Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
112th Congress: Everybody's Angry At Everybody
Posts
Spokane has a fair number of people.
You're forgetting about Barrock HUSSEIN NObama.
Check and mate!
/Poe
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
There's still an opportunity cost, and possibly a higher one than a day's lost wages. It depends on how you value your non-work time, or at least on how you believe non-work time should be valued.
I can see the law inconveniencing a lot of people, financially and otherwise, but harm to the poor seems overstated here. Have the suggested harms been proven? It doesn't seem they have been, any more convincingly than the possibility of fraud prevention has been.
Do we even know how many people there are who a) work all day, on every day the DMV is open, and b) don't have a valid ID already?
Also, it seems like one hell of a challenge to estimate how much fraud by non-citizens is happening when the only way to measure it would be to ask foreign nationals to be honest about something likely to get them deported.
Absent solid numbers on how much fraud we think might be happening, and how much harm a change might cause, how do we decide whether to make this change?
This is very much like the bear patrol issue; people are more upset at a perceived threat than an actual one. In fact, the whole immigration policy debate is a lot like that episode.
Using them as a scapegoat for other problems is pretty common.
Poor areas rarely have DMV offices. And even if they do, they are often understaffed.
Which is funny because the only real voter fraud issue I'm aware of occured in wisconsin, but because it helped a republican its a ohmotherfucking k!
It seems if we don't know if its going to harm anyone or not and aren't sure if its needed or not the responsible thing is to not do it.
Just my 2 cents.
Recruiting people to walk in to a polling station and cast votes in other peoples name? You would need dozens if not hundreds of people to do it at seperate polling stations. Checking that somebody was registered but not voting that day? The risk of the poll officals actually knowing the person you are impersonating? Then getting everybody to shut up afterwards? It only takes for one of these things to happen for the entire thing to unravel.
Or having 1 county offical "find" the votes you need to win?
Which one would you try for? Hint: There is a reason the dead voted for Kennedy in 60.
That should be the conservative position, and I like that metric very much. Now, are there any non-ideological studies that might shed some light for us in either direction?
Occams razor: The simplest solution is usually the right one. Vast voter fraud conspiracy involving hundreds of people or a few old men trying to keep their guys in office.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Since you're the one so sure we need voter ID laws, it's your job to find proof.
It must be entirely a coincidence that the ways in which we fight voter fraud tend to disenfranchise the poor and minorities!
link
He said objective and non partisan this lady is a hyper partisan Obambi follower!
A google search for voter fraud site:.edu comes up with almost nothing else.
but nixon was so suave and charming, how else could he have lost?
Lets not change history, there were voting irregularities that could have been fraud, Nixon actually did the reasonable thing and chose not to challenge it.
Clarification: What I meant was that by passing a law meant to keep illegal immigrants from voting they are trying to make it seem like they are doing so in large numbers, thereby framing the immigration debate in a different way.
The whole voter suppression thing goes down when you look at the fact that rural poor would be hardest hit by this law and they vote Republican.
Oh they never where, but as a conspiracy to commit voter fraud its the only one that could actually work.
Get the poll watchers to go through the graveyard and add the names to the voting rolls. Then stuff the ballot box with votes of your choosing when the polls close.
If you want to be carefull, only add the recently deceased to the voter roll and pretend they cast a absente ballot before their death.
Conservatives delegitimizing the election of a so-called liberal to office? Why, I've never heard of such a thing.
People seem to be making all sorts of gratuitous assumptions here. Is there any good evidence? In thinking about balancing the possible harms and the possible goods, it seems to me that if financial harm and deterrence in participation by citizens cannot be demonstrated, the case against action is very much weakened. I still believe the conservative position should be to avoid action when the causes and effects are largely unknown.
There are no urban poor?
Occams razor. Apply it to everything you just said.
It seems sensible that only our citizens should be able to vote for our leaders, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that illegal aliens should get a vote, or that we should turn a blind eye to fraud. It seems unproven that a voter ID requirement is an effective way to prevent non-citizens from voting, and it seems unproven that a voter ID would harm the poor.
Therefore, I don't believe we should act.
Also, I think it's wrong to suggest that widespread voter fraud by non-citizens is hard or unlikely. Assuming there's a clear interest (real or perceived) for non-citizens in supporting one candidate over another, and assuming they know they won't get asked to prove their citizenship, getting them to vote would be a lower hurdle than some are suggesting.
Just conservatives?
And yet its been shown to be the case that they aren't.
Yeah less intrusive like abortion legislation, increased immigration enforcement, and warrantless wiretaps.
When their ideology doesn't line up with their actions, I think you can toss the ideology. The modern conservative movement is anything but.
I don't believe a progressive position on an issue requires as a pre-requisite that some good is proved - only that some good might be possible. I also don't believe a progressive position requires that the harm be disproved - only that potential harm is outweighed by the potential good.
So yes, since neither the harm nor the good is proved conservatives should choose inaction, but other political leanings might arrive at different conclusions.
I've been asking for proof of the harm, or proof that the harm does not exist - care to offer some? "It's been shown"... who showed? Where? When?
There is the Christian conservative ideology, the fiscal/libertarian conservative ideology, and the neo-conservative ideology. The three definitely run counter to each other on multiple issues. Its a mighty feat of doublethink for a person to believe in all three simultaneously.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".