Huh? Let’s assume the illegal alien or felon gets registered and wants to risk fines and imprisonment for the sake of 1 vote. Felons aren’t banned from getting driver’s licenses, you know. True, “11 percent of voting-age American citizens—and an even greater percentage of African American, low-income, and older citizens—do not have current and valid government-issued photo IDs.” But the great majority of that group have the right to vote. Meanwhile a 2007 study found about 8 noncitizens per year voting between 2002 and 2008. Nationwide.
Admittedly, there are some driver’s licenses that indicate citizenship status - in Arizona in particular. But most do not.
Martin Hyde: I see you read James Fallow’s article in the Atlantic. Good stuff. Romney is very strong as a debater but has also shown two repeated weaknesses: a thin command of policy details, and an awkwardness when taken by surprise. Furthermore: “The history is that challengers tend to profit, particularly in the first debate,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, told me in June. “Just the act of being on the stage with a president is an elevating thing.” Romney could easily beat Obama in the debate. Decisively. But Romney also has a terrible downside: he’s fantastic at debate prep, but separate him from his talking points and he sometimes improvises in weird ways. Could be a real popcorn muncher.
Highly, even absurdly, doubtful. All it takes is an extra five seconds per voter at a crowded understaffed polling station to run lines out the door, and many legitimate voters won’t be able to invest the necessary hours to vote, even if they can make it in before closing.
If you think voter ID is a critical idea, I suggest you also campaign for extended voting hours, even turning elections into two-day or weeklong events to maximize the convenience for the voter.
As it stands, in order to catch the 0.0001% who might vote improperly, you end up affecting many thousands of legitimate voters. That some politicians are clear that this is their intent should make it even more outrageous.
This might very well be true, however the debates won’t change a thing. Nobody watches debates to figure out how they vote. If you’re tuned in to politics enough to watch, you already have your candidate selected and you’re just watching to cheer your man.
I don’t know about that. The debates are one of the things that I’ve been saying this entire campaign could sway the polls definitively in one direction or another. It’s true that most people will already have made up their minds by then - Hell, most folks have chosen their candidate already - but the persuadables could very well make their decisions after a strong debate performance from Obama or Romney.
If the debates aren’t particularly important, then what else could influence the election?
I am pretty sure that this is not true. A number of people seem to tune in first at the debates, having paid little attention before that. And I’ve heard a few people say that the debate is what decides them, because that’s where you see the candidates “matched up.”
This is probably true, but if there is a notable gaffe, or a candidate scores on an especially pithy comment (“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”), it will be replayed incessantly by the media. That can change minds.
In general this is true, but we can point to a handful of elections that almost everyone agrees was decided by the debates. Kennedy-Nixon, Reagan-Carter, and while not a general election Rick Perry had a ton of advantages in the Republican primary (tea party darling, from a huge state, tons of resources) and he almost assumed front runner status the moment he threw his hat into the ring. He was singularly undone as a viable candidate by his extremely poor debate performance that revealed him to be too stupid even for the Tea Party to support.
I beg to differ. I mean, I’m sure that Romney and Ryan are both decent men by their own lights, but their policy goals will DEFINITELY do evil to the middle class, and harm the economy, if not collapse it.
Middle class voters who vote against their own economic interest are EXACTLY the idiot vote I described. Social conservatives who get so worked up over gays marrying or women getting abortions that they vote their children in to poverty.
That’s great and all, but you clearly said “it’s all of them”. Both you and I know that’s a false statement, but I was just waiting to see if you would backtrack on it a bit.
I’d just like to point out that this statement is utter BS.
Indeed. The depth of most voter’s support for their candidate is hardly deeper than their support for their local sports team.
Except that it isn’t. GOP policies overwhelmingly are directed to the benefit of the rich, and are largely responsible for the perpetually increasing income disparity we’ve seen in the US in the past two decades. The stock markets are way up, corporate profits are soaring, yet ordinary citizens are still struggling. Why? Because GOPonomics doesn’t work. GOP always oppose or limit policies that would directly benefit workers. So, yes, a lot of working class people vote against their own economic interest in order to support candidates because of issues like gay marriage, abortion, or “rah, rah USA fuck yeah!”
The focus on wealth inequality is an intrinsic red herring. If the median per capita income is high and the middle class have good standard of living then it really doesn’t matter how wealthy the top 1% or whatever actually are. Economics is not a zero-sum game.
Only the middle class can judge what their interests are. What the middle class understands, even if Democrats don’t, is that in order to continue our system as it is, middle class taxes will have to go up. A lot.