Unless I’m mistaken, that page is devoted to the accusation that Coulter voted once, in the wrong district, but in the right state. Which is very very different from voting twice. Heck, the fact that in this entire ridiculous thread there hasn’t been any discussion of people voting twice in two different states is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that it is NOT known or though to be a particular problem.
This measure could easily have a disproportionate impact on one party without being applied unequally across districts, if, demographically, Democratic voters are more likely to have recently moved between states.
Obviously this isn’t proof of anything. But then, it wouldn’t be. That is, if some evil and clever Republican operative were coming up with ways to suppress Democratic turnout while maintaining plausible deniability, you’d expect to see stuff like this: actions that have no clear motivation, not very well publicized, which are not prima facie obviously illegitimate, but which could easily have disproportionate impact.
(Which is not to say that I’m at all certain that’s what’s going on in this particular situation. It’s entirely possible that it’s just a generic non-partisan bureaucratic clusterfuck.)
In a word, yes, you disingenuous twit. In person voter fraud is a problem that does not exist, as has been repeatedly demonstrated for you.
In the present example, you don’t even have the problem of registering twice, since the person in question was no longer registered to vote in two places.
Is there some problem with making sure that this purge of legitimate voters did not occur only in selected districts? Why would you raise any objection to that?
As of last fall, my youngest who had registered to vote in another state, was still on the NY voter rolls. She voted once in her new state and not in NY. She was not on the NY rolls this spring so her out of state registration has caught up.
I would say the Virginia thing is a glitch (and just incompetently run) if there is no discrimination in the purging. Were only D’s purged? Also, one wonders whether blue counties got their lists late in order to prevent re-registrations. Halifax was late, but what about Fairfax??
Sounds like it might be due to incompetence, but who knows for sure, especially since it was run county by county.
I’ve warned some folks I know in Virginia about this.
Wait, are we supposed to have evidence that a problem exists before taking confidence-enhancing steps to stop it?
Surely there exists the possibility that such a voter roll purge could be done improperly. And that the improper purge could possibly even effect voting results! The electorate’s confidence in the outcome will be crushed unless we force anyone who wants to purge registrations [del]provide photo-ID[/del] prove they are doing so properly.
I’m not quite sure I see how voter roll purges and voter ID laws are necessarily connected, except that they pass through the same slime-encrusted hands. Heck, it might even be possible to challenge such purges without even referencing voter ID laws.
To your questions above, yes, I think the legislatures should repeal Voter ID OR make a genuine and strenuous effort to facilitate the process of obtaining such ID. Perhaps through an educational campaign plus live and internet “help” facilities and extended days, hours and locations for State offices that issue Voter IDs. Sadly, I must agree that the former isn’t going to happen, at least not given the present political climate. And the later isn’t likely either.
SCOTUS has indeed weighed in and declared these laws constitutional, at least facially. But I remain hopeful that one of two eventualities may occur (which I’ve said before). Perhaps these laws will be seen to have the negative effect some of us fear, and perhaps that situation will cause a re-examination of these laws, and perhaps they will then be struck down as being discriminatory in their effect. Alternatively, perhaps the people who feel themselves the target of these manipulations of the ability to vote may become so pissed off that they’ll move heaven and earth to register (or re-register if needed), obtain IDs or whatever other esoteric ‘qualifications’ may be further required, and vote out of office the proponents of Voter ID.
What I may or may not be doing in my personal life to affect these laws shall remain just that – personal. But as a scribbler on a message board, I urge my readers to urge their representatives to either overturn outright or facilitate compliance with these laws as per my first paragraph above. These attempts should include both “soapbox” and election efforts to change the ‘present political climate’. And I count SDMB posting as “soapbox” efforts.
Having insufficient faith in the possibility of a court finding discriminatory effect and overturning all of the many jurisdictional variations of these laws, I instead put my faith in representative democracy. I believe that efforts to squeeze potential voters, to freeze them out of the process, should backfire and cause all citizens who believe in electoral fairness even when that might not serve a partisan purpose to reinvigorate the process with their input – and their votes. (Or if you don’t accept my characterization, maybe “efforts to solve a virtually nonexistent problem with a ‘solution’ that inconveniences many but fails to treat a potentially much more severe problem, that of fraud in absentee voting, justified only by the desire to assuage “voter uncertainty” at the possibility of an incredibly rare event”.)
True – and for the record, I’m not offering up anything close to a blanket approval of voter purges – there’s just too much variety in the various ways it can be done. I approve in concept the hypothetical purge that is even-handed, based on reasoned inferences about non-eligible voters, and is done with enough time to allow wrongly-purged voters time to correct the error. whether any actual purge effort fits that description, I don’t know.
To be fair that’s pretty close to the ‘voter fraud’ that got ACORN in trouble. The guy on the street wanted to get paid and I doubt anyone was going to actually try to vote under the fake registration.
This is what I love about Bricker’s position here:
Bricker: We need Voter ID to prevent fraud!!!1!!! Lots of other people: Do you have ANY evidence fraud is actually occurring? 'Cause we have a bunch that says it’s NOT occurring. You’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Bricker: It’s NECESSARY for CONFIDENCE in the SYSTEM!!!1!!! We need to change things!
Later: Lots of other people: Hey, here’s some indications that there are major problems with the system you implemented (to solve the problem that didn’t exist). Bricker: WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM!!!1!!! Absent that, we shouldn’t change things.
It’s inconsistent, partisan, and sloppy thinking. Frankly, I expected better from him. Color me an incurable optimist.
As for the emphasis above, I often disagree with Bricker. But I rarely find him engaged in inconsistency or sloppy thinking. This blind spot he has bothers me. Especially since I think that if we lived in the same city, we’d probably get along pretty well as long as we stayed away from politics. I think I’d enjoy having a drink with him.