Which is interesting but not evidence of anything more than bureaucratic snafus, if that. The figures are real, but the organization doesn’t seem to be making a big deal out of it. And let’s be honest - in 2008, there was already 17%, meaning that such issues are not unheard of. What could have caused the increase? Hmm… maybe “MILITARY VOTER PARTICIPATION INCREASED 21% IN 2010 ELECTION” is a bit of a clue as to why the system had considerably more failures? You know, that maybe an increase of one fifth would cause a system like this to have a little more trouble? But as said at the beginning, this is really not evidence of anything more than bureaucratic
Okay, first off, the fact that the best source you could find was Fox News is already a gigantic red flag. Secondly, the issue was dealt with by extending the deadline significantly. For an attempt to suppress the military vote, this sure did do everything possible to ensure that those votes would be counted. :rolleyes: I’m sorry, but the scandal is even more fake than the claims that extending the same privileges the military had to everyone else was “suppressing the military vote” in Ohio. And you still haven’t answered my question - what’s your opinion on notarizing absentee ballots, given that that’s essentially the only way to make them fraud-proof (akin to voter ID) and that fraud is both easier and more common with them?
That would be a good idea. Another good idea would be to restore absentee ballots to their original intent, which is a way for people unable to reach their polling place due to disability or being out of town to vote. In many states it’s now just de facto ballot by mail.
They don’t need to prove it, just go back to the old system where they have to explain why they need a ballot rather than just issuing it no questions asked.
BTW, serious question, why is it requiring ID to vote an attempt to disenfranchise minorities, but requiring ID in all other situations is not? Isn’t requring ID to get a job discriminatory? Isn’t requiring it to board a plane also discriminatory?
Well at least you have consistently terrible ideas.
Because in other, similar situations, the liability for fraud is actually present, and the damage is palpable (please don’t make me explain why it’s less damaging to have one fraudulent vote cast than to have a person take out funds from the wrong bank account). What’s more, there’s not a legal requirement for ID to get a job (merely a legitimate SSN), and having a job is not a fundamental right in a democracy.
So it is discriminatory, it’s just necessary. Except for elections. Fortunately the courts disagree with your reasoning and only strike down ID laws that actually create an undue burden.
And actually you do need ID to get a job, I know, because we got threatened with fines for not having it as part of the I-9 form. Gotta have a photocopy of every employee’s ID, as well as SS card.
Because you don’t have a constitutional right to get a job or board a plane. Also, because requiring an ID to board a plane wasn’t instituted with the intent to steal elections for Republicans.
And what purpose would this serve? Making people write a paragraph on “Why I Need An Absentee Ballot”, a paragraph that will make no difference to what the government does, is a ridiculous make-work solution. And if you’re proposing that some poor government schlub actually read the explanations and decide whether or not the person deserves an absentee ballot, you’re making the process ridiculously inefficient, more expensive and more arbitrary for no added benefit. Just issuing the ballot no-questions-asked is a far better option.
This has been explained to you umpteen times already. Will one more time do the trick?
Considering where you pulled this one out of, I don’t want to touch it. What on earth are you talking about? Is it now a requirement to show ID to mail a letter? To participate in a town hall meeting? To pick up the phone and call my congressman? To email my senators?
Well spoken. Thank you. Do you have suggestions on who the GOP should nominate for the 2016 presidential election? Is it limited to Christie, Walker and Jindal?
Voters on his side all have cars and drivers licenses and jobs with working hours that allow them to get to the polls. Also, his voters all vote in precincts where there are plenty of machines and little waiting in line, unlike those people.
Our friend has shown he has little interest in understanding things that don’t fall in line with what he believes. I would suggest one go back and look at his endless denials about what the polls said prior to the 2012 election. Facts meant nothing then because an oversampling of Democrats in all the polls explained things in a way that reinforced what was believed, as well as what Fox News was saying. The need to cling to the belief that voter i.d. is good and just and desperately needed is more important than what any annoyingly contrary facts may show. The pattern is pretty clear AFAICT.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an explanation that is actually grounded in the real world. Again, what our friend believes is what reality actually is, not what the facts may show.
But they can still win. Don’t ever forget that. The Pubs still hold the House and a majority, I believe, of state legislatures and governorships. They have very thoroughly entrenched every position they hold, and they still have one massive base they can turn out, and captive media outlets, and institutional connections, and think-tanks, and boardrooms of corporate execs on their side, and a metric shitload of donor-cash to draw on. They don’t have to learn anything. They can still win.