Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP is pointing out the two faced approach here.
As long as the Dems win then there is "no voter fraud".
Looks like the Dems are in trouble now so the cry is "voter fraud will not be tolerated" ?
How can it not be tolerated if it doesn't exist. We've been told that for years now by the Dems..that voter fraud does not exist.
How will they ever know if their is fraud or not? After all, they are demanding that IDs not be required because that would "disenfranchise" voters. Not like it's a real concern now, is it?
The primary argument against voter ID was that it would disenfranchise those who do not have the resources to obtain a government issued photo ID. Based on statistics, the vast majority of those people vote Democrat. Which was a bit of a red flag, given that Republicans were spear heading the legislation that would disenfranchise many of those Democratic voters.
It's also worth pointing out that many who support voter ID law also seem to think corporate lobbyism is just an expression of free market capitalism. And maybe it is, but it's also an assault of democracy when money can determine who's in office and what they will stand for. And I think we can all agree that money influencing politics happens quite a lot more than individual voters committing voter fraud. Which only further drives home that issue of disenfranchising Democratic voters. If one is concerned about the accuracy of elections, they would tackle both issues but alas, only one was addressed; the one that helps the majority party fighting that battle.
The primary argument against voter ID was that it would disenfranchise those who do not have the resources to obtain a government issued photo ID. Based on statistics, the vast majority of those people vote Democrat. Which was a bit of a red flag, given that Republicans were spear heading the legislation that would disenfranchise many of those Democratic voters.
It's also worth pointing out that many who support voter ID law also seem to think corporate lobbyism is just an expression of free market capitalism. And maybe it is, but it's also an assault of democracy when money can determine who's in office and what they will stand for. And I think we can all agree that money influencing politics happens quite a lot more than individual voters committing voter fraud. Which only further drives home that issue of disenfranchising Democratic voters. If one is concerned about the accuracy of elections, they would tackle both issues but alas, only one was addressed; the one that helps the majority party fighting that battle.
Those that vote illegally disenfranchise everyone else.
Those that vote illegally disenfranchise everyone else.
Ok, thanks Aristotle, but that doesn't even begin to address my point.
So I'll repeat it.
Given that those demanding photo ID be shown at the booth are silent on the issue of how money influences our political process, it seems that the reasoning behind the voter ID law is not rooted in what is best for a democratic process, but instead what benefits the Republican party.
Sincerely, an independent, who is willing to support voter ID laws (assuming a solution to the issue of voter disenfranchisement is found) and does not recognize corporations as people and thinks they cannot use their influence to alter the outcomes of elections.
The primary argument against voter ID was that it would disenfranchise those who do not have the resources to obtain a government issued photo ID. Based on statistics, the vast majority of those people vote Democrat. Which was a bit of a red flag, given that Republicans were spear heading the legislation that would disenfranchise many of those Democratic voters.
It's also worth pointing out that many who support voter ID law also seem to think corporate lobbyism is just an expression of free market capitalism. And maybe it is, but it's also an assault of democracy when money can determine who's in office and what they will stand for. And I think we can all agree that money influencing politics happens quite a lot more than individual voters committing voter fraud. Which only further drives home that issue of disenfranchising Democratic voters. If one is concerned about the accuracy of elections, they would tackle both issues but alas, only one was addressed; the one that helps the majority party fighting that battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
Those that vote illegally disenfranchise everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Ok, thanks Aristotle, but that doesn't even begin to address my point.
So I'll repeat it.
Given that those demanding photo ID be shown at the booth are silent on the issue of how money influences our political process, it seems that the reasoning behind the voter ID law is not rooted in what is best for a democratic process, but instead what benefits the Republican party.
Sincerely, an independent, who is willing to support voter ID laws (assuming a solution to the issue of voter disenfranchisement is found) and does not recognize corporations as people and thinks they cannot use their influence to alter the outcomes of elections.
It sure addressed just whom lack of it is disenfranchising, points you were making.
It sure addressed just whom lack of it is disenfranchising, points you were making.
Thanks for the compliment!
...
Ok, but you're ignoring the fact that the people who would be disenfranchised by such legislature just so happen to vote the opposite party of those promoting the legislation.
I'll give you some advice in constructing an argument. Evidence helps. Or a number. You identify voter fraud as an issue. I'm more than willing to hear that argument out. How much of an issue is it? How 'off' are our elections as a result of voter fraud? This would help to evaluate how necessary voter ID is.
Though, out of principles, I do feel action that deliberately disenfranchises poor people, who already don't vote enough, should be avoided. You're response to this would likely be that the current system disenfranchises people, and even if that's so, it does not do so deliberately. The current system was not designed in such a way that disfranchisement is just considered collateral damage.
Ok, but you're ignoring the fact that the people who would be disenfranchised by such legislature just so happen to vote the opposite party of those promoting the legislation.
I'll give you some advice in constructing an argument. Evidence helps. Or a number. You identify voter fraud as an issue. I'm more than willing to hear that argument out. How much of an issue is it? How 'off' are our elections as a result of voter fraud? This would help to evaluate how necessary voter ID is.
Though, out of principles, I do feel action that deliberately disenfranchises poor people, who already don't vote enough, should be avoided. You're response to this would likely be that the current system disenfranchises people, and even if that's so, it does not do so deliberately. The current system was not designed in such a way that disfranchisement is just considered collateral damage.
You're barking up the wrong tree. It most certainly does it deliberately.
Democrats have set it up so that no matter how the popular vote goes, their super delegates can override that to give them the candidate they have already decided on.
I can't figure out how that can possibly be legal to violate the voting process that way. Yet they do it while all the time diverting attention by inventing excuses about how voter ID disenfranchises the voters.
Democrats are really disenfranchising their own voters. It's fraud of the most blatant kind.
You're barking up the wrong tree. It most certainly does it deliberately.
Democrats have set it up so that no matter how the popular vote goes, their super delegates can override that to give them the candidate they have already decided on.
I can't figure out how that can possibly be legal to violate the voting process that way. Yet they do it while all the time diverting attention by inventing excuses about how voter ID disenfranchises the voters.
Democrats are really disenfranchising their own voters. It's fraud of the most blatant kind.
Ok, fair point. But still a change in the topic. We're dealing with voter fraud and how voter ID will effect the outcomes.
You are right about the super delegate issue. It is voter fraud, but it's a kind of voter fraud that I referenced earlier dealing with how money influences elections. The kind Republicans who support voter ID laws are silent about [for the most part, exceptions probably exist].
Let's not forget also that the voter ID law is being supported by the Republican party and the law is mostly going to negatively impact Democrats. While the super delegate issue is also something supported by the Democratic establishment, it only negatively influences Democrats, not the opposing party. No, that doesn't make it ok. Especially if you ask a supporter of Bernie Sanders. But it is not an assault of the opposing party.
Point being, the voter ID law is both an assault on democracy (via voter disenfranchisement) and a promotion of party politics, while the super delegate is only an assault on democracy. To be clear, I don't disagree with your overall point, but I do not think it's relevant to the issue of voter ID law, nor does it excuse the disenfranchisement of poor democrats that would happen with the voter ID law.
You're barking up the wrong tree. It most certainly does it deliberately.
Democrats have set it up so that no matter how the popular vote goes, their super delegates can override that to give them the candidate they have already decided on.
I can't figure out how that can possibly be legal to violate the voting process that way. Yet they do it while all the time diverting attention by inventing excuses about how voter ID disenfranchises the voters.
Democrats are really disenfranchising their own voters. It's fraud of the most blatant kind.
Each super delegate has exactly one vote, and votes in exactly the same election as other delegates.
I think calling them super delegates is a misnomer, because it gives people the impression that they have super powers of some kind, which they don't.
They are unpledged delegates - meaning that they can vote for whom they wish at the convention, and are not bound by the result of a state's primary, as the overwhelming majority of delegates are bound.
I believe the GOP has unpledged delegates too. Dunno how many, and dunno what their obligations are, and don't care, because I'm not a member of the GOP. I figure the GOP can mind its own business. And yes, that's a hint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
