How many do you need?
And why did you pretend I didn’t provide any?
You’re focusing specifically on gerrymandering, while I’m trying to talk more generally. Obviously we want to have elections. Obviously the elections have to have rules and procedures and forms an details and ways-to-adjudicate-disputes, etc. Elections aren’t just some magical thing that just happen and a fair result comes out. So people have to run the elections. And some process has to determine who those people are.
I’m saying that any system in which people who are elected are the same people overseeing the elections (either directly or by making the rules that those will follow) is inherently unstable and not only vulnerable to abuse, but pretty much invites abuse.
There’s a reason we have 3 branches of government and separation of powers, and a reason that the judiciary, which is responsible for ensuring that things are properly applied, is the branch that is generally designed to be the most stable, and the least affected by the winds of political change. Obviously that doesn’t work out perfectly at all times, but it’s certainly a better system than if the supreme court was just a committee of congress.
So without getting into a super-huge debate about this (well, unless you want to) I think that we should approach election reform from a couple of angles:
(1) Have the group the makes and enforces rules about elections be a group that is similar to judges, trying as hard as we can to make them non-partisan, appointed or elected for lengthy terms, etc. (We could also do tricky things where election-monitoring-groups would move from state to state each election to make it harder for bonds of cronyism to form, etc.)
(2) Get rid of geographical districts entirely, whenever possible. Particularly in the internet era, the idea that people have common goals and interests just because they live near each other is pretty laughable to begin with, and of course the entire setup is just comically rife for abuse. Basically, if there’s 10% of the population of a state that is a strong and firm voting bloc that cares passionately about one issue, they should be able to (if they choose) elect 10% or so of that state’s legislature who will represent their opinion on that issue. And that should be true regardless of whether they live near each other or not
(Various other things really need to change as well, but that’s enough typing for the moment.)
Bricker, are you kidding? Seriously, now, have you abandoned all pretense at rational argument? Or was that a long time ago?
I grant that my suggestion that you didn’t have any citation at all is in error. You got one. For this you do a victory boogie in the end zone? No shit? Isn’t the substance of your argument that this is a substantial problem? Or is the substance of your argument that you can find one example? If its the former, and you are arguing in good faith, then the fact that you can hoist me on a semantic petard proves nothing. You are talking avalanche, you present snow flake, and claim to have won.
And your further citation, just presented. Got a nickel says you just now looked it up, because brother, they are weaker than Baptist beer!
This supports your case? No, no it doesn’t. You can claim that the reason that no such evidence was found was because of lax voter id laws, but the citation you offer says no such thing. It says there was no evidence, and that’s about all it says.
Then you give me a Republican who wants power to punish “voter fraud”. That’s the guy claiming that such cases fall to the bottom of the pile. An advocate for voter id claims its important, and you think I should just go “Wow! Well, that settles that, heaven knows a Republican isn’t going to lie or exaggerate, or anything.” Shit, he even played the ACORN card!
Did you read this part?
Of course, she could be making shit up. But so could he. Unless you see anywhere in that article where he proved it?
Otherwise, what you got is proof that one of the guys who claim that voter id is very important claims that voter id is very important. I should take his word for it, is that it? Or what?
Lurid isn’t even an accurate way to describe your prose. Florid, maybe. Turgid? Occasionally. Acrid, rabid… I’m running out of rhymes, or I’d keep defending you!
You forgot “lucid”. Maybe you could defend Bricker for a while, he’s more deserving.
You might mention, as he has repeatedly, all the alleged illegal immigrants who have the gall to actually try to vote at great personal risk (how they could even register, he has yet to explain), as well as all the “Suck it, Dems!” gloating he’s treated us to at every temporary setback to democracy.
I should do a boogie in the end zone. An admission of error? From you?
But that’s my point – how can there be evidence if you cannot start by proving that Jim Smith cast a vote? If anyone can say he’s Jim Smith, then there’s not going to be any evidence.
You should set the rules of what you find acceptable.
This was a prosecutor, saying it’s difficult to prosecute with Voter ID. It’s almost axiomatic that the vast majority of statements like that will come from people favor if Voter ID laws.
You asked for examples of prosecutors substantiating my complaint. This one you don’t like because it’s a Republican prosecutor?
What are the new rules?
I see. So the very fact of a lack of evidence is a form of evidence.
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and it the true living god”
“Horseshit! Prove it!”
“Have you ever seen any evidence of his divine pasta?”
“No!”
“Well, there you have it, only a god could hide the evidence of his existence so perfectly!”
It’s too many for me. I fold.
I should mention, I attack because you’re a vile piece of shit.
I refute your positions, as necessary. For instance, I constantly mention that your voter ID solution is worse than the problem, yet you still support it.
That’s something a fool, or a mindless ideologue would do. Which are you again?
Well, sure, all throughout the country, in the diners, the truck stops, bars and beauty parlors, that’s all you hear from the people, their anxiety and frustration over voter fraud.
Why, I can’t even count the number of times people have said to me “You know, what we need are laws that could empower prosecutors to actually pursue these many, many cases! Gosh, I would sure feel a lot more confident about voting!”
That’s an original Bricker, isn’t it? You came up with that all by yourself, didn’t you?
Let me guess. All your friends voted for McGovern.
Not all. Quite a few were so discouraged and disheartened, they didn’t even bother. “Peace with honor” “Law and order” Agnew. How proud you must have been!
An update: the Hamilton County prosecutor is filing charges against three people, including a nun. Two of them, including the nun, lived with people who received absentee ballots but died before filling them out, so the survivors filled out the ballots and mailed them in on behalf of the deceased.
Yeah, voting on behalf of dead people is over the line, no question about it. I’ve got no problem with those prosecutions.
The third person was a longtime poll worker, but also apparently with a history of having voted for assorted relatives. Got charged with eight counts of voter fraud spanning a number of elections. No problem with that one either.
But given that a pretty wide-ranging investigation turned up just this (they say they’re still investigating another three cases and deciding whether to file charges, but that’s pretty much it), that hardly justifies more stringent voting controls that would also act as barriers to voting for many people.
It’s expected in Cook County.
But dead people voting for themselves is OK.
At least in Minnesota, there’s a loophole in the law that could allow dead people to vote.
Say a registered voter requests an absentee ballot, gets it, fills it out, signs it, and mails it back well before election day. Then that person dies before election day. Their ballot is already in the process – it has been received by the election clerk, checked against the list of registered voters, and verified. On election day, that absentee ballot will be sent to the appropriate precinct, and run through the counting machines with all the other ballots. So that person’s vote will count, even though they are dead.
The opinion from the chief election official is that absentee ballots from people who die before election day should be removed, and not counted.*
But I doubt that this would actually happen – neither the county elections clerk nor the election judges at the polling place have any procedure (nor the time!) to check all the absentee ballots against recent obituaries. So I expect that if this ever happened, it would probably slip thru and be counted, except maybe in a very small village where the poll workers personally recognize the name and know of the person’s recent death.
(In fact, that may lead to some partisan bias – such small precincts are likely to be in rural areas, which mostly vote Republican. In more-populated precincts in large cities (which mostly vote democratic) such absentee ballots are more likely to slip through.)
- This opinion has never actually been heard in Court. A friend who is an elections lawyer has told me it could be is challenged – the law requires that a voter be alive “when casting their ballot”. But when did that happen? You could argue that this happened when the voter sealed his completed ballot in the absentee envelope, signed that, and mailed it to the elections office. Clearly the voter was alive when that happened. So his vote should be counted!
I think dead people who vote should be punished severely. In fact make it a capital crime. That’ll show them. 
Minnesota is hardly the only state that this ‘loophole’ exists in.
My feeling about it is, who cares either way? If they come up with a system to remove the votes of people who vote absentee, then die before election day, then fine. If they come up with such a system but decide that if they voted while still alive, it’s all good, then fine. And if it’s clear that any such system would cost far more money than is worth the hassle of catching these few votes by people who vote early, then don’t survive until election day (assuming you regard that as a problem in the first place), then that’s fine too.
It’s not like this is a huge voting bloc, and it’s not like you have to worry about repeat offenders. 
Except maybe in Chicago – some of those dead people have been voting for years! 
From a Texas point of view, the political corruption in Chicago is kinda cute. Worthy of a Participation Ribbon and a pat on the head.
Just say what you mean, Bricker. You think elucidator was a hippie, don’t you? And the wise voters of Louisiana know what that means:
[QUOTE=“America: Land I Love," an eighth-grade history book used in taxpayer-funded Louisiana voucher schools]
“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles and these youths became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
[/QUOTE]