Aren’t you starting with the assumption, though, that voting is an intrinsically moral thing itself…that there’s something morally good about encouraging someone to vote and morally bad about discouraging them from voting?
I am fully in agreement that no one but a registered voter should be allowed to vote. I also think that the attempt to deny someone the franchise is serious enough that someone should not be allowed to do it without having some skin in the game. Therefore I propose that any registered voter who has not already voted be allowed to challenge anyone’s right to vote, and if that challenged voter is found to be legally registered the challenger loses his or her right to vote.
If you’re not confident to risk your own vote, you’re not confident enough to interfere with someone’s exercise of his or her franchise.
This does not interfere with or supercede the right of official poll workers to do their jobs.
Man what a lawyerly approach to answering. Bricker you ahve absolutely not addressed the spirit or content of the arguement preferring instead to equivocate and misdirect and pick apart the language. What are you so scared of that you can’t give a straight answer?
:dubious: I think you know the answer to that. It is because trying to maximize the number of votes cast and counted and trying to depress that number are not equally legitimate political tactics. Only the former is in the interest of democracy as such.
Must be nice to argue against someone that will give you an answer when you ask a question, huh?
I wonder what that feels like?
People have most certainly advanced that general proposition here.
Yup.
I don’t agree.
If you take legal actions that increase the number of your voters (and not the other sides’) then there no ethical or moral difference between the other side using legal tactics that reduce your votes.
If you don’t believe that my posts #64-66 are simple, straight answers, then I can’t help you any further.
Sure. And let’s tell cops that if they arrest someone and he’s innocent, THEY have to serve the sentence the accused would have served. After all, if they’re not confident to risk their own freedom, they’re not confident enough to interfere with someone’s else’s freedom.
Or maybe that’s not such a workable idea.
Bricker, do you seriously think that ACORN registers only Democratic voters, intentionally or not?
We’re not talking about appointed, hired, or elected officials. We’re talking about private citizens who feel justified in challenging people based on their probable voting patterns in an attempt to prevent opponents from voting. You yourself admitted that. The whole aim is not to find unregistered voters, it is to delay registered ones.
And you claim that having them face a penalty for false accusations is unworkable? Again, if you’re not confident enough to face a risk, keep your challenges to yourself. Put up or shut up, you pussies.
So, I’m in a unique position where I can add some insight to this. I was registered in Pinellas county last year, but moved to Hillsborough county just about a year ago, and as such, need to update my info before I am allowed to vote. So, my SSN and DL# will remain unchanged, but my address has obviously changed. I am a poor, poor person, but I am in fact a middle-aged white male. I have, by all rights, a fairly common last name (Johnston), but it is one that gets spelled incorrectly by government entities with startling regularity (usually by omitting the “t”).
Now, the first chance (going forward from now) that I will have to update my registration will be Friday. My results will most likely not be a slam-dunk for either side of this argument, but may provide some insight as to how the process is working, at least here in Hillsborough territory.
Will report back as able…
-Unstrung
Damn it I hate the lack of quotes within quotes.
Really? Well, huh. I guess it was foolish of me to use “nobody”. In any case, that’s a tangent.
Wow. Just wow.
OK, let me try again. Let’s take 4 hypothetical situations:
(1) A private organization puts a lot of money and effort into registerting voters, focusing on demographics and geographic areas which tend to vote heavily towards one party.
(2) One party is in power in some particular state or local government. That government has a certain amount of money to spend on elections. It chooses to spend that money on get-out-the-vote campaigns, particularly ones which appear to be oriented towards demographics which favor that party. (For example, if the Democrats were in power they might choose to spend a disproportionate amount on materials in Spanish, while the Republicans might spend disproportionate amounts on advertising in rural areas, or what have you.)
(3) One party is in power in some particular state or local government. That party uses that power to pass laws making it generally more difficult to vote, and is motivated purely by cynicism, knowing that the supporters of the opposition party are generally poorer and less well educated, and will be disproportionately affected.
(4) A private organization organizes a (as far as I know perfectly legal) “let’s all drive our cars all day long to cause lots of traffic jams to suppress general voter turnout” drive, with the same motivation as in (3).
Do you find those all equivalent?
When your opponents try to maximize turnout among their base, the appropriate response – the only appropriate response – is to try to maximize turnout among your own base, and if it turns out that still doesn’t give you enough votes to win, well, that’s democracy. Remember democracy? The point of it is to make the state do what the people want. Voting is the only chance they get to express their will in a binding way. The higher the turnout, the more legitimately eligible votes are cast and counted, the more sure we can be the result really does represent the popular will. The ends of democracy are never served by voter-suppression tactics, which is what the Pubs are doing here, despite all this “voter fraud” bullshit.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=286 Most states, felons can vote.
Use a middle initial on your license and you may not vote. That is only fair ,right Bricker.
Moment of snarkish levity…
Over in the National Review blogiverse, two guys are having an online argument much like ours. A shining paragon of progressive people’s justice and a mangy running dog of the ruling class. Running dog is making a point about the grave crisis of voter registration fraud tearing at the fabric of democracy. He is pressed for proof by Dudley Doogooder and shoots back with (paraphrase) “Well, I suppose you think its ok for Duran Duran to be registered to vote in New Mexico! You should have done your research, you lefty loon…etc.”
Punch line: there is a Duran Duran living in Albequerque. Lived there for years, legally registered to vote.
Cherry on top: he’s in the phone book.
Thank the Goddess our enemies are stupid, otherwise, we’d have no chance.
(You want the complete story, I got this drifting around the 'tubes, some place called the Daily Cuss, or some such.)
I can tell you one thing that is happening that could cause mismatches. Based on doing doorknocking & voter registration all summer long.
It’s that part about
Basically, people are not used to giving only the last part of an identification number. (Most people can’t even do this without reciting the full number to themselves.) So many people write down their whole 9-digit SSN on the form.
Then a match depends on the data entry person & computer system programming – if they enter the whole number, but the system accepts only the first 4 digits, it will be a mismatch. If the system takes the last 4 digits, or the data entry person is sharp enough to enter only the last 4 digits, it will match.
And people fill out the form incorrectly all the time. Even though the new Minnesota form tries to make it clear by showing “XXX-XX- ” – people still enter in all 9 digits of their SSN. Or they enter it in the line above, which does have enough boxes. It is common enough that I try to always check that, and ask them to correct it if people do it wrong (I’m not allowed to correct it myself by lineing out the first 5 digits; I have to have them do it).
So that’s one example of how simply a mismatch can be caused.
I know this ain’t florida but it does involve shennanigans…
I know Bricker, we can’t prove it was Repubs but we know what we know. Looks like somebody was trying to cause a few more mismatches.
Slow up a bit, big horse. Says that their web site was hacked, which is a ways short of saying the voter database was broken into. I’m going to assume that said database would have some robust protection. Fucking well better have!
But futher on…
WTF? WTF?
If she’s lying, I want her fired, if she’s telling the truth, I want somebody busted! Even if it means pulling away some FBI from the dreadfully serious ACORN investigation. You know, that threatens the very fabric of democracy…
They’ve been sending white powder to banks recently, too. Whoever they are.