Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[Vladimir]

How does one allege election fraud?

It looks like you're just indulging in more confirmation bias.

[Lemur]

How does one allege election fraud?

You bring a case. It may or may not be borne out in court. What News21 appears to be doing is counting cases brought as well as convictions, giving a much better picture.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first comprehensive survey of voter fraud in all 50 states, quite the labor of love. If you care about he issue, perhaps you'll take a look at the data?

[Vladimir]

Yes, the data is nice, but the question is: How does one allege voter fraud? It's much more reasonable to believe in a poor accountability system than a machine voting conspiracy.

[Lemur]

How does one allege voter fraud?

I dunno, maybe you find a known operator who has been shredding legitimate voter registrations and has over a hundred fraudulent voter registration forms, and you bring charges? It helps, as with all bad things, if it's in Florida. And as I pointed out over and over again in this thread, almost every known case of voter fraud centers on mail-in ballots. Which should be forehead-smackingly obvious.

And God hates Florida.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The best way to combat voter fraud in the presidential race would be to get rid of the electoral college. Besides all the other arguments in favor, it would greatly reduce the chances of there being a tipping point state where a small number of false votes could swing things. And every potential fraudulent voter would know that.

As far as the voter ID laws, aside from what the machiavellian higher ups supposedly think, the regular republicans care about the integrity of the system--regardless of how many cases there are, we shouldn't have obvious loopholes. This is correct, especially since we should avoid giving conspiracy theorists any leg to stand on. Absentee ballots have a potential for fraud and for "you don't really care about the election huh honey? I'll fill it out for you" and they also decrease the secret ballot nature. We should only use them for special reasons.

Aside from that, we should institute a nation wide poll tax. Someone who won't pay a small amount to vote has no business voting. The idea of the divine sanction of the people is a religious superstition.

[Montmorency]

a small amount

Then what's the purpose? A tax can serve to inhibit certain actions, or to raise revenue. If it ain't revenue...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Then what's the purpose? A tax can serve to inhibit certain actions, or to raise revenue. If it ain't revenue...

Inhibition obviously...

[Montmorency]

Yes, but if you'd rather poor people didn't vote, just out and say it.

Don't put out some fluff about "caring" enough to vote or whatever.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, but if you'd rather poor people didn't vote, just out and say it.

Don't put out some fluff about "caring" enough to vote or whatever.

Poor people can vote with a small poll tax. Will they? Mostly they don't already. Something like 3 times as many college educated people vote compared to high school dropouts.

Homeless people, yes, it's absurd that they can vote. I don't know how many gallons of kool-aid someone would have to drink to think otherwise.

[Strike For The South]

e·gal·i·tar·i·an/iˌgaləˈte(ə)rēən/

Adjective:

Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Why do you hate poor black minorities?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

e·gal·i·tar·i·an/iˌgaləˈte(ə)rēən/

Adjective:

Of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Why do you hate poor black minorities?

Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

It would only be an opportunity in a corrupt system where voting was the way you ensured that "your guy" got in, the guy who was going to reward you financially.

[Strike For The South]

Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

Finally, someone who understands what it means to be a true citizen of a republic. Citizenship is not just rights and privileges.

I happen to agree, but these laws are meant to ensure a certain part of the "your guy" system, not to ensure responsibility

[Montmorency]

Sasaki: you seem t believe that poor voters are more likely to be irresponsible and that a poll tax will weed out at least the most irresponsible.

That's clearly nonsense. It would merely weed out the more apathetic poor voters. Interest, as you allude to, is not equivalent to responsibility. It would only serve to further polarize the political sphere.

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

[Strike For The South]

Sasaki:

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

How about $ and a test?

Apathetic voters are precisely the reason why partisans have such a choke hold on our system.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Finally, someone who understands what it means to be a true citizen of a republic. Citizenship is not just rights and privileges.

I happen to agree, but these laws are meant to ensure a certain part of the "your guy" system, not to ensure responsibility

I think we should work harder to ensure responsibility. Honestly a poll tax would probably be insignificant. I only speak in favor of it because it's empty as an objection to the voter idea laws.

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.

Sasaki: you seem t believe that poor voters are more likely to be irresponsible and that a poll tax will weed out at least the most irresponsible.

That's clearly nonsense. It would merely weed out the more apathetic poor voters. Interest, as you allude to, is not equivalent to responsibility. It would only serve to further polarize the political sphere.

Apathetic voters are a crucial stabilizing core that mitigate the influence of partisans...

The thing that polarizes the political sphere is when partisans can inflate their numbers by pulling in extra voters who are apathetic enough that they don't even realize how radical the person they are voting for is.

[Montmorency]

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.

Would this demographic be more responsible? Overall, perhaps more so than the population as a whole. Not much more so, mind. It wouldn't do to rely on them alone to uphold the country. Either broaden the voting base or narrow it to the point of aristocracy for better results.

The thing that polarizes the political sphere is when partisans can inflate their numbers by pulling in extra voters who are apathetic enough that they don't even realize how radical the person they are voting for is.

Then these are no longer apathetic voters. If a partisan 'fires up' an independent...

A better argument would be that apathetic voters lean one way or another anyway and, being regularly and easily fired up, don't really exist as an expansive or even distinct category in the first place. That such voters allow an already unacceptable level of fringe influence or partisan influence to permeate the system.

Still, removing this sort of voter from the pool would give it all away to the partisans, particularly considering that the legislation you propose would create many genuine partisans. It's wholly counterproductive.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Would this demographic be more responsible? Overall, perhaps more so than the population as a whole. Not much more so, mind. It wouldn't do to rely on them alone to uphold the country. Either broaden the voting base or narrow it to the point of aristocracy for better results.

Intellectuals and rich people would have basically as much influence as before. They didn't get influence through their vote anyway, really.

Then these are no longer apathetic voters. If a partisan 'fires up' an independent...

A better argument would be that apathetic voters lean one way or another anyway and, being regularly and easily fired up, don't really exist as an expansive or even distinct category in the first place. That such voters allow an already unacceptable level of fringe influence or partisan influence to permeate the system.

Still, removing this sort of voter from the pool would give it all away to the partisans, particularly considering that the legislation you propose would create many genuine partisans. It's wholly counterproductive.

They are still apathetic...that's why campaigns focus so much on getting absentee ballots out and knocking on doors and so on. Campaigns not focusing on these voters or being able to use them would be good. Also, conservatives are rarely radical, liberals often are, and have to hide it, like when Obama pretended not to support gay marriage when he ran for office.

[Montmorency]

Intellectuals

Influence on policy? How much do they have now, aside from a broad ideological basis for policy? What are we looking for from "intellectuals", politically?

rich people

Plutocracy is what we're going for?

Also, conservatives are rarely radical, liberals often are, and have to hide it

The perspective seems heavily dependent on one's position in the spectrum...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Influence on policy? How much do they have now, aside from a broad ideological basis for policy? What are we looking for from "intellectuals", politically?

Plutocracy is what we're going for?

On the voters. Sponsoring an ad or writing a column probably affects more votes than their own.

The perspective seems heavily dependent on one's position in the spectrum...

But the truth is not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But the truth is not.

That sounds like something I would have written in 2008, back when I thought I knew it all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That sounds like something I would have written in 2008, back when I thought I knew it all.

And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.

Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.

[Strike For The South]

Ha.

You still think you know it all, just from a different perspective

[a completely inoffensive name]

And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.
Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.

Most of the changes structurally in government over the past 12 years has been from self proclaimed Conservatives. I don't think that asking for changes whether it be smaller or bigger government is radical.

If you are going to use that word as a slur, then I guess you look down on the radicals asking for women's suffrage. Overturning 120 years of traditional, male only voting is pretty radical.

Ha.

You still think you know it all, just from a different perspective

What perspective is it from now? If you say I just parrot DailyKos or HuffingtonPost again, I am going to have to start threads where I have conservative views on things.

[HoreTore]

Restricting voter turnout even more is a step backwards.

We need more people taking an active part in government(ie voting), not less. The great thing about democracy is that it is in the interest of people who believe themselves to be enlightened to make other people become enlightened, as all votes are equal(in principle, but different groups have different voter turnout, thus different power).

[Kralizec]

Possibly the only way to really improve responsible voting would be to restrict the franchise to people who are married, have kids, and are over the age of 25. Adults who are strongly invested in the countries future. I mean, I care theoretically about the public school system, but compared to someone with kids? Hell, I'm always tempted to consider it a write off.

"Invested in the countries future"? That's a stupid standard. Singles, childless couples and people between the age of 16-25 are liable to pay taxes and have to obey the law and authorities like anyone else. That's the only justification you need for franchise.

Not to mention that you and I seem to have a different idea of what "responsible" means. I've seen faces of middle aged people, presumably married with children, in photos of rallies for Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman. I don't think that either of them are responsible choices, but then again, I never argued for banning the idiot vote.

Voting is not a right or an opportunity. It is a responsibility.

You're wrong. Voting is most definitely a right.

If my government ever decides that I can't be allowed to vote because I don't conform to some guy's idea of the "responsible citizen" and can't be trusted to support their idea of what's best for the country I will start burning things to the ground. If you don't treat me like a citizen with rights I will not behave like one.

(EDIT: unfortunate choice of words - no offence intended to anyone)

[HoreTore]

You're wrong. Voting is most definitely a right.

Article 21(1) of the UDHR states pretty damn clear that voting is most definitely a fundamental right.

[Montmorency]

On the voters. Sponsoring an ad or writing a column probably affects more votes than their own.

A column? What is that, an extra half-vote per?

Sponsoring an ad? Intellectuals? Would solemn soliloquies by rarefied Ivory Tower types? .1 votes per ad, I'd bet.

So yes - cumulatively...

And now you know that you know nothing? That's not a regression but it's not really progress.

I was under the impression that you didn't credit notions of progress.

But the truth is not.

The truth dwells in my heart, surely.

Conservatives are pretty moderate.

You're looking to reinstate the poll tax here. As I said, it clearly depends on one's position on the spectrum.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Conservatives are pretty moderate. The radicals are the liberals, libertarians, greens, and part of the religious right. I don't think we have many fascist or racial nationalists.

The last Republican President was a religious fundamentalist - the one prior to that was his father, the one prior to that used the Religious Fundamentalists to get elected despite not being one.

Anyone who belongs to a political party in the US is already 50% of the way to being a political fundamentalist - the only people with anything like a balanced view are the independents.

This is also true in the UK, but we have (I believe) much lower party affiliations, and more parties.

So - don't go saying all the nuts are on the Left, and bear in mind that "Libertarians" would be on the Right anyway.

[Vladimir]

The last Republican President was a religious fundamentalist - the one prior to that was his father, the one prior to that used the Religious Fundamentalists to get elected despite not being one.

Anyone who belongs to a political party in the US is already 50% of the way to being a political fundamentalist - the only people with anything like a balanced view are the independents.

This is also true in the UK, but we have (I believe) much lower party affiliations, and more parties.

So - don't go saying all the nuts are on the Left, and bear in mind that "Libertarians" would be on the Right anyway.

A "religious fundamentalist," really?

I do not think that means what you think you means. If you means that he was religious, and believed in fundamentals, than yes. Otherwise, your opinion is a bit off. Varies by culture, I suppose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A "religious fundamentalist," really?

I do not think that means what you think you means. If you means that he was religious, and believed in fundamentals, than yes. Otherwise, your opinion is a bit off. Varies by culture, I suppose.

Um - technically it means he had a religious outlook lacking in nuance. What I really meant, however, was that he belongs to the same group of Evangelicals that can't fart without praying first, believe Gays are the work of the Devil, and supports emotional torture for women getting an abortion because you can't ban it.

We don't have ANYONE like George Bush in national politics, apart from possibly Nadine Dorries, but she's more of a laughing stock than Sarah Palin was and she's just an MP.