied, it looks like the "compelling reason" is to rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency. Are you prepared to admit it yet?

To rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency, or to bust up a pre-rigged system?
Tomato, to-mah-to.
Eye of the beholder.

So I've been right all along. The law change is primarily an attempt to "bust up" what you call a "pre-rigged system." When I originally pointed it out, I said that I would give you points for honesty if you would simply admit it. But after two pages of your specious arguments regarding this issue, you no longer get the "honesty points," Jack. I really don't understand why you didn't just cop to it earlier...

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I've still not seen a compelling reason to change the election laws regarding college students. Like I implied, it looks like the "compelling reason" is to rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency. Are you prepared to admit it yet?

To rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency, or to bust up a pre-rigged system?
Tomato, to-mah-to.
Eye of the beholder.

So I've been right all along. The law change is primarily an attempt to "bust up" what you call a "pre-rigged system." When I originally pointed it out, I said that I would give you points for honesty if you would simply admit it. But after two pages of your specious arguments regarding this issue, you no longer get the "honesty points," Jack. I really don't understand why you didn't just cop to it earlier...

I'm not the one changing the law, in case you have yet to figure that out - I am simply commenting on it.
I don't know what is in these people's minds any more than you pretend to know what is in their minds.
So exactly what the hell am I supposed to "cop to", and what the hell am I supposed to "admit"?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: To rob the Democrats of a reliable constituency, or to bust up a pre-rigged system?
Tomato, to-mah-to.
Eye of the beholder.

So I've been right all along. The law change is primarily an attempt to "bust up" what you call a "pre-rigged system." When I originally pointed it out, I said that I would give you points for honesty if you would simply admit it. But after two pages of your specious arguments regarding this issue, you no longer get the "honesty points," Jack. I really don't understand why you didn't just cop to it earlier...

I'm not the one changing the law, in case you have yet to figure that out - I am simply commenting on it.
I don't know what is in these people's minds any more than you pretend to know what is in their minds.
So exactly what the hell am I supposed to "cop to", and what the hell am I supposed to "admit"?

I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes, and so do you. (If you don't, then you're a frickin' idiot, and you have my pity.) It's certainly not any of the bogus rationales that you've been trumpeting. You pulled the same kind of crap in the "Wisconsin Public Unions" thread. When you want to have an honest debate about something, just let me know.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

You consider yourself perfectly justified and morally superior for having what you have already admitted is a guaranteed pre-fab voting base in your corner, but I am somehow a “frickin’ idiot” for objecting to it.
Well, you vote Democrat, so how could your motives not be purer than mine?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes

[bDo you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?
[/b

NH GOP Seeks To Disenfranchise Students Who 'Just Vote Their Feelings' (VIDEO)

Quote :: At a January 9/12 event with local tea partiers, the Republican House Speaker in New Hampshire, Bill O'Brien explained his problem with young voters.

"They go into these general elections, they'll have 900 same day registrations, which are the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is [vote liberal]," he said. "They don't have life experience and they don't have life experience and they just vote their feelings and they're taking away the town's ability to govern themselves, it's not fair."

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I know exactly what the rationale is behind these proposed election law changes

Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence at all that supports this contention?

Are there examples of Republican politicians restricting ballot access of demographics that vote Republican anywhere near the fervor their doing it for Democrats? If they're as fair and honest as you appear to think they are, if this only about accuracy in the voting booth rather than tipping the scales in a particular direction, examples should abound...

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: You consider yourself perfectly justified and morally superior for having what you have already admitted is a guaranteed pre-fab voting base in your corner, but I am somehow a “frickin’ idiot” for objecting to it.

Yeah. Well I do apologize for the "frickin' idiot" remark. But the reaon that I feel "justified" is because the issue of allowing students the right to vote on campus is settled law..

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1849906,00.html

Quote :: The Supreme Court's position is clear: a 1979 ruling found that all students have the right to vote where they attend college.

All that I've asked of you in this thread that is that you address this issue honestly. Again, if the election laws are to be changed, there should be a compelling reason to change them. I'm sorry, but changing the election laws in order to suppress voting by any group is simply not in keeping with what this country stands for...

happy jack wrote:: Well, you vote Democrat (sic), so how could your motives not be purer than mine?

There is no way that I would support enacting laws that restrict anyone's existing voting rights. The fact that most college students tend to vote Democratic is, and should be, totally irrelevant.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: But the reaon that I feel "justified" is because the issue of allowing students the right to vote on campus is settled law..

And if legislators exercise proper procedure and successfully enact legislation which alters that situation, then that will become settled law and, as such, will need to be respected.
Correct?

» Voter Turnout
» Values Voter Summit Lunacy