What did Democrats do wrong?

[P.J. Denyer]

But it happens so infrequently, or in such small numbers, the response looks to me to be taking a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. There is much more legitimate fraud taking place that really needs addressing, e.g., voter disenfranchisement. Think Florida 2000 where (mostly) black voters were removed from the register.

Yes that's the point I've been making. No-one ever stole an election by going around from polling station to polling station casting a single in person vote at each and hoping the real voter who's name they have hasn't got there first. After voter ID requirements were introduced in the UK by the Conservatives their Leader of the House of Commons at the time it was introduced Jacob Rees-Mogg admited on camera that the intention had been to make it harder for groups that don't usually vote for them to vote & easier for their voters. It backfired on them, badly.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I have to admit, as a non-American, the idea of voting being a kind of honour system is pretty mind-boggling to me, especially when you also have to register to vote beforehand, which just seems really self-contradictory to me. Imagine a system where any 17-year old can walk into a bar, say their name is John Smith, and have the bartender find that name on a list and go 'yeah, sure, I see you're 25, no problem, here's your beer'. Or a traffic stop where someone claims to be someone they know to have a driver's license and the cop just takes them at their word.

If the issue is that too many people don't have ID, obviously the immediate solution is to make it commonplace for 'everyone' to have some kind of identification. Roll out national ID cards for everyone, make it so driver's licenses can be used as ID if they can't already, use one of the secure apps that already exist.

 

[Random]

I have to admit, as a non-American, the idea of voting being a kind of honour system is pretty mind-boggling to me, especially when you also have to register to vote beforehand, which just seems really self-contradictory to me. Imagine a system where any 17-year old can walk into a bar, say their name is John Smith, and have the bartender find that name on a list and go 'yeah, sure, I see you're 25, no problem, here's your beer'. Or a traffic stop where someone claims to be someone they know to have a driver's license and the cop just takes them at their word.

If the issue is that too many people don't have ID, obviously the immediate solution is to make it commonplace for 'everyone' to have some kind of identification. Roll out national ID cards for everyone, make it so driver's licenses can be used as ID if they can't already, use one of the secure apps that already exist.

Ideally that would be the solution, but it is about motives, not reason. The people who are really pushing for voter ID are doing it the make it harder for certain people to vote. Giving everyone ID defeats the purpose, so....

 

[Segnosaur]

I have to admit, as a non-American, the idea of voting being a kind of honour system is pretty mind-boggling to me...

Except of course its not an honor system. When you vote your name is verified against a list of registered voters, and there are significant penalties for someone who engages in the type of identity fraud that photo ID laws are supposed to prevent. (Also pretty easy to catch, if you show up at a polling station and the actual voter has already voted.)

If the issue is that too many people don't have ID, obviously the immediate solution is to make it commonplace for 'everyone' to have some kind of identification.

In the approximately 5 years that Trump has been president, the Republican Klan has worked to cut spending on: meals on wheels, school lunch programs, college aid, and the national endowment for the arts. I am sure that if the government tries to make an easy-to-get identification, the first thing the republicans will do is to cut funding specifically to make the identification hard-to-get.

In fact we have already seen that, in at least one republican controlled state where they closed multiple DMV offices (where you would supposedly get your 'voter ID' in districts that have a large proportion of minorities.

Roll out national ID cards for everyone, make it so driver's licenses can be used as ID if they can't already,

Ummm, pretty much ever state that requires photo ID for voting allows you to use a driver's license.

But here is the problem... if you are wealth and/or middle class, you will probably have a driver's license by default because, well, you probably own a car. If you have a lower income and cannot afford a car, then you will likely not want to spend the money to get a license that you will never use.

use one of the secure apps that already exist.

Not really sure what you mean by that.

 

[Mongrel]

Not really sure what you mean by that.

I presume that it's something like the UKs Easy ID scheme.
A government approved and recognised app that the checker can scan for validity.

 

[bruto]

Except of course its not an honor system. When you vote your name is verified against a list of registered voters, and there are significant penalties for someone who engages in the type of identity fraud that photo ID laws are supposed to prevent. (Also pretty easy to catch, if you show up at a polling station and the actual voter has already voted.)

In the approximately 5 years that Trump has been president, the Republican Klan has worked to cut spending on: meals on wheels, school lunch programs, college aid, and the national endowment for the arts.
I am sure that if the government tries to make an easy-to-get identification, the first thing the republicans will do is to cut funding specifically to make the identification hard-to-get.
In fact we have already seen that, in at least one republican controlled state where they closed multiple DMV offices (where you would supposedly get your 'voter ID' in districts that have a large proportion of minorities.

Ummm, pretty much ever state that requires photo ID for voting allows you to use a driver's license.

But here is the problem... if you are wealth and/or middle class, you will probably have a driver's license by default because, well, you probably own a car. If you have a lower income and cannot afford a car, then you will likely not want to spend the money to get a license that you will never use.

Not really sure what you mean by that.

Indeed, although I will acknowledge that I have only lived in small rural venues, it's not as if voter ID is not already a thing, if not the thing the current administration likes. You can't just walk into the town offices or the registrar's session or whatever is the method of the place, and say "register me." There's some proof required, and an oath taken, and penalties for violation. Once that has been done, further ID should only be a confirmation that you are the voter so registered. Any further requirement is superfluous. Questions of legal citizenship were addressed when you registered and the deal is done.

I would add, however, that it's possible to get a driver's license without being a citizen. After all, at least so far, the idiots in charge have not managed to make it impossible for green card holders to drive a car, and here in Vermont, it is explicit policy to allow licenses even to undocumented immigrants. The qualification or documentation needed to register as a voter, however, should not be required once that has been done. A driver's license ought to be subsequently sufficient to identify who you are. These days, "real ID" licenses exist, which confirm one's legal status in the United States, and "EDL" endorsed licenses confirm citizenship. I don't know just how other states handle this, but a license with the required endorsements ought to be sufficient de facto proof of legal status and inherently free from challenge without cause.

Aside from the idea to make the necessary ID more expensive and harder to get, we already see in many cases, such as ICE detentions, the fact that if a more uniform sort of ID is required, the powers that be will simply move their goalposts and challenge the ID itself.

I think there is already a pretty good system out there for confirming citizenship which should be sufficient to get a valid voter registration, but I think in any such discussion one must take into account the unfortunate fact that the current administration and its advocates do not want this to be simple or stable. They want it as expensive, burdensome and discouragingly inconvenient as possible. Whatever our administration says is likely a lie. Their goal is abuse, and whatever system of ID is instituted, if it does not disenfranchise their perceived enemies, they can and will simply abuse it. They have learned and taken to heart the art of nuisance and harassment. Our current president is the model, a bully who revels not only in lies but in cruelty and insult. Their goal is ostensibly to clean up the voting process, but it is really to institutionalize selective discrimination. Actual democracy is their enemy.

 

[dirtywick]

the documents you need to get a photo id are the same ones that aren’t good enough for verify id to vote that photo id is supposed to supplant

 

[bruto]

the documents you need to get a photo id are the same ones that aren’t good enough for verify id to vote that photo id is supposed to supplant

I'm not entirely sure I get this one, but if it means what I think it means, the problem seems pretty easy to solve if the rules for photo ID's are made correctly, just as it is easily solved already in the case of Real ID and EDL licenses now, at least where I am. I don't remember exactly what I had to present for a Real ID license, but it was some evidence of legality in addition to residency. Probably a passport, or of course a birth certificate, or in my wife's case it might have been her naturalization. If you're not applying for a real ID license (which is optional) you still get a photo ID, which tells only who you are, not what you are. But for voter certification, it seems simple enough to say that if you have a correctly endorsed license (or non-license photo ID - either one), then the work has already been done and need not be done again.

I mean, it's not that hard to encode a photo ID with a symbol that even a conservative idiot can read. See a star, see a legal resident. See a little flag next to it, see a citizen. And if you're visually illiterate, it's spelled out too!

 

[dirtywick]

I'm not entirely sure I get this one, but if it means what I think it means, the problem seems pretty easy to solve if the rules for photo ID's are made correctly, just as it is easily solved already in the case of Real ID and EDL licenses now, at least where I am. I don't remember exactly what I had to present for a Real ID license, but it was some evidence of legality in addition to residency. Probably a passport, or of course a birth certificate, or in my wife's case it might have been her naturalization. If you're not applying for a real ID license (which is optional) you still get a photo ID, which tells only who you are, not what you are. But for voter certification, it seems simple enough to say that if you have a correctly endorsed license (or non-license photo ID - either one), then the work has already been done and need not be done again.

I mean, it's not that hard to encode a photo ID with a symbol that even a conservative idiot can read. See a star, see a legal resident. See a little flag next to it, see a citizen. And if you're visually illiterate, it's spelled out too!

what i mean is that the documents you would bring to get a photo id are the same documents allowed to verify your identity for voting registration as an alternative to a photo id, which seem kind of odd that they’re not good enough in that case

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is also about turn-out. The Regime knows low voter participation means they are more likely to win.

 

[EHocking]

the documents you need to get a photo id are the same ones that aren’t good enough for verify id to vote that photo id is supposed to supplant

They need ex-Blockbuster employees enforcing ID verification documentation.
An infallible system.

 

[bruto]

what i mean is that the documents you would bring to get a photo id are the same documents allowed to verify your identity for voting registration as an alternative to a photo id, which seem kind of odd that they’re not good enough in that case

I get that, but would reiterate that identity is not all that is required for voter registration, as any non-citizen should be able to get a photo ID. It should be sufficient confirming who you are for various purposes, including for voting when one is already registered, but since only citizens can vote, the requirement for initial registration must be more exclusive.

 

[wareyin]

Your assumption is incorrect. I am concerned with overall integrity. But I'm also very cynical, and right now I'm inclined to think that a highly vocal cohort of posters on this forum are extremely partisan, and they only take positions if doing so allows them to paint "the other side" as being evil and bad. My working hypothesis is that many of the people here lamenting how it's evil and bigoted to place reasonable safeguards on voting to ensure identity and citizenship are only doing so because it benefits democrats to call it racist. It appears to benefit democrats because dem partisans have this notion that minorities are too dumb and too poor and too helpless to be able to get an ID or to demonstrate their citizenship, and those poor dumb helpless minorities have to be protected so they'll keep voting for democrats.

I suspect that if the demographics shifted, and minorities started voting for republicans instead, that the entire argument would shift.

My view is that this is an obvious loophole that can be closed with relative ease, and closing it benefits the country regardless of party. We could take actions that would prevent ANY party from exploiting the system. But then you wouldn't be able to point and complain about how racist the republicans are so...

The fact that you characterize a lack of time and money as "being too dumb" says more about your worldview than mine. It is a convenient way to ignore the actual, physical barriers that exist for people who do not live in your tax bracket.

You cannot claim to be a neutral guardian of democracy while handwaving away a physical attempt to overturn an election, as johnny karate helpfully quoted you doing. It is absurd to claim that not requiring a redundant piece of plastic that costs people $25 to $100 is "subversive" to our system, while you simultaneously defend a violent assault on the Capitol as a harmless stroll.

The "loophole" you are worried about is a statistical zero that doesn't actually help anyone, but the solution you are demanding would keep millions of eligible citizens from the booth. You are not worried about integrity, you are worried about the wrong people having a voice. You have already admitted that your concern is that this "loophole" is harming Republicans, but your assumption that these non-existent loopholes are a threat to Republicans or help Democrats proves you are just a partisan pretending to be an independent.

 

[Donal]

I have to admit, as a non-American, the idea of voting being a kind of honour system is pretty mind-boggling to me, especially when you also have to register to vote beforehand, which just seems really self-contradictory to me. Imagine a system where any 17-year old can walk into a bar, say their name is John Smith, and have the bartender find that name on a list and go 'yeah, sure, I see you're 25, no problem, here's your beer'. Or a traffic stop where someone claims to be someone they know to have a driver's license and the cop just takes them at their word.

Your analogy falls apart in that the 17-year-old would only be able to buy 1 beer a year and the person whose name they are taking would be prevented from buying any beer. Also, buying beer doesn't really translate towards elections.

If the issue is that too many people don't have ID, obviously the immediate solution is to make it commonplace for 'everyone' to have some kind of identification. Roll out national ID cards for everyone, make it so driver's licenses can be used as ID if they can't already, use one of the secure apps that already exist.

Ya...but the people pushing for voting ID laws aren't for that. Also, what you are suggesting all have their own massive hurdles.

 

[bruto]

I have to admit, as a non-American, the idea of voting being a kind of honour system is pretty mind-boggling to me, especially when you also have to register to vote beforehand, which just seems really self-contradictory to me. Imagine a system where any 17-year old can walk into a bar, say their name is John Smith, and have the bartender find that name on a list and go 'yeah, sure, I see you're 25, no problem, here's your beer'. Or a traffic stop where someone claims to be someone they know to have a driver's license and the cop just takes them at their word.

If the issue is that too many people don't have ID, obviously the immediate solution is to make it commonplace for 'everyone' to have some kind of identification. Roll out national ID cards for everyone, make it so driver's licenses can be used as ID if they can't already, use one of the secure apps that already exist.

Licenses are used as ID by many if not most of those who need ID, like banks, postal authorities, hotels and so forth. One issue here is that a license costs money, and not everyone drives. And not everyone can tap into whatever secure apps you're talking about. Of course if the government were to foot the bill for the ID, some of that problem would be solved. As I've mentioned before, in situations where a card or a license is issued, the problem of identifying who is a legal voter is really pretty simple. The vetting occurs at issue, and when you show the license with the correct endorsement, it's done as completely as showing a passport or other document is. Of course if, as ICE seems fond of these days, the response to a valid ID is to assert that it's fake or stolen, or simply to ignore it, then absolutely no ID will satisfy requirements other than, perhaps a tattoo or an embedded chip, and I wouldn't trust our current administration to use even the most draconian and unamerican remedies honestly.

Voting is not an honor system anywhere I have lived. Identification that one is the registered voter does not need verification of anything but who you are. Verification of what you are has already been done. It is, of course, possible to steal or fabricate an ID, and thus to cast the vote of another, but once done it's done, and it does not increase the number of votes. And insofar as it is possible to do this, it is equally possible to fake or steal any form of ID. If verification of who you are is difficult or burdensome to accomplish, one of the best solutions is mail-in ballots! Where I live, one requests such a ballot, and it is, of course, checked that the request comes from a registered voter's household, and it is then mailed to the registered voter's registered address. It is filled out, signed under penalty of the law, mailed back in a sealed envelope within another sealed envelope, and the inner envelope checked against the voter rolls before being opened and counted. Now of course there is still the possibility of corruption and fraud, but it is small unless the corruption is at the counting rather than the voting end of the process. And once again, a ballot once cast cannot be duplicated. Cancellation of a mail in ballot is a complex procedure with safeguards. Our current administrations hatred of mail-in ballots suggest strongly to me that actual integrity in voting is not their goal. Mail in (or hand-in) ballots are convenient and relatively secure, and because the time frame is more generous, casting one's vote is easier and less stressful.

The forces pushing for more and more complex voter verification and more difficulty in casting votes are, if honest, going about it the wrong way. And realistically I doubt those in command are even a little bit honest. Their goal is to disenfranchise as many voters as they can, and discourage the rest.

 

[Solitaire]

00:00 Fox News - Ami On The Street - How White Liberals Really View Black Voters

Ami: "I'm Ami Horowitz and I'm here in Berkley, California to find out if voter ID laws suppress the black vote."

He starts off with a strong opening. You might think he will enter a political professor's office at the University of California for a quick factual discussion on the matter. But no... What use are facts? When you can have a heaping pile of opinions and innuendo instead.

00:16

Ami: "Do you have any opinion on voter ID laws?"

1: "Well yeah. They're usually pretty racist. They're bad."
2: "I think voter ID laws are a way to perpetuate racism."


Ami: "Would go so far as to say those laws a racist?"

3: "For sure."


Ami: "Do you think it suppresses the African American vote?""

4: "Definitely. Ah, because they are less likely to have state IDs."
5: "Minority voters are less likely to have the kinds IDs that have been described or required."
6: "These people do live in areas with easy access to DMVs or other places where they get identification."


Ami: "You can always get IDs if you go over the internet. Is that also make it difficult for black people in particular?"

5: "Yeah, you have to have access to the internet. You have to pay an internet service provider for certain fees."


Ami: "Do you think it's harder for black people to go online?"

3: "I feel like they don't have the knowledge of how it works."
7: "A lot of people don't have smart phones. They don't have data."
3: "For most of the communities they don't know what is out there because they're not aware, or the're not informed."
8: "I also think there's a repression like black voting with... How if your a convicted felon, like, you're not allowed to vote and everything. And when you look at swing states like Florida, that's a huge portion of the population of the African Americans."

He gets the opinions he wants by asking leading questions with as little depth as possible. Notice the slight shift near the end and the ringer of a question about black people using the internet. As they may well know in rural areas internet service becomes sparse to non-existent. Czar link anyone? And cell phone services go to zero bars pretty quickly if you go off major roads.

So where will he go next? Say, states with voter ID laws, such as Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, or Tennessee?



We will be right back after a word from our sponsor.

01:28

Ami: "Now, I'm in East Harlem to ask black people their thoughts on what you just heard."

Interesting choice. Why would he choose New York City of all places, where voter IDs laws don't exist, rather than, say, talk to effected residents of states where they do?

Ami "Do you have ID normally? You carry ID around?"

9: "Yes. I have state ID."


Ami: "Do you carry ID?"

10: "Yes I do."


Ami: "Do you know anybody, any black person who doesn't carry ID?"

10: "No."
9: "Everyone I know has ID."
10: "Why would they think we don't have ID?"
11: "Ha, that's a lie. Why would they say that?"


Ami: "Do you have ID?"

11: "Yes."
12: "I have my ID and my friends have their IDs. So like, we know what we need to carry around."
13: "Everybody I know have ID. Like, that's ones of the things you need to walk around New York with, IDs."


Ami: "Do you know any black adult who doesn't no have ID?"

14: "No, I don't.


Ami: "Is it a weird thing to even say that?"

14: "Yes, it is."
15: "What is this? Is it some kind of trick? Candid camera surprise trick... [Crosstalk] I know right."
16: "That's the only thing I brought with me."

Ami: "Those are legit IDs."

This second group of soon to be black conservatives, even though they don't know it yet, are quite puzzled by the question. He not only plays off their suspicions, but he really redirects the viewers attention away from matters going on in the Southern States.

02:15

Ami: "I heard also that black people can't figure out how to get to the DMV. What does that say to you?"

16: "I know where it's at. It's on 125 street."


Ami: "Do you where the DMV is right here?"

15: "It's on 125 street and third avenue, I believe."


Ami: "Do you know how to get there?"

15: "Yeah."


Ami: "Do you have problem getting there? If you have to get there"

15: "No."

Ami: "I know these sound like silly questions."


Ami: Do you know how to get to DMV? You know where it is? You can get there no problem? No problem? Just checking."

14: "Of course. Yes. Un-huh. No problem. Okay."

This little trick of misdirection that anchors both their attention and the viewers attention to the New York City DMV. But those white liberals, remember them, would never think of finding the DMV in New York City particularly hard. It's those other place, down south, you know.

02:42

Ami: "I also heard a lot of black people, especially poor black people have no access to the internet. Can't figure out how to use the internet."

12: "That's just stupidity, honestly. Everybody has access to the internet. Even little kid can figure out how to work the internet."

10: "I've had access to the internet for years."


Ami: "Know how to use it properly?"

10: "I do it at work. So of course, I know how to use it. They have iPads, iPods, whatever."


Ami: "Your phone has data and you can actually [crosstalk] unlimited data."

14: "Unlimited data."
16: "I use my phone as a hot spot."

Now we enter the turn, where he discredits the white liberals, except it's just an illusion. The first group was thinking of rural areas. They would never think New York City does not have internet connectivity. The viewer, on the other hand, will blindly follow along, not questioning this strangely dissonant assertion of the counterfactual.

03:13

Ami: "What does this say to you about people who have this perception of black people?"

17: "Their pretty much ignorant. That's what my thought process was."
9: "I just think that's ignorant."
16: "Ignorant, very, very ignorant. It's very, very ignorant."


Ami: "Does it sound racist for somebody to say that?"

10: "I think it's a little racist because you know you're putting people into a category and you have no idea what you're talking about."
13: "Maybe a little bit racist in it. But I like I said, it's more stupidity and ignorance."
18: "You're judging somebody like... You're judging them because their black. Saying they don't got it."
16: "What people are they talking to? What or who are these people talking to?"

Who were they talking to? Who were they talking to???
Why it's in the title of course. Ami Horowitz, and no one else.

Now with the, so called white liberals, dismissed as racist. And believe me, there are some howling laughter in the hills over that one. He only need persuade the viewer that the second group does not mind voter ID laws and therefore magically no other black person in the world would have a problem with them. Oh, right... That other group, the ones we forgot about just minutes ago... They don't seem to matter any more, do they.

03:50

Ami: "Do you have a problem with, that if you go to vote and they say, 'can we please see your ID to see if you are who you say you are?'"

14: "Love showing my ID."


Ami: "You got a problem with that?"

14: "Nope."


Ami: "Would you have a problem, if when you go to vote, they say could we please see your are to see if you are who you say you are? Do you have a problem with that?"

15: "No"


Ami: "Would you have a problem where there is a rule where you have to show your ID in order to vote?"

16: "I don't think so. No."


Ami: "Would you have an issue if there was a rule saying you got to show your ID before you can vote?"

18: "Nah."


Ami: " You cool with that?"

18: "Yeah."

Did he find out if voter ID laws suppress the black vote? Nope.
But that was never his goal in the first place.