This is, as following your own link makes evident, part of a program that begun in 2005 called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck, participated in by: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
Here is a PDF that lays out the program’s processes.
Can you identify how, specifically, this produces a “…demographic favorable to Democrats…” as targets?
But it seems to me that a restriction (viewed in totality) is either onerous or it’s not. What I get from this exchange is you view the change towards more onerous to be of more importance than the actual difficulty of the final scheme. Why, though, would this be true? Why isn’t the only issue “Is this scheme impermissibly burdensome?”
That’s not a great measure. The Republic also survived the Nixon presidency, but there is widespread agreement that Nixon’s actions in office were deleterious to the Republic and, had he not resigned, would have almost certainly led to impeachment and removal – which also would have hurt, but not brought down, the Republic.
We ought not to dismiss a harm simply because the Republic will survive it.
Its true that the solution under discussion addresses only a fraction of those issues. But that’s no reason to reject it. It’s a reason to accept it and continue to address the other issues, to the extent possible in the prevailing landscape.
Are you asking for links in which the Democrats have, in the past century, participated in frauds regarding voting? Because, speaking of Nixon, the 1960 presidential race is a compendium of fraud, mainly in Illinois:
The rule targets newcomers. Old-time Southern bigots vote GOP; newcomers less so. (More generally, mobile people have wider range of experience and exposure to culture and, therefore, are less likely to vote GOP.)
The rule exempts military. Military tend to vote GOP.
Even if I accept that uncited assertion… the rule targets people who have moved from anywhere. That is, an “old-time Southern bigot,” who lived in South Carolina and moved to Virginia is just as targeted as one who moved from Democratic stronghold Detroit.
Taking the simplified case that SC, Virginia and Detroit natives all vote GOP, GOP, Demo respectively, what will be the effect on GOP/Demo vote ratio given the rule? Work some example numbers if you still don’t get it.
In the past, I’ve called you “stupid” when I meant “perversely ignorant.” But now it appears you really are stupid, unable to cope with extremely simple arithmetic.
Yes, I grant that if we focus the question myopically on Detroit, South Carolina, and Virginia, there might be a problem.
But the program itself encompasses: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
So what I’m really asking for is a cite that targeting people that move between those jurisdictions would affect more Democratic voters.
You may use as much complex arithmetic as you wish. But you can’t simply invoke it by reference – that is, claiming that “Simple arithmetic proves it,” is insufficient. Please show your work.
sigh And, you completely ignored the other part of my comment, that people who move are probably more likely to vote Democratic than the yokels who spend all their lives in Fagbottom Hollow. Naturally, people who’ve had the urge to explore and have experienced more diversity are likely to be more enlightened and intellectually curious – these people tend to vote Democratic.
(And, PLEASE don’t bore us with stories of how you’ve visited NRA conventions and operas all over Dixie, but still idolize Karl Rove and Glen Beck. We’re speaking of general tendencies, not inviolable rules.)
Without having read or researched deeply, that seems plausible, but unproven… although if a bunch of liberal politicians started complaining about it being inimical, I would tend to believe them, because what would be their incentive to lie about it?
Then according to your logic, I should have been voting Democratic since the 1980s, when I was literally travelling around the world. Most everyone I know today has moved from somewhere else to Houston. Several of them have travelled far more extensively than I have. And we all vote Republican.
“Anecdotal evidence”, like “military intelligence” and “feminist humor”, is an oxymoron. One does not build a wall with marshmallows mortared with cotton candy.