What this thread needs is more straw.
What about high-school history and civics classes?
Is that all? A bit of post-election sour grapes is routine, and inevitable, and represents no “hypocrisy,” and no “tension” between anything and anything else.
What value would that be? I think you know well enough by now that “voter fraud” is a non-problem.
Bricker, would this have something to do with the civic-Calvinist bullshit you posted in this thread back in 2008? Specifically this post.
No, I don’t know that. Neither does Bruce Marks of Pennsylvania.
Sure, I stand behind that post. What I said then was:
Says the guy making vague allusions to birtherism, in regards to people he doesn’t know?
I don’t necessarily see any tension. The claim isn’t that “the voters can’t be trusted” - it’s that “the people who voted can’t be trusted”. If you feel that the portion of the population that chose to (or was allowed to) vote was not representative of the overall population, then a solution to that problem would be to get a larger and more representative portion of the population to vote.
Exactly, Little Nemo.
A quick example: What if the vast majority of people that voted were insured? Clearly these are people with the most to lose, and least to gain, from Obamacare. Would it not be in the interest of Obamacare supporters to register uninsured voters, who would presumably be more supportive of the plan? And also to deride those insured voters who had no reason to become informed about the merits of the plan (especially those that wrongly believed that Grandma was gonna be killed by the government)?
Or another: What if the minority population voted at a much smaller rate than the white one (I know, stretch with me here)? And these are also the people much less likely to think that the President isn’t a Christian? Wouldn’t it make sense for an Obama supporter to attempt to register such voters, while still deriding the ignorance of the current voters that believe he is a Muslim?
You’re right, I should never had started this thread.
This i can understand and even get behind.
This is a waste of taxpayer money. Whatever Acorn was, they weren’t an unbiased operation and it was paid for ‘by the people’ from governmental funds. To me, that is wrong. If the candidates or the party wants to get the word out then let them. And let them fund it themselves.
So you admit you don’t know what ACORN was or what they were doing? But you’re sure that they’re wrong?
That isn’t what I said. Try again.
Why don’t you start by telling us what ACORN was. Then explain why it was wrong for them to receive state and federal grant money.
I didn’t really claim that ACORN was un-biased, and haven’t ever (to my knowledge) claim that it should have been funded federally. I merely said that it isn’t at all in tension for a voter to hold both that “I should register more voters” and “Voters can’t be trusted”, if one assumes that the speaker believes that unregistered voters are more informed about certain issues than registered ones.
I do note that ACORN only received around 10% of their funding from federal sources, and that voter registration was a small part of their activities.
Why would I have to bother explaining to you what Acorn did or was? The bottom line (and the point you seem to be missing) is that they weren’t an unbiased source for “getting the vote out”. It was funded (however small) by the government. The simple fact that they had a political axe to grind (granted, in one small aspect of what they are purported to have done) means that they should have accepted NO FUNDING from the government.
Jas09, I know you didn’t and I was responding to fact that they were receiving federal funds and nothing against you (unless you really believe that ‘we the people’ should be funding governmental elections for one side or the other)
What difference do the motives make, even if they can be objectively determined? An effort to enfranchise citizens is a good thing for a democracy, no? Should we not have enforced the Voting Rights Act because enforcing it would favor Democrats? And how do we propose to determine which of any such efforts were legitimate, if that is to be based on the political persuasion of the participants?
And ACORN wasn’t simply subjected to a trimming of budget, ACORN was murdered. And the action was not based on some pious concern for the sanctity of voter registration impartiality, but because ACORN was effective, it was working, they were registering new voters, and that effort was paying off. And that effectiveness was a threat to the political power of Republicans.
But if the poor and powerless favor one political party over another, really, who’s fault is that?
Luci, I’ve missed you.
This isn’t about Acorn, it is about using federal funds to promote the voting of a particular subset of people (who just so happen to vote the way you want them to)
I personally feel if Acorn wanted to do whatever Acorn wanted to do, have at it! (at it’s own expense)
These two concepts aren’t in any way in conflict. ACORN worked to register a segment of the population that was under represented in the current electorate–that being low income urban. Note that this group would still be citizens, of legal voting age, and at least moderately literate, perhaps even with valid ID.
Getting that group to participate is a good thing.
And once registered, there is nothing wrong with working to make sure registered voters are informed about issues.
And further to that, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that voters are easily duped by negative ad campaigns.
What issues, and how would they demonstrate it? Consider BrainGlutton’s thread Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day. And consider that study you posted about liberals and economics.
Is someone that thinks Obamacare includes death panels considered well informed? What’s interesting to note about that statement is the voter was extremely informed, unfortunately they get all their information from a lying media whore.
What about something that thinks the free market is self regulating? Or someone that believes in trickle down economics?
Why would someone complain about a perceived tension between two [currently] liberal concepts? Because complaining is fun, it’s what we do when there aren’t real problems.
Shouldn’t we do both? There isn’t any inherent difference between a registered, and unregistered voter. The process of registering them doesn’t change them in any way. If they were ill-informed before, they’ll still be after.
Our system of representative democracy is meant to reflect the wishes of the whole electorate. There is nothing wrong with trying to make sure everyone gets represented. And once registered, there is nothing wrong with trying to educate voters on key issues.
Following an election, there is nothing wrong with then complaining that a segment of the population was under represented, or complaining that those who voted were lied to about key issues.