What did Democrats do wrong?

[dirtywick]

I suppose "what the Democrats did wrong" was fail to scold people like Alex enough?

Anyhow, it's not obvious how restricting voting to citizens is even about race, unless you're in an ethno-state.

In a modern, multiracial, & multiethnic society (like the U.S.) we don't make voting about race anymore; any rule against Canadians voting doesn't take their race or ethnicity into account, not even the ones who sound French.

i agree it's not obvious. but basically the idea is that by targeting minority voters they hurt the dems more than themselves, and by saying it's to keep illegals from voting in large numbers in an organized fraud by the dems, they get to take the moral high ground of protecting election integrity and attack their opponents for not caring about secure elections. when really, they're just tipping the scales in their favor.

which kind of hinges on whether or not you believe there is an organized plot by the dems to fill the ballot boxes with the votes of illegals, and whether or not the republicans have it in them to stoop to voter suppression.

the best piece of evidence is that the leader of the republican party engaged in election fraud in 2020, insisted on auditing a bunch of states as a part of his election fraud delay tactics, and in doing so didn't find any evidence of a bunch of illegals voting for the dems.

so that's kind of where i sit on that

 

[d4m10n]

i agree it's not obvious. but basically the idea is that by targeting minority voters they hurt the dems more than themselves

GOP operatives do indeed target minority voters, e.g. by packing them tightly in overwhelmingly ethnic districts as a first step in gerrymandering.

We were talking about i.d. laws, though, and those do not take race into account. You could make the case that certain groups are statistically more likely to have official i.d.'s than other groups, but I'll wager any analysis is going to reveal class to be much more predictive than race.

 

[dirtywick]

GOP operatives do indeed target minority voters, e.g. by packing them tightly in overwhelmingly ethnic districts as a first step in gerrymandering.

We were talking about i.d. laws, though, and those do not take race into account. You could make the case that certain groups are statistically more likely to have official i.d.'s than other groups, but I'll wager any analysis is going to reveal class to be much more predictive than race.

right, so those kind of tactics disproportionately effect minorities, which happen to lean dem. probably why they're doing it at all, certainly not because they're concerned about election integrity.

edit

i agree it's probably class that's more predictive than race. just so happens the extremely poor are also over represented by minorities.

 

[dirtywick]

if i could put it this way, if they were to say we don't hate black people, we're going after poor people. and i say, well an awful lot of those poor people you're disenfranchising are black which makes it a racist tactic, i feel like that's a fair statement. best i could do was they weren't trying to be racist, they're targeting other factors that just happen to end up effecting black people more. but accidentally racist is still racist isn't it?

 

[Random]

if i could put it this way, if they were to say we don't hate black people, we're going after poor people. and i say, well an awful lot of those poor people you're disenfranchising are black which makes it a racist tactic, i feel like that's a fair statement. best i could do was they weren't trying to be racist, they're targeting other factors that just happen to end up effecting black people more. but accidentally racist is still racist isn't it?

Ah, the old song of, "We're not disenfranchising black people because we hate black people. We are disenfranchising black people because they won't vote for us. Because we hate them. Totally different."

 

[arthwollipot]

Why is there so much overlap between black and poor, do you think?

I guess we'll never know. One of life's little mysteries.

 

[Pixel42]

which kind of hinges on whether or not you believe there is an organized plot by the dems to fill the ballot boxes with the votes of illegals, and whether or not the republicans have it in them to stoop to voter suppression.

If I was an illegal immigrant in the US the very last thing I would do is draw attention to myself by trying to vote, even before ICE turned into the gestapo Trump has made them. It's an enormous risk for a benefit which a large percentage of US citizens can't even be bothered to use.

Voter ID is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, causing real and unnecessary problems for many with a legitimate right to vote and motivation to do so.

 

[wareyin]

In the US, it is necessary to get a job. It is also necessary to have a bank account.

Nonsense. Many people work under the table or for family members or doing online or contracting work without an ID. My son had a bank account before he had a drivers license, as do MANY other people. Stop talking out your ass here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I seem to recall from history lessons a call of 'No taxation without representation'? Nothing about citizenship. I am a (non-white) British citizen, you do not have to be a British citizen to be a voter or an MP, the PM who was perhaps most responsible for the British empire was a second generation Jewish immigrant. If you believe in a capitalist society then the key issue is who pays, not where did your mother happen to birth you.

ORLY?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/

UK Parliament elections​

Across the whole of the UK, to vote in an election for the UK Parliament someone must:

• be registered to vote in the constituency
• be of voting age – 18 years old on polling day
• be either a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
• and not be subject to any ‘legal incapacity’ to vote – prisoners serving a sentence for a conviction cannot vote in UK parliamentary elections and neither can peers in the House of Lords.

The eligibility of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to vote in UK elections comes from the historic links between the UK and Ireland and between the UK and countries of the former British Empire.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, I don't know where you're getting this idea that I.D. is not necessary for work (unless it's under the table). New hires always have to present I.D. along with their I-9.

I think there's a lot of reverse motte and bailey going on with this topic. In order to vote, what is required is 1) proof of citizenship and 2) proof of identity. This is true for Canada as well as virtually all democratic nations.

The "bailey" that is fallaciously being pushed is that the US seeks to required that everyone use exactly ONE kind of ID - a driver's license. But that bailey isn't true. The actual "motte" involved is that a reliable form of citizenship and identity be provided in order to vote. Driver's licenses and state IDs are very common, almost everyone who votes already has them. They have them because they're standard issue identification needed to function in society - for the US as well as every other developed nation. But there are other forms of ID that are also acceptable. Passports are always acceptable, but many fewer americans have them. There's a host of other documents available as well, that are substantially similar to what Canada uses.

There have been proposals for a specific Voter ID being used, which would be the same for all states. There's no reason to assume that this couldn't be made free of charge. One of the reasons for this is that different states have different rules around who can get a driver's license. Some states issue a DL to anyone who can pass the exams, regardless of their citizenship. Not all DLs specify whether the individual is a citizen or not. There are weaknesses and inconsistencies from state to state that present loopholes for voting, and there's no centralized federal verification process for the identity and citizenship of voters.

Of course, getting a voter ID would still require that people provide proof that they're who they say they are and also are a citizen. WHich I think is a perfectly reasonable requirement, seeing as pretty much every other democratic nation has the same requirements.

It's crazy that so many people on ISF take the stance that to vote in a Us election, people shouldn't be required to prove that they're citizens, nor to prove that they're who they claim to be. It's so far beyond irrational I don't even know what to call it. It's particularly weird that so many foreigners are dead set on making sure there's no barrier to non-citizens voting in US elections.

This is a pattern I've seen across more than one topic. A rational person says "Hey, Process X has a loophole that could be exploited, we should close that loophole". Then a group of people come out of the woodworks to oppose that, with a relatively common set of objections:

• It's not happening, so we don't need to think about the loophole
• Even if it does happen, it's only a few people exploiting the loophole so we shouldn't bother closing it
• It's actually a good thing that people are exploiting the loophole
• You only want to close the loophole because you're a bigot

It's as if there's a collection of people who are dedicated to tearing down all aspects of social cohesion and order. Apparently some people just want to watch the world burn?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Once again, MIILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF AMERCANS DO. Not really sure why you don't understand that.

You keep saying this, but it's a skewed claim.

Millions of americans don't have a *current* state *driver's license*. Which is easy to fix. But you keep framing this as if millions and millions of americans have absolutely no documentation of their identity or their citizenship.

Yes, there are going to be some - hermits and homeless perhaps. But it's not nearly as common as you think it is, and it's entirely reasonable to think that an *expired* state ID would be acceptable for the purpose of voting. A better objective is to find a way to make sure that those few people who completely lack legitimate documentation have a way to get it. It's absolutely nuts to take a position AGAINST citizens having proof of identity. It's downright subversive... and to have a FOREIGNER arguing that US Elections should be default allow ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ANYONE to vote without proof of identity and citizenship is damned near intentional election interference.

 

[Random]

I think there's a lot of reverse motte and bailey going on with this topic. In order to vote, what is required is 1) proof of citizenship and 2) proof of identity. This is true for Canada as well as virtually all democratic nations.

The "bailey" that is fallaciously being pushed is that the US seeks to required that everyone use exactly ONE kind of ID - a driver's license. But that bailey isn't true. The actual "motte" involved is that a reliable form of citizenship and identity be provided in order to vote. Driver's licenses and state IDs are very common, almost everyone who votes already has them. They have them because they're standard issue identification needed to function in society - for the US as well as every other developed nation. But there are other forms of ID that are also acceptable. Passports are always acceptable, but many fewer americans have them. There's a host of other documents available as well, that are substantially similar to what Canada uses.

There have been proposals for a specific Voter ID being used, which would be the same for all states. There's no reason to assume that this couldn't be made free of charge. One of the reasons for this is that different states have different rules around who can get a driver's license. Some states issue a DL to anyone who can pass the exams, regardless of their citizenship. Not all DLs specify whether the individual is a citizen or not. There are weaknesses and inconsistencies from state to state that present loopholes for voting, and there's no centralized federal verification process for the identity and citizenship of voters.

Of course, getting a voter ID would still require that people provide proof that they're who they say they are and also are a citizen. WHich I think is a perfectly reasonable requirement, seeing as pretty much every other democratic nation has the same requirements.

It's crazy that so many people on ISF take the stance that to vote in a Us election, people shouldn't be required to prove that they're citizens, nor to prove that they're who they claim to be. It's so far beyond irrational I don't even know what to call it. It's particularly weird that so many foreigners are dead set on making sure there's no barrier to non-citizens voting in US elections.

This is a pattern I've seen across more than one topic. A rational person says "Hey, Process X has a loophole that could be exploited, we should close that loophole". Then a group of people come out of the woodworks to oppose that, with a relatively common set of objections:

• It's not happening, so we don't need to think about the loophole
• Even if it does happen, it's only a few people exploiting the loophole so we shouldn't bother closing it
• It's actually a good thing that people are exploiting the loophole
• You only want to close the loophole because you're a bigot

It's as if there's a collection of people who are dedicated to tearing down all aspects of social cohesion and order. Apparently some people just want to watch the world burn?

I think the "motte" is "You don't want people casting fraudulent votes do you?, and the "bailey" is, "Therefore, we should make it harder for millions of poor people, college students, and people who live in cities to vote."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ummm... nobody is suggesting voting should be opened up to non-citizens.

No, you're not directly suggesting that. You're just suggesting that absolutely no proof of citizenship should be required.

Bad analogy time: You're not suggesting that murder should be legal, you're just suggesting that killing people shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

i agree it's not obvious. but basically the idea is that by targeting minority voters...

There's that progressive condescension and savior complex again. Why do you think that minorities are somehow incapable of doing the exact same things that the overwhelming majority of white people do? Do you think minorities are too ignorant to figure out how to prove their identity and citizenship? Are minorities so far beneath you that they need to be protected from their own lack of ability?

 

[wareyin]

I think there's a lot of reverse motte and bailey going on with this topic. In order to vote, what is required is 1) proof of citizenship and 2) proof of identity. This is true for Canada as well as virtually all democratic nations.

The "bailey" that is fallaciously being pushed is that the US seeks to required that everyone use exactly ONE kind of ID - a driver's license. But that bailey isn't true. The actual "motte" involved is that a reliable form of citizenship and identity be provided in order to vote. Driver's licenses and state IDs are very common, almost everyone who votes already has them. They have them because they're standard issue identification needed to function in society - for the US as well as every other developed nation. But there are other forms of ID that are also acceptable. Passports are always acceptable, but many fewer americans have them. There's a host of other documents available as well, that are substantially similar to what Canada uses.

There have been proposals for a specific Voter ID being used, which would be the same for all states. There's no reason to assume that this couldn't be made free of charge. One of the reasons for this is that different states have different rules around who can get a driver's license. Some states issue a DL to anyone who can pass the exams, regardless of their citizenship. Not all DLs specify whether the individual is a citizen or not. There are weaknesses and inconsistencies from state to state that present loopholes for voting, and there's no centralized federal verification process for the identity and citizenship of voters.

Of course, getting a voter ID would still require that people provide proof that they're who they say they are and also are a citizen. WHich I think is a perfectly reasonable requirement, seeing as pretty much every other democratic nation has the same requirements.

It's crazy that so many people on ISF take the stance that to vote in a Us election, people shouldn't be required to prove that they're citizens, nor to prove that they're who they claim to be. It's so far beyond irrational I don't even know what to call it. It's particularly weird that so many foreigners are dead set on making sure there's no barrier to non-citizens voting in US elections.

This is a pattern I've seen across more than one topic. A rational person says "Hey, Process X has a loophole that could be exploited, we should close that loophole". Then a group of people come out of the woodworks to oppose that, with a relatively common set of objections:

• It's not happening, so we don't need to think about the loophole
• Even if it does happen, it's only a few people exploiting the loophole so we shouldn't bother closing it
• It's actually a good thing that people are exploiting the loophole
• You only want to close the loophole because you're a bigot

It's as if there's a collection of people who are dedicated to tearing down all aspects of social cohesion and order. Apparently some people just want to watch the world burn?

You are misrepresenting the "Motte and Bailey" here. The "Motte" is the idea that we should verify identity, which we already do through the registration process. The "Bailey" is the actual implementation of strict photo ID laws that reject the very documents you claim are "available" specifically to disenfranchise the poor, minorities, and students.

You keep bringing up Canada, but Canada’s system is the exact opposite of what you are defending. Segnosaur has repeatedly tried to inform you of Canadian voter ID laws, but you seem impervious to the facts here. I won't bother trying to explain them to you again, but will point out that "strict" Voter ID states specifically prohibit forms of ID that Canada allows because they are more likely to be used by demographics that disproportionately vote Democratic. Further, as I already pointed out, a Harvard Law report found that the actual cost of obtaining a "free" voter ID typically ranges from $75 to $175 when you factor in documentation and travel, and upwards of $1000 if legal issues come in to play. Supporting these laws means supporting a modern-day poll tax that targets specific voters under the guise of "security" that the data shows we already have.

Furthermore, your "loophole" argument is the definition of a solution looking for a problem. In person voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent; one study found only 31 credible incidents out of 1 billion ballots cast. We are not "watching the world burn", we are pointing out that you are demanding a multi-million dollar bureaucratic barrier to "fix" a problem that occurs less often than people being killed by cows.

Finally, absolutely no one is saying it's a good thing that people are exploiting this loophole of yours. That's an extremely dishonest take on the conversation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

which kind of hinges on whether or not you believe there is an organized plot by the dems to fill the ballot boxes with the votes of illegals, and whether or not the republicans have it in them to stoop to voter suppression.

You get that it doesn't need to be organized in any way, right? All it needs is a lack of safeguards in place, just unguarded loopholes. That's all.

The margin of victory for Trump in 2024 was 2.9 Million votes. The margin in swing states was less than that. In 2024, there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the US. If we assume a relatively standard age distribution (a generous assumption given that illegal immigrants are disproportionately males between 18 and 40), then about 1/5 of those would be under 18. That still leaves 8.9 million voting-aged illegal immigrants in the US. Realistically, it would only take a small portion of those exploiting loopholes to impact presidential elections. Much less than that to effect federal senate and representative elections, let alone local elections.

I don't care if some idiots think it's a democratic plot. I don't care what conspiracy theory you do or don't ascribe to. What I do care about is that a loophole exists that can be closed with relative ease... and some people are absolutely determined to block any effort to put safeguards in place.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Reported just yesterday (sorry about the paywall):

Initial Review Finds No Widespread Illegal Voting by Migrants, Puncturing a Trump Claim​

That was the headline. Here's the sub-headline:

Republican election officials welcome the review, which relies on a federal verification tool, but they say they have not discovered a major problem when it comes to noncitizen voters.​

And here's the gist of the story:

As president, Mr. Trump has pushed his administration to address the alleged crimes, including prompting many states to upload tens of millions of voter records through a federal immigration verification tool run out of the Department of Homeland Security.

But with the review underway, the results so far indicate there is no evidence of widespread fraud, according to interviews with government officials and documents reviewed by The New York Times.

Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked, the department referred around 10,000 cases to Homeland Security Investigations for further investigation of noncitizenship, or roughly .02 percent of the names processed....

Even that number could be inflated. The verification tool has mistakenly flagged some people who appear to actually be citizens, according to some local election officials.

In Florida, for example, an elections supervisor appointed by Ron DeSantis found that only 15 out of the 176,000 names she uploaded to DHS were non-citizens.

While the findings affirm that noncitizens do sometimes wind up on the voter rolls, the small numbers so far puncture the claims that Mr. Trump and his allies have made for the past decade that elections are riddled with illegal votes cast by undocumented immigrants. Studies consistently show little if any evidence for such crimes on a large scale.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Voter ID is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, causing real and unnecessary problems for many with a legitimate right to vote and motivation to do so.

Which is totally why you're fighting to change UK law and eliminate the requirement for id when voting, right? Right?

How to vote

An overview of voting in the UK, including voting in person, postal and proxy voting, and voting if you're abroad.

www.gov.uk

Photo ID you'll need​

You’ll need to show photo ID when voting in person in some UK elections or referendums.

You’ll need it to vote in:

• UK parliamentary elections, including general elections and by-elections
• recall of MP petitions in England, Scotland and Wales
• local elections in England (including councils, mayors, the Greater London Authority and parishes)
• Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales
• neighbourhood planning referendums in England
• local authority referendums in England (including Council Tax increase

 

[wareyin]

No, you're not directly suggesting that. You're just suggesting that absolutely no proof of citizenship should be required.

Bad analogy time: You're not suggesting that murder should be legal, you're just suggesting that killing people shouldn't be illegal.

Seriously, have you ever registered to vote? It has been pointed out over and over to you in this very thread that citizenship is verified during the registration process, and that election officials cross reference that information with Social Security and DMV databases to verify eligibility before you ever get on the voter rolls.

To use your analogy: the "murder" is already illegal, and we already have investigators (the registration process) ensuring people aren't committing it. You are arguing that because we don't have a specific type of high-tech camera on every single street corner, we must want murder to be legal. It is a total non-sequitur. We aren't saying proof of citizenship shouldn't be required; we are saying it is already required and verified, and that adding a redundant, expensive, and discriminatory photo ID barrier at the finish line solves a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[wareyin]

You keep saying this, but it's a skewed claim.

Millions of americans don't have a *current* state *driver's license*. Which is easy to fix. But you keep framing this as if millions and millions of americans have absolutely no documentation of their identity or their citizenship.

Yes, there are going to be some - hermits and homeless perhaps. But it's not nearly as common as you think it is, and it's entirely reasonable to think that an *expired* state ID would be acceptable for the purpose of voting. A better objective is to find a way to make sure that those few people who completely lack legitimate documentation have a way to get it. It's absolutely nuts to take a position AGAINST citizens having proof of identity. It's downright subversive... and to have a FOREIGNER arguing that US Elections should be default allow ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ANYONE to vote without proof of identity and citizenship is damned near intentional election interference.

You claim it is "entirely reasonable" to accept expired IDs, but you are ignoring the fact that the people pushing these laws are specifically passing legislation to reject them. Your "reasonable" standard is not what is actually being implemented, and you know that. This is your Motte and Bailey.

In Ohio, a 2023 law restricted voters to only four forms of ID, and they must be unexpired. In Texas, you can vote with a handgun license, but a student ID from a state university is explicitly banned. There is a very clear reason for that. These laws are not designed to "close loopholes" for security, they are designed to be partisan filters. They reject the documents most commonly held by students, low income workers, and seniors because those demographics are less likely to vote for the party writing the rules.

Finally, calling it "subversive" to oppose a system where citizens must "show their papers" to exercise a fundamental right is a deeply authoritarian take. History shows that requiring citizens to carry and present government-approved identity documents on demand is a hallmark of fascistic and totalistic regimes, not free democracies. The fact that you view the removal of barriers to voting as a threat to "social order" says a lot more about your personal politics than it does about election security.