Wisconsin Voter ID

[Aridas]

So how many days and hours were available to vote in Ohio?

When and why? Either way, in reaction to rather significant and skewed numbers of voters basically losing their vote in the 2004 Presidential election, rules were changed, apparently. Apparently, 35 days of early voting were added, which apparently led to a much better voting conditions in 2008. The early voting ended up favoring the Democrats, given that the demographics that suffered the most from the lack of it (and equipment and polling places) before were, apparently and not that surprisingly, ones that significantly favored the Democrats. In reaction to this, for 2012, Republicans tried to reduce the days from 35 to 11 and specifically targeted a couple early voting days which historically had been more favored by black voters, among other things.

 

[Olowkow]

I favor passing any law which suppresses turnout amongst the stupid.

You are going to have to define stupid in order to pass a law. Misinformed? Ill informed? People who don't have the same skills as you do? Or people you don't like? People who like Palin? George W? Bachmann?

An intelligence test? Counting pennies in a jar? It's been tried. Our better angels decided it was not a very good idea.

 

[maxpower1227]

Denialism about the racist and anti-democratic intent behind GOP voter suppression laws is about as strong as denialism about climate change. It's incredibly frustrating.

 

[Tony Stark]

Denialism about the racist and anti-democratic intent behind GOP voter suppression laws is about as strong as denialism about climate change. It's incredibly frustrating.

There have even been numerous Republicans that have slipped up and publicly admitted it. But still GOP apologists defend them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Guys, voter ID laws have been found to be nondiscriminatory. By the SCOTUS. You libs will have to find some other way to argue against them.

And the only reason I can see the Dems being so anti-ID-laws is because they expect to be hurt by them. If not because FRAUD!!!, then what other reason is there?

SCOTUS also found that racism was a thing of the past and that states didn't need to check their voting requirements against the voting rights act. Then the next day states aggressively redistricted. They are never wrong after all.

 

[WildCat]

According to this article the republicans tried to limit early voting to a mere 28 days.

How could anyone manage to vote with only a 28 day window? It's nearly impossible!

 

[tyr_13]

How could anyone manage to vote with only a 28 day window? It's nearly impossible!

Do you want the vote to as closely reflect the will of the people as is possible?

One cannot rationally be for voter ID in order to accomplish this, but against the extended voting. The extended voting made the election more closely align with the will of the people by a measurable effect. Even if on assumes that the various changes put forth under the banner of voter ID would eliminate that kind of fraud without also negating valid votes (and I for one don't believe even a large minority of the proposals thus far are even honestly trying for that outcome), that kind of fraud is so small that it is dwarfed by the benefits of the extended voting. Logically, if making the vote as representative as possible was the true goal, one would not be for voter ID but also against extended voting measures.

Keep in mind, much like background checks for firearms, I'm not against voter ID as a concept, but I'm very much against many of the proposed implementations of it.

So, is your goal to make the vote as representative as possible, or is it something else? Personally I go for a balance. Voter ID chips implanted in your neck and mandatory voting would make the vote more representative, but that doesn't mean I'm for them!

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you want the vote to as closely reflect the will of the people as is possible?

I don't. I want to disregard the will of people who are apathetic.

 

[WildCat]

Do you want the vote to as closely reflect the will of the people as is possible?

At some point enough time is enough time. If people can't be bothered then it's not the government's fault they don't vote.

Is there a rational argument that 28 days isn't enough time to vote?

You could make it 100 days, and guess what? Blacks would still vote in fewer numbers. Blacks just don't turn out like whites do, and thus no matter what the voting cut-off date is it will still have a disparate impact. At some point the argument that there isn't enough time is just absurd, and IMHO it is well beyond that point at 28 days.

It's not like blacks are concentrated out in the boondocks where they're 10 miles from the polling place, they are concentrated in urban areas where the polling place is 2 blocks from their house. Much further than that and they'll be in another precinct.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't. I want to disregard the will of people who are apathetic.

Right. I suspect that's around the same line of thought as many of the proponents and authors of various ID laws are thinking as well. To stop 'those people' from voting (in your case 'those people' being apathetic people) is a tough sell though.

So they say it's to maintain the integrity (representativeness) and trust of the system instead. That's why one can be for stringent voter ID laws and against extended voting methods. It's not actually about integrity or trust at all. The motivation is not to make the vote representative.

 

[tyr_13]

At some point enough time is enough time. If people can't be bothered then it's not the government's fault they don't vote.

Is there a rational argument that 28 days isn't enough time to vote?

You could make it 100 days, and guess what? Blacks would still vote in fewer numbers. Blacks just don't turn out like whites do, and thus no matter what the voting cut-off date is it will still have a disparate impact. At some point the argument that there isn't enough time is just absurd, and IMHO it is well beyond that point at 28 days.

It's not like blacks are concentrated out in the boondocks where they're 10 miles from the polling place, they are concentrated in urban areas where the polling place is 2 blocks from their house. Much further than that and they'll be in another precinct.

You didn't answer my question. Are you for making the vote representative or not? Is that the motivation for voter ID or is it not?

You're making the mistake of assuming I'm arguing for extended voting measures, and then doing slippery slope tricks to argue against straw men extended voting measures. But the reason for bringing those up isn't actually to defend them in the first place, but to explore the thinking behind more stringent voter ID laws.

EDIT: Basically talking about what is reasonable accommodation and what is not with regards to extended voting won't ever justify more stringent voter ID laws.

 

[WildCat]

You didn't answer my question. Are you for making the vote representative or not?

I think it is already representative. Representative of the people who care enough to vote. You cannot represent those who don't care, because, well, they don't care. They have no opinion, they have no preferred candidate. It's not important to them. The most accurate representation of their desires is their lack of a vote.

Is that the motivation for voter ID or is it not?

Voter ID is to ensure that the election results are actually those of the people eligible to vote.

You're making the mistake of assuming I'm arguing for extended voting measures, and then doing slippery slope tricks to argue against straw men extended voting measures. But the reason for bringing those up isn't actually to defend them in the first place, but to explore the thinking behind more stringent voter ID laws.

EDIT: Basically talking about what is reasonable accommodation and what is not with regards to extended voting won't ever justify more stringent voter ID laws.

Ensuring the integrity of the election is the goal of voter ID laws. It's not to make people vote who don't care about the election anyway.

Incidentally early voting for the 100% Democrat-controlled Chicago municipal election on April 7 started on March 23 and goes through April 4 - which means only 13 days to vote early. Clearly the Democratic Party is trying to suppress the vote of black people if we are taking it as a given that the 28 days in Ohio is not enough and is a racist attempt to suppress the black vote.

It's patently absurd that 28 days to vote early in Ohio is some racist attempt to suppress the black vote, because frankly if that's more than enough time for anyone to vote who wants to vote.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right. I suspect that's around the same line of thought as many of the proponents and authors of various ID laws are thinking as well.

You misunderstand. I don't support voter ID because I don't want apathetic voters to vote. But you didn't ask why I support voter ID laws. The fact that I don't want apathetic voters to vote plays a role in why I'm indifferent to some of the objections to it, but it's not my motivation. And it's not a particularly good motivation for that either, seeing as how most apathetic voters won't vote regardless, and plenty of apathetic voters have the relevant ID's for other reasons already.

The motivation is not to make the vote representative.

Nobody wants a representative vote, not really. That's why get out the vote efforts are always targeted at people you suspect will support your side.

 

[WildCat]

Nobody wants a representative vote, not really. That's why get out the vote efforts are always targeted at people you suspect will support your side.

Yesterday evening the doorbell rang, and there were 2 Hispanic "get out the vote" activists (from "Communities United" evidently) asking for my girlfriend by name. I said she wasn't home yet, they asked me if she was planning on voting in the mayoral run-off and if so that early voting had already started and they gave me a flyer to give her with the early voting locations as well as a "early voting event" at a local high school with free food and live music.

Not once did they ask if I was voting, or show any interest in me voting early even though I'm on the same voter registration list she is on. And this isn't the first time something like this has happened, and I know why - my girlfriend is Hispanic and has an obviously Hispanic last name, while mine is certainly not. I have a sneaking suspicion they are looking to increase turnout for Chuy Garcia and would rather Rahm Emmanuel supporters stay home.

Imagine that, thinking I would vote for Rahm!

 

[Brainster]

I don't like early voting for one simple reason: it extends the amount of time that the candidates advertise on TV. It used to be that the advertising was concentrated around election day; now it goes on for over a month before.

 

[tyr_13]

I think it is already representative. Representative of the people who care enough to vote. You cannot represent those who don't care, because, well, they don't care. They have no opinion, they have no preferred candidate. It's not important to them. The most accurate representation of their desires is their lack of a vote.

If they don't care enough to vote, extended voting wouldn't help them, but certain types of stringent voter ID laws would hurt. As there is evidence that the extended voting allowed more people to vote, yet fraud of the type that ID laws would help address is almost non-existent, your hand wave here still falls flat. Even if you don't care about people who don't care enough to vote, because you claim it wouldn't help them vote anyway, these people did vote. This excludes them from the group you claim not to care about, and the justification for you opposing extended voting.

Voter ID is to ensure that the election results are actually those of the people eligible to vote.

Why? If you don't want the vote to be more representative, why does that matter? If you think voting is already representative enough, then what utility is there in ensuring those people voting are eligible?

Ensuring the integrity of the election is the goal of voter ID laws. It's not to make people vote who don't care about the election anyway.

Incidentally early voting for the 100% Democrat-controlled Chicago municipal election on April 7 started on March 23 and goes through April 4 - which means only 13 days to vote early. Clearly the Democratic Party is trying to suppress the vote of black people if we are taking it as a given that the 28 days in Ohio is not enough and is a racist attempt to suppress the black vote.

It's patently absurd that 28 days to vote early in Ohio is some racist attempt to suppress the black vote, because frankly if that's more than enough time for anyone to vote who wants to vote.

The Democrats are trying to reduce voting days? You might fault them for not expanding them when it could be useful, but you can't claim they're trying to restrict them further.

You misunderstand. I don't support voter ID because I don't want apathetic voters to vote. But you didn't ask why I support voter ID laws.

Point of fact: I didn't ask you anything at all. This is the second time this week I've seen you respond to a direct quote and question to WildCat as if it were aimed at you. Do you have him on ignore or something? I'm not objecting to you adding in of course, but this is confusing.

The fact that I don't want apathetic voters to vote plays a role in why I'm indifferent to some of the objections to it, but it's not my motivation. And it's not a particularly good motivation for that either, seeing as how most apathetic voters won't vote regardless, and plenty of apathetic voters have the relevant ID's for other reasons already.



Nobody wants a representative vote, not really. That's why get out the vote efforts are always targeted at people you suspect will support your side.

Umm, I actually do want a representative vote. That I also want to convince people of the benefit of my views/preferred policy/whatever is not to say I only want people who I think agree with me to vote. I want to ultimately find the best 'whatevers' through debate and discussions of the topic and people to vote in that regard.

And if people do want something drastically different, I want them to suffer the consequences of their choices.

 

[Tony Stark]

You can be sure that if high voter turnout was good for Republican candidates they would do everything possible to make sure that voting was as easy and painless as possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm, I actually do want a representative vote.

Then you are unusual. None of the political parties want what you want.

 

[tyr_13]

Then you are unusual. None of the political parties want what you want.

That's actually true, in more ways than this one.

 

[fuelair]

quoting a post from April 2014? Are you looking to be offended?

I fail to see what difference the date makes - it has been republicker action for years (trying since the early 80s). If it helps, most republicker policies offend me - I really do not need to look for them - they scream them to their dogs at meetings everywhere. And these meetings frequently make the news and/or are noted here.