You’ve managed to say something I agree with. And I, along with many other Americans, do not perceive the Presidential elections of 2000 nor 2004 as electing the President they would have if conducted fairly.
If Democrats were stealing elections in today’s America the way the GOP is, right-wingers would be overrunning government offices with shotguns and dynamite.
I don’t think you’re crazy with respect to 2000. The fact of the matter is that the margin of error in Florida in 2000 was so razor-thin that it’s impossible to say with confidence who the winner should have been.
I don’t agree with your uncertainty about 2004.
But the point stands: there is a worthy goal in placing safeguards in effect that increase public confidence about the process and results, even if the safeguards are in response to a potential, not an actual, problem.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…Now, as to the motivation: I think on a scale of one to ten, “eight” is probably the partisan motivation for these laws and “two” the genuine desire to safeguard against voter fraud…
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Bricker]
…But the point stands: there is a worthy goal in placing safeguards in effect that increase public confidence about the process and results, even if the safeguards are in response to a potential, not an actual, problem…
[/QUOTE]
I offer you another opportunity to display your skill in semantic gymnastics.
You wring your hands, fraught with concern about the “public confidence about the process and results”. But you hold that this effort is primarily a partisan ploy to use the power of legislation to further the fortunes of one political party.
But this can be legitimized if there is any chance that the “public confidence” may be affected. Well, all right, then, what about the “confidence” of those who are most affected by this? I think we can fairly say that their confidence will be diminished, we can fairly say it already has been. They don’t count?
And this “potential” problem, which may or may not be an “actual” problem. How theoretical can the problem be, and still pass the test? I am deeply troubled by the incidence of unicorn impalement of voters at the polls. I note that unicorns are closely associated with virgins. There are many more virgins in the Republican Party, hence, I propose a series of searches and affidavits to ensure that Republicans are not trying to smuggle unicorns into the voting place.
I note, with some small regret, that this will effectively harass and discourage Republican voters, but that’s OK, because I am addressing a “potential” problem with voter confidence. Not an actual problem, I don’t have to prove that its an “actual” problem, just as you don’t have to prove that voter fraud is an “actual” problem.
Because it isn’t, just as unicorn impalement isn’t. And for the same reason.
So, to sum up: you admit that this effort is primarily a partisan ploy to reduce the votes for Democrats. You justify this effort due to its healthy effect on public confidence. Clearly, this will adversely affect the confidence of those of the public who are adversely affected, couldn’t be otherwise.
Do you offer us the suggestion that this is a worthy sacrifice, because it will bolster the public confidence of the rest of the public, that portion not affected? Shouldn’t you offer some support for that contention, some reason to believe that the voting public is fraught with anxiety about the “potential” threat of voter fraud?
This will negatively affect the confidence of the target population, it may, theoretically, bolster the confidence of those not affected, who may or may not be in a dither about voter fraud. Which, effectively, does not exist.
But, we must hinder the voting rights of some portion of the public in order to bolster the confidence of the rest.
You really believe that? Or are you scurrying about trying to find the mayonnaise of legitimacy to make this shit sand which more agreeable?
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
The NYT and other publications checked the Florida votes and determined that Gore had more votes in Florida than Bush. It was not put on the front page. So yes, there is voting fraud.
The Supreme Court was wrong to interfere.
But Gore did not carry Tennessee. You really should carry your home state.
2004? Come now, there was no foul play in 2004. A brutal and false smear campaign that in some places could be the cause of a slander lawsuit or two, to be sure, but no real foul play. 2000… Yeah. If you wanna talk about voter fraud, the fraud problem is not on the voter end. :rolleyes:
Sure, they count.
But they cannot complain about a procedure which, no matter its motivation, is legitimate in its effects. Voter ID requirements simply identify voters.
But you do have to prove that some significant number of people are worried about the unicorn issue.
Not quite. I said that the motive for the effort is partisan, just as the motive for ACORN-ish folks is to increase Democratic votes. And as long as the actual plan implemeted is legitimate (registering lots of voters or insisting that each voter is identified properly) then the motives are of no concern.
Yes:
From here.
Yes, I really believe that. And I have evidence in support of my view:
From here (warning: PDF)
My guess is that even faced with this evidence, you won’t concede the slightest error. In a contest between ideology and facts, in your arena, the facts must lose to the conclusion ideology commands.
Even setting aside the smears, and deliberately long lines to vote at Democrat precincts, serious people have made substantiated allegations that the 2004 Ohio vote-counting process was hacked.
Complete and utter nonsense. Increased voter ID requirements reduces voter participation by those for whom conforming to said requirements is more of a burden.
We don’t need to take positive action to increase voter confidence. We simply need to shed light on the constant Republican efforts to assert an individual voter fraud problem when virtually none exists, and shed light on the concerted fraud to discourage individual voters that DOES exist.
I’m sorry but you just made yourself look extremely stupid. As he pointed out, studies have shown that since voter ID laws have been passed just the opposite has happened.
Those of us who are members of the reality-based community recognize that it is a myth that voter ID laws reduce turnout and disenfranchise people.
Cite?
My cite affirming the contrary position was posted above.
In case you missed it, here is the abstract of the study:
ETA: …as Ibn Warraq points out above. 
At best, what I read in those links sets up a case for how it could have been hacked, showing that the security was not set up to prevent hacking and actually allowed hacking – but no evidence of actual hacking occurring.
That’s a very compelling case to fix the scheme so that such hacks can’t be done. But it doesn’t show that the hacks actually happened.
In fact, it’s interesting to look at the parallel: when we discuss voter fraud, your position is that it didn’t happen, unless we show proof it did. Here, your position seems to be that it happened, because it could have happened.
On the other hand, my position is consistent: we need to have voter ID to fix the “it might happen” problem and we need to improve computer security to fix the “it might happen” voting problem. But I don’t contend there’s a voter fraud that changed an election result and I don’t contend there’s a hacking fraud that changed an election result.
It is very difficult to identify trends over time because so many variables are changing.
http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Hershey.pdf
At best, there is no clear evidence that voter ID does anything except allay fears drummed up by Republicans over essentially non-existent voter fraud at the polls. Since there is no clear benefit, the burden should be on those in favor of stricter voting requirements to support that higher bar to vote.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if they did, WTF?
@Bricker: I wish I had the time to look into that paper right now. I’ll try to get back to it, because if it’s legit, then I find that pretty convincing.
Are you suggesting the fact that hacking can occur is an accident? Plenty of experts ratted out that the computer vote machines had fixable back doors. When the head of the largest voter machine manufacturer, Diebold, told his people their job was to re elect Bush that was telling and damning. Their job was not to assure an honest count. For me that is plenty.
Bricker, I will respond at greater length to your most recent response to me, but quickly… you have said in this thread that the Republicans proposing these laws were 8 out of 10 motivated by partisanship, and also that ID laws don’t have a partisan effect. So your claim is that Republicans did something to gain partisan advantage, but did so incompetently?
Yes. My best guess about their motivations is that they believed this change would affect their party’s election results in a positive way, just as Democrats believed the change would affect the election results in a negative way for their party. Both were wrong.
This paper addresses a whole host of variables: early registration, ease of mail-in ballots, number and proiximity of polling places and wait times.
When looking only at ID requirements, from your own link:
When researchers don’t look at actual vote numbers, but predictions and CPS polling data, the results differ:
Note that “were associated with” is not the same as “caused by.”
Well I’m not going to debate the legality of “circumstantial evidence” with a lawyer.
I will say that your reading must have been remarkably narrow-sighted to ignore that the official counts differed dramatically from exit polls. AFAIK, exit polls are generally close to non-fraudulent official results.
Had the Ohio exit polls been used in place of your supposedly non-hacked results, then John Kerry would have been inaugurated President in 2005.
Hope this helps …
Not sure what you’re saying here. I have an opinion about how things “should” be. I have no current practical plan for how to implement my opinion, nor do I have details precisely determined, but my general idea (“all laws and policies relating to elections should be handled by a special non-partisan commission of some sort”) is, while vague, not just something like “people should be nice” which obviously is unimplementable entirely.
I think that the fact that partisan elected officials can make laws concerning voting is very very dangerous. (And I admit that, being an imperfect human being, I’m more likely to see abuses of the system perpetrated by Republicans.) I think the system should be different. What more do you want me to say?
Well, the main thing was whether or not you approved of said law. Which, apparently you do. There’s also the issue of DMVs in democratic districts being closed and hours increased at DMVs in Republican districts, as discussed here, but that’s something that I’m far from certain is really being fairly reported. But if, hypothetically, that were happening, with no justification or excuse other than “because Scott Walker said so”, would that bother you?
Well, we risk getting a bit into conspiracy theory territory here, but there’s a bit of a chicken and egg issue there… something is barely an issue at all, either in actual fact or in the general public consciousness. Then someone with a lot of influence and a loudspeaker gets all alarmed about it and starts spreading concern. So people are now concerned. And now the same group that started talking about it says “well, we have to take action, because so many people are alarmed”.
This also strikes me as one of those issues where precisely gradations of language in poll questions could lead to vastly different responses. “Are you concerned about voter fraud by undocumented voters” is very different from “do you believe there is significant active voter fraud being perpetrated today that is regularly influencing the outcome of elections”, etc.
Once again, in a conflict in your arena between ideology and controlled study… ideology wins.
From the PDF of the report commissioned by the exit polling company, NEP:
(emphasis added)