home

Today in "Both sides do it"

Ed Kilgore on Thomas Edsall's ridiculous comparison between negative campaigning and voter suppression:

Even if you buy Edsall’s assumption that the Obama campaign’s anti-Romney ads are designed to convince non-college educated white voters who won’t support the incumbent to give Romney a pass as well, it is fundamentally wrong to treat such efforts as equivalent to utilizing the power of government to bar voters from the polls altogether. Voters hypothetically convinced by the Obama ads to “stay home” in the presidential contest are perfectly free to skip that ballot line and vote their preferences for other offices, just as they are perfectly free to ignore both presidential campaigns’ attack ads and make a “hard choice” between two candidates they aren’t crazy about. Lumping negative ads together with voter disenfrancisement under the rubric of “vote suppression” legitimizes the latter as a campaign tactic rather than what it actually is: an assault on the exercise of fundamental democratic rights.

What Ed said.

< James Holmes First Court Appearance | ABC Reporter Upset US Not Suffering Casualties In Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    seem to occur to either political party that people are aware of their condition - whether they have money in their pockets, whether they are gainfully employed - whether they feel free to express themselves - whether they are in a country that is at peace or at war - whether they are in a country that cares about the weakest among us - whether the right to vote is being supported or blocked. And whether the right to vote for either of these candidates has any real meaning.

    We know this without having to be told by politicians, pundits or advertising agencies.

    We will vote for someone, against someone, or not at all.

    What a waste of millions upon millions of dollars and a year and a half of our precious time.

    What doesn't occur to some commenters is (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:35:04 PM EST
    that preventing people from voting ,makes it hard for those who do not agree with a political party do not get to vote against them.

    Parent
    I don't see those (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:32:52 PM EST
    positions as mutually exclusive.  Am I missing something?

    Parent
    You're asking the wrong person (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    Of I could have deleted the off topic comment.

    What's your preference?

    Parent

    I've got no preference at all (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:03:16 PM EST
    I'm just trying to understand.

    Parent
    Oh, wait (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    Now I understand :)

    Parent
    What I don't buy is this: (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:31:16 PM EST
    Even if you buy Edsall's assumption that the Obama campaign's anti-Romney ads are designed to convince non-college educated white voters

    The assumption that all non-college educated white voters are stupid and can be manipulated is insulting.

    BTW - At least they were smart enough to not go into major debt for a degree that has no value in the job market.

    All advertising is meant to convince someone (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:41:40 PM EST
    of something. The premise of advertising is that people can be manipulated. No one is assuming they are stupid.

    Parent
    The Republican Primary... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    ...pretty much proved how influential political ads can be.  Within a week of dropping huge amounts of cash, the polls shifted drastically in several states.  Don't remember the particulars, but I remember being surprised at the amount of shift.  Way more than I thought it would.

    Parent
    There's a reason why (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:43:49 PM EST
    advertising is a billion[s] dollar industry.  Everything thinks they're immune and that those loud annoying commercials would never influence them.  

    Until they need a new mattress or flooring or insurance company or lawyer or vacation destination or whatever.

    Or until they've decide they have Restless Leg Syndrome.

    In the political arena, I'm not surprised at the amount of shift.  I still remember the faux brouhaha of the Howard Dean "scream".

    Parent

    If it wasn't tageted (1.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    Then I would agree.

    Parent
    All advertising is targeted. I don't know what you (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    are saying. Advertisers target all ads based on education level of the desired demographic. If Dems have learned Obama does poorly with non-college educated people, of course they are going to try to reach them differently than they would others. That is just common sense.

    Parent
    OK, let me note (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    Yes, all advertising is targeted.

    See beer ads.

    See car ads.

    See cellphone ads.

    My point is that a POLITICAL organization is nakedly targeting white voters who have not attended college.

    I sneer at beer ads.

    I ignore car ads.

    I grit my teeth at cellphone ads.

    I will never vote for a political organization that thinks that white voters who didn't attend college is stupid.

    Parent

    Where do you see that they think they are (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    stupid? Do you think that the GOP ads that target the same voters think they are stupid?

    Parent
    Straw premise (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    I will never vote for a political organization that thinks that white voters who didn't attend college is stupid.

    Targeting a demographic for ads does not mean someone thinks they are "stupid".  That's your own invented/straw premise.

    Parent

    How smart (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    does one have to be to think that just because one sneers at advertising that he or she is unaffected by it.  Probably no one who has ever been in sales would think that, though.

    Parent
    When you make a pronouncement like (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    that, it really would help your cause if you had subject-verb agreement; instead, you wrote something that sounds like it came right out of the GWB stylebook.  Maybe that was intentional?

    In any event, I fixed it for you:

    I will never vote for a political organization that thinks that white voters who didn't attend college are stupid.

    Political organizations always play on ignorance and fear, and guess what?  It works.  If it didn't, they would find some other way to appeal to people.

    Speaking only for myself, I make regular use of my TV remote's "Mute" button, and I suspect I have plenty of company; perhaps your blood pressure would be more within normal limits if you did the same.

    Parent

    Muting might help (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    in fact I just flip the channel when Obama comes on.... but what really fires me up is one of your "I'm just so superior" comments.

    Parent
    Oh, sj (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:55:59 PM EST
        Jim deserves a better rating than that. He's simply telling us the truth, and, at the same time, revealing to us how he comes up with his cock-a-maimee ideas:

    Whenever someone intelligent comes on, he changes the channel.

    I say, "atta boy, Jim!"


    Parent

    ha! (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:12:09 AM EST
    Welcome to the... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    none of the above party Jim, can I take your coat? ;)

    GOP must think my white college drop out arse is dumb as a bag of bricks if they think I'm gonna buy what they're selling, even for a second.  Same goes for the DNC, to a slightly lesser extent.

    Frankly I don't see any other explanation for the last 30 years or so of governance...both parties gotta think 99% of us are either stupid or gluttons for punishment or suicidal.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    Ironic (3.20 / 5) (#3)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    You can't enter the Department of Justice without a photo ID but they'll make sure you can vote without one.

    LINK

    2:50 mark if you want to skip the Republican talking points

    Stupid actually (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    The ID requirement, as they have in courts, is due to security concerns, not fraud.

    My gawd you bring us the stupidest stuff.

    Parent

    Now we're name calling? (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    I just read a Heritage article that said you can't argue this issue with liberal lawyers...

    But voter ID is anathema to liberals, particularly liberal lawyers and law school academicians. It is almost impossible to have a reasoned debate with them over this issue. The fact that voter ID has been found to be both constitutional and not a violation of federal voting laws like the Voting Rights Act in various court decisions annoys and irritates them to no end.

    I guess the article was right.

    :-)

    Parent

    Well yes Heritage (4.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    is very objective on the issue.

    Let me put it this way - do you believe political parties and pols will do anything to win? Cuz I do.

    It takes an act of sheer willful ignorance to imagine some other motivation than electoral advantage for these initiatives.

    You're good to go on that.


    Parent

    I have no doubt that (2.33 / 3) (#17)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    either party will lie cheat and steal to win an election.

    That's why i'd like to see a poll worker make the lying and cheating just a tad harder.

    Parent

    And poll workers are as pure as the driven snow! (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Erehwon on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    Or as biased as in the Jim Crow days, which is not yet past tense, is it?

    Parent
    Or standing outside (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    intimidating voters as in Philly...

    Oh wait. Holder said that wasn't...

    lol

    Parent

    Wrong again, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:54:08 PM EST
    It was the Bush administration that reached the conclusion that Mr. Shabazz standing outside a polling station was not voter intimidation.

    Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez explained that the Bush administration's Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes" but did "file a civil action on January 7th, 2009."

    Link.

    Similarly, the Bush administration decided not to prosecute a Minuteman militia member for carrying a gun outside a polling station and questioning Hispanic voters:


    Perez testified that in 2006, the Justice Department "declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation" "when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish."

    Re: Shabazz, the Bush DOJ did file a civil action against him, and the Obama DOJ got a default judgment against him.

    Back to the old drawing board!

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#21)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    BTD...Please Stop! (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    How can you demean yourself by allowing yourself to get sucked into a delusional debate with people who just want to suck you into a delusional debate? And you fall for this crap?

    Why not invite Glenn Beck for a meaningful discussion regarding Global warming? Or Rush Limbaugh on an equal rights amendment for women?

    Jeez, Man. What happened to you?


    Parent

    geez, someone finally kill this mummy! (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by cpinva on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    You can't enter the Department of Justice without a photo ID but they'll make sure you can vote without one.

    last time i checked, the right to enter the DOJ headquarters isn't in the constitution, the right to vote is.

    this is about as "ironic", as rain on your wedding day.

    Parent

    In can be an inderect comparison (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    and still be "ironic".

    :-)

    Happening in the opposite way to what is expected, thus typically causing wry amusement.


    Parent
    Not in federal (none / 0) (#47)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    elections.

    Parent
    Nothing to worry about here (2.33 / 3) (#4)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    It's not like people commit voter fraud.

    LINK

    This is why we need Voter ID laws

    Parent

    Can;t get people to vote (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    but they'll expend ungodly efforts and risk to commit voter fraud.

    This is the stupidest idea imaginable if anyone actually believed it.

    But no one of reasonable intelligence actually does.

    Republicans know what they are doing and why. It ain't fear of voting fraud.

    Parent

    Republicans know exactly why they are doing (2.33 / 3) (#9)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    it.

    To make sure people who show up to vote are who they say they are.

    I want my vote to count.  I don't want it to be canceled out by someone who is dead.

    I quote Justice Paul Stevens...

    that flagrant examples of [voter] fraud...have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists...[that] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

    Thankfully I live in Indiana.  I know my vote will count.

    Parent

    You may be stupid enough to believe that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:16:14 PM EST
    I'm not.

    More likely, you WANT to believe that than the truth - it's an attempt to keep eligible voters from voting. You see, that's where the votes are.

    It is not in the 2 people featured in your link.

    I find it fascinating that the report did not tell us how many people on their list of 100 actually voted.

    The reason is obvious - the overwhelming majority did not vote. Like 95%. To wit, there MAY be 5 illegal votes.

    No way anyone expends the energy to pass the laws for that. It is to suppress the votes of thousands of legal voters.

    Cuz that's where the votes are.

    Parent

    I'll take the bait (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    So lets suppose there is zero voter fraud.

    How many voters are not going to go get an ID (even a free one) and not vote?

    Millions?  Thousands? Hundreds? Two?

    Seems like those against these laws are equally inflammatory when they call them poll taxes and talk of millions of suppressed voters.

    Parent

    Why do You Suppose... (4.00 / 4) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    ...they republicans only care about voter fraud in a handful of states and don't you find it a little weird that there solutions are always politically advantageous to them.

    Dumb luck, huh ?

    If they were serious about, they would find solutions that didn't disenfranchise eligible voters, period.  Remember like the ones Canada has that you tried to use as proof that even Canada uses ID.  Have you totally forgotten that, and how you were shot down because Canada allows people to vote without ID's so long as someone verifies they are who they say they are.

    Did you forget that already, or did you realizxe the Canadian ID plan you pushed wouldn't disenfranchise eligible voters of the opposing party ?

    These are the same points you made then, shot down, dis proven, yet here you are again, making claims that were proven false.  It's like you have an agenda, and those pesky facts are going to stop you.

    Parent

    So your point is that (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    because Canada allows people to vote without ID's so long as someone verifies they are who they say they are.

    no one would lie about this??

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    all voters are liars. Good grief. The majority of Americans don't even vote. It's pathetic. and you all are worried that there might be a case of fraud here or there. I read that the Bush Administration hunted mightily for voter fraud and found 86 EIGHTY SIX case in 8 years. That's not even 10 per year out of how many millions of people who vote.

    You'd better spend your energy on getting rid of the electoral college. But I know you wont because you like presidents who lose the popular vote.

    Parent

    As a resident for most of my life in (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:15:48 AM EST
    the small states I understand that the EC lets us have a say. Otherwise it is NY, NJ, PA, IL CA,FL, etc.

    And you ignore my point which was that there is no reason to believe that someone who knows the person is illegal would not vouch for him/her.

    Parent

    Well Except for that Pesky Fact... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    ...that is works, but we don't need to talk about that, doesn't even seem like that thought occurred to you Jim.  Which of course proves the point, republicans aren't interested in actual solutions that work, just ones that tip the scale in their direction.

    If they cared about results, they wouldn't be making a problem to begin with.  And I am pretty sure it would not be an easy task to find a neighbor who is willing to commit a felony so you can cast one fraudulent vote.

    Parent

    It works? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    In what respect? That doesn't prove someone can't lie and beat the system.

    Parent
    As a resident of a small state (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    ... you would "have your say" if the EC was abolished and the popular vote was used.  As it is, with the EC you get more than your vote.

    So much for the concept of "One person, one vote".

    Parent

    The small (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    states have representation. It's called the senate. The president should be elected by popular vote. Those small states really have no say anyway. They get ignored and 3 EV's draws zero advertising dollars. I mean how many dollars do you think the presidential candidates are going to spend in North Dakota? I'm willing to bet a big fat ZERO. The only states that get any advertising are swing states. I mean I guess you're okay with OH or FL deciding who the president is and not the whole country? It would seem so.

    Parent
    for whatever reason (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    I have seen a ton of political ads this "season" - and I am talking Obama/Romney not Warren/Brown.

    Speaking for me only, I would be happy if they continued to spend all their money in OH/FL and left my TV alone!  Although I would be cool with having my vote counted - I would prefer if it happened without the ads :)

    And no, MA is not all of a sudden a swing state, even if Romney is "from" here.  Although now that I think about it, they could be showing ads as a way of competing for ad $$... which is so meta I just blew my own mind.

    Parent

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    I would think that it would be kind of embarrassing for Romney to not advertise in MA. I mean it is his "home" state.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    seen them but on cable and not local stations. Cable  buys are usually the only way I see any presidential political ads.

    Parent
    You are lucky.. (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    I have heard Romney signing 'America the Beautiful' a few too many times lately. It is a good ad, but enough is enough. I think the point of diminishing returns may have been reached.

    Parent
    New Hampshire is, though (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    The small states get ignored?? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Can you spell Senator Reed?

    And you are concerned about ad dollars??

    Gesh

    And if it wasn't for the EC then New York and CA would decide.

    That gives you no current problem because they are solidly Demo.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    NY and CA would not decide who is president anymore than they decide now. Since when has ND been the deciding state in a presidential election?

    Parent
    They are poll (3.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    taxes if a person is required to buy something or pay money in order to vote.

    Parent
    Well they either have to (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    buy clothes to wear to the polling place or a stamp to mail their ballot.

    Is that a tax?

    Parent

    Absentee ballots use a signature (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    check. Why is that not enough for in-person voting?

    Parent
    I am not going to break down the (2.67 / 3) (#26)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:49:55 PM EST
    specifics of each law in each state.

    I just don't see a problem with requiring an ID from someone who shows up at the poll.

    I've now down it three times and it actually made me feel better when I voted.  Like I'd actually done something.  

    Kind of like when they ask to see my ID at Walmart, oh sorry I mean Target, it makes me feel better.

    I don't believe there is massive voter fraud but I also don't believe that people are disenfranchised when asked to prove that they are who they say they are.

    This is about democrats and republicans wanting every last vote and it just so happens that people most likely to not have an ID and be too lazy to get one tend to vote democratic.

    Isn't any more complicated then that.

    Parent

    Lazy huh? Nice. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    Possibly a poor choice of words (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 09:27:42 AM EST
    You see no problem cuz you have one (4.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    Tell (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    that to the courts. We went through this here in GA where they mandated you had to have a driver's license which costs to vote. The courts ruled that it was a poll tax and the law had to be redone. So now we have to give people FREE IDs and FREE ridges to the places to get IDs. So your little thing here just cost the taxpayers a lot of money. This is also why I laugh when Republicans yammer on about government spending. We've had almost nonexistent voter fraud here in GA and yet you conservatives find a way to do something that isn't even needed that costs the taxpayers. Just lovely. I guess there's no amount of money that's too little when it goes to a "conservative cause".

    And then there's the problem with a lot of elderly people who do not have birth certificates because they never had one and then people who have married and changed their last names.

    Parent

    Your vote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    doesn't count unless you live in a swing state. If you were so awfully concerned about your vote counting you would be helping to get rid of the electoral collage instead of worrying about nonexistent vote fraud.

    Parent
    That is true (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:32:57 PM EST
    But Indiana is a mild swing state this year and with the help of our voter ID law I can be confident my vote will count.

    By the way Obama won our state in 2008 even after we passed our evil voter ID law.

    Parent

    So you (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    think that your vote didn't count before ID laws? Do you realize how nonsensical that sounds?

    Parent
    Of course your vote counts (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    especially if you vote a straight party ticket to elect the Senators and Reps that will support what the Prez wants.

    Parent
    I'm talking (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    in a presidential election. Sure your vote counts in state elections but it doesn't count unless you live in a swing state for presidential elections. I guess I should say HOPEFULLY your vote counts in those.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:08:32 PM EST
    what if you vote straight GOP and the GOP candidate loses the election? Then your argument would be that your vote doesn't count or maybe doesn't matter.


    Parent
    No, I would argue (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 06:29:01 PM EST
    that your vote counts either way. Even if you are on the losing side it shows support.

    And I was referring to Prez, Senate and Rep.

    Parent

    for the love of god (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    In order for your vote to be cancelled by fraud there would have to be as many fraudulent votes cast as legitimate ones.  That is not even remotely close to the case even in FL.

    Parent
    In order for an individual to have his/or her (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    vote canceled required exactly one illegal contrary vote. In order to steal the election it requires just a a balance of contrary votes opposite and larger the the fail margin of victory.

    Thats simple math

    Example Fair
    A 10
    B 12
    So B wins by two however

    if we also have an illegal vote of

    A 4
    B 1

    A now wins by 1 vote 14 to 13


    Parent

    Examples of such occurrences are nonexistent (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    We are now going to test how many elections are stolen by GOP voter ID laws.

    Parent
    Provisional ballots are available. (1.50 / 2) (#57)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:13:35 PM EST
    Technically its impossible, to steal an election as long all  provisional voters are willing and able to comply with the same registration and identification law as every other legal voter.

    IMHO if the results of the election are in doubt , as they would be in a close, "stolen", election then these provisional voters are going to have lots of new friends to help them out.

    Parent

    An example of massive contempary voter fraud (none / 0) (#88)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:54:23 PM EST

    Drug money funds voter fraud in Kentucky

    from the article

    "

    The sellers in this situation would come to me and ask how much was I paying for votes, and ask me if I was buying votes or whatever, and I told them the most I could pay is $25," Salyers described to Fox News. "They would go into the machine and cast their vote...They were supposed to vote for me. They would come back to me and I would pay them for going to vote.  I had one gentleman come to me and say 'Mike, I have four votes,' so he took them to vote and I gave him $100, $25 a vote."

    Not absolutely positive if ID fraud was used. But it certainly would make this type of fraud more lucrative.

    Parent

    "Not absolutely positive"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    Not absolutely positive if ID fraud was used.

    There's absolutely zero evidence that ID fraud was used.  As described in the article, people were paid to vote for a particular candidate.  That has nothing to do with ID fraud.

    Parent

    It is not established how many people cast (2.00 / 1) (#91)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    four votes.

    So I don't know. There is certainly a finacial incentive for any of the thousands of unethical voters to cast multiple ballots.

    I wonder why this story  isn't on all the major networks?


    Parent

    The quote doesn't say that one person (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    cast four votes:

    I had one gentleman come to me and say 'Mike, I have four votes,' so he took them to vote and I gave him $100, $25 a vote."

    It seems clear to me that the man was being paid to get 4 people - the "them" he took to vote - to vote the candidate's way, not that he, himself, was casting 4 votes.

    People should not be paid to vote, but it's not clear to me how voter ID would prevent that.

    And I've yet to see anyone explain why Pennsylvania, which didn't even document any cases of ID-related fraud, is in such dire need of a voter ID law.

    Parent

    Why not two people? (none / 0) (#99)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:13:25 PM EST
    Probably because Fox ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    ... has an interest in pushing voter fraud stories in the hopes that people will be confused into thinking this has something to do with Voter ID laws.

    BTW - The article itself (and your quote) says:

    I had one gentleman come to me and say 'Mike, I have four votes,' so he took them to vote and I gave him $100, $25 a vote.

    So you have evidence of vote selling and "financial incentive" (read @ $25) for voters to cast multiple ballots, ...

    ... you just don't have any evidence of any actual voter ID fraud.

    Back to square one.

    Parent

    So the other networks (none / 0) (#94)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    have an interest in suppressing voter fraud stories?

    How would you suggest that one proves that a single voter did for love of money vote under several names?

    It's the same reason you can't prove that although many voters will illegally accept money to cast a ballot;
     they suffer pangs of conscious that proscribe  them from pocketing additional money from their dead uncles name - or the little list of names the money man has.

    I don't buy it. This is a glaring example of an incentive to vote early and often


    Parent

    If you want to claim ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    ... there is widespread voter fraud based on people claiming to be someone they are not, it would be more convincing

    So the other networks have an interest in suppressing voter fraud stories?

    Uhhhhm, ... no.  Fox has an interest in pushing these stories.  That does not mean the converse is true.

    Basic logic.


    How would you suggest that one proves that a single voter did for love of money vote under several names?

    The same way the number of other crimes are established.  Number of convictions, peer-reviewed studies, etc., ...

    Still nothing but your own speculation?

    I'm shocked.


    Parent

    In order to find evidence (none / 0) (#98)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:42:09 PM EST
    of a covert crime requires someone to look for it.

    Since LE is often controlled by the same people who benefit from the ongoing voter fraud it not vigorously investigated.
    That's one of the more insidious results of political fraud and corruption.

     I can be convinced to alter my view if anyone can produce reports issued after an untainted and comprehensive investigation into voter ID fraud.

    The  article concerning the recent felony convictions in the Kentucky points out:

    1. That in eastern Kentucky, vote fraud is blatant and generally accepted as a way of life  by the much of the public

    2. The the orchestrators of this fraud have been engaged in these activities over a long term.

    3. Some of these bad actors have just recently ( finally) been brought to justice. Before that the problem was generally unacknowledged.

    Uncovering subterranean crimes requires investigation. Where was the investigation in Kentucky over all these years.

     Which investigation into Philadelphia vote fraud are you referencing?

    To say there is no evidence when there has been no investigation is meaningless.


    Parent

    Voter fraud IS investigated (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 08:49:18 AM EST
    To say there is no evidence when there has been no investigation is meaningless.

    Usually at the state level, but also at the federal level.  In fact, the Bush DOJ prioritized the investigation of voter fraud during a 5 year period and managed a total of 86 convictions, the vast majority of which were not for casting fraudulent ballots.  Similarly, a Bush DOJ report found that, from October 2002 through September 2005, the Justice Department charged 95 people with "election fraud" and convicted 55. Of those, only 17 people were convicted for casting fraudulent ballots with 3 cases still pending.

    I can be convinced to alter my view if anyone can produce reports issued after an untainted and comprehensive investigation into voter ID fraud.

    Heh - lots of qualifiers there.  Makes it easy to deny the result of any investigation as tainted or incomplete.  But see the Bush DOJ report.

    BTW - The results of most criminal investigations - particularly when no charges are brought - are usually not made public.

    Uncovering subterranean crimes requires investigation. Where was the investigation in Kentucky over all these years.

    Don't know - you'd have to ask the Kentucky AG.  OTOH - voter ID laws are not going to prevent voters from selling their votes.

    Which investigation into Philadelphia vote fraud are you referencing?

    Samir Shabazz.  It wasn't a vote fraud investigation.  It was voter intimidation, frequently cited by rightwing types as evidence that the Obama DOJ is supporting the NBPP, or (at the least) is refusing to prosecute voter intimidation cases against AAs.  Of course, it was the Bush administration that found no basis for criminal charges, and the Obama DOJ that got a civil judgment against Shabazz.

    But it would be nice if those that claim there are any substantial amounts of voter ID fraud (multiple votes, dead voters, etc.) would actually provide some actual evidence of the problem they are purporting to address with such laws.

    Parent

    Thanks for your (none / 0) (#104)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    well composed and thoughtfull response.

    I will consider your points and do some research.


    Parent

    By that sort of thinking (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    We only need one person to vote to determine the outcome of a race.

    You really don't know much about the systems involved in voting do you?  I suggest that you get involved in your precinct level party activities and find out what really happens.  All the real work happens before election day.  

    You might realize how trivial and irrelevent your obsession with "illegal" votes really is.  Or, if you're a Republican, you might understand how advantageous it is to harp on "illegal" and votes and pretend that they're relevent.  But in either case, hopefully you wouldn't show your ignorance about absentee and provisional ballots.

    Parent

    The premise that each vote (1.67 / 3) (#55)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:57:01 PM EST
    needs to be counted seems factually incorrect. It has been used repeatedly to malign the concept of provisonal ballots.

    States with mechanical counting systems expected that numerous tabulation errors would occur, They also correctly predicted that these failures would not be 100% recoverable by any means even with hand recounts.

    The loss was considered acceptable based on the theory that the errors would be proportional to he actual votes. In other words each candidate would bear the burden of negative errors in a ratio to their actual votes and the election results would be unaffected. This may or may not have been the case, but obviously the courts upheld the mechanical systems even though they guaranteed that not all the votes would be counted.

    To say that provisional ballots are improper because ( in the case of uncontroverted decided elections ) the vote may not be counted ignores this precedent.

    If the objection is about practical political considerations why don't we limit the discussion to those points?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#60)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    in reality we do only need one voter to determine the outcome of any one race. Its been that way since 1791 and generally long before.

    The political effort is subservient to the  constitutional and statutory laws that frame an election. The law is the law. It can be changed if needed.

    I am not sure I understand your objections.

    Parent

    I know you don't understand (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:56:03 PM EST
    Which is why I recommend remedial party activism for you.

    Parent
    And being an activist (none / 0) (#89)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    excuses extra legal activity???

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    being an activist and actually seeing the process would hopefully clear up much of the ignorance you're showing.  

    Parent
    So, I should join the (none / 0) (#100)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:20:25 PM EST
    Tea Party to understand the wisdom of your words?
    New Black Panther Party?
    KKK?

    I would hope you could justify your position in the impartial realm of reason.


    Parent

    Because of course the Tea Party (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:11:00 AM EST
    is a recognized party that has its own precincts and districts and other formal structures. ::rolls eyes::

    Does the New Black Panther Party field a candidate?  Does the KKK field a candidate?  Do they execute a ground game?  I neither know nor care; but if they do, and you support them, then put your feet and your time where your mouth is.  

    You really don't know anything at all about the election/voting process, do you?  Except maybe how to fill in your ballot.  The more you talk, the clearer that becomes. It's also clear that you have no interest in knowing about those things. It doesn't stop you from opining, but it does show your ignorance.  And ignorance is only foolishness if you don't try to overcome it.


    Parent

    My husband and I cancel each other's (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    votes in almost every election: he's a Republican and I'm a Democrat.  We're both legally registered voters, and I spent three election cycles as an assistant chief election judge in our precinct.

    I know I beat this drum frequently, but I truly would like to understand why we don't care more about people who are eligible to vote who either never register to do so, or register and never vote.  Voter turnout and participation is embarrassingly low in this country, and all Republicans seem to want to do if figure out new ways to keep people out of the voting booth.  
    Oh, you'd tell me that it's only the illegal voters you want to keep out, but you know and I know that inevitably, voter ID laws end up keeping legally registered voters from exercising their constitutional right to vote.

    If Republicans have such great ideas and are so much better at governance up and down the policy line, your biggest problem should be handling the massive turnout of registered Republicans in numbers that dwarf the Democratic vote; but they don't, and they're not, so you have to waste time and taxpayer money hunting illegal voters with your Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass and conjuring up scary stories.

    I get so tired of Republicans thinking we don't know exactly what they're up to.  Reminds me of the commercial for Southwest Airlines: "This is not a conference call, Henkel; I'm actually in the room."

    Parent

    Why is (none / 0) (#56)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:00:29 PM EST
    maintaining the integrity of the electoral system and encouraging voter participation mutually exclusive?

    If there are barriers to either goal they should be eliminated.

    Parent

    The goal is not to (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:54:57 PM EST
    'encourage participation'. It is to guarantee availability to all citizens 18 or over.  Big difference there.

    Parent
    I dont get it (2.00 / 3) (#64)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    The goal is is to guarantee availability to all citizens 18 or over.  Big difference there.
    Please identify the disenfranchised who want to vote but are denied the opportunity. My understanding is the only hurdle they face is to provide registration information either before or after the vote.

    Parent
    If part of the registration information (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 06:08:46 AM EST
    Is a long lost birth certificate, or a photo id, the hurdles are too onerous to guarantee the right to vote.

    Parent
    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    fair  margin of victory

    Parent
    Which of the 12 B votes got cancelled? (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    Not all of them. Which ones? You can't say. They all got diluted, not cancelled. With small number like that the dilution  concentration matters. In real elections it rarely would.

    Parent
    You can't have millions of people claiming (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:03:29 PM EST
    their votes were cancelled because of 100 proven cases of voter fraud. Just not the way it works.

    Parent
    Given the opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 09:02:18 AM EST
    To identify the fraud that requires a voter ID, the state of Pennsylvania stipulated that there "have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states."

    Parent
    Have you ever worked as an election judge? (none / 0) (#53)
    by DFLer on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    It's really just that difficult (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    for them to call out Republican extremism isn't it.  Charlie Crist of all people has an editorial today again voter ID laws.

    Jujitsu in choice of words by Edsall (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    When he talks about Obama's strategy, he consistently uses the word 'suppress', as in:

    "....the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat....."

    When he talks about the Voter ID law, it is 'depress'

    "...a debate over whether the law is intended to curb fraud, as Republicans say, or to depress Democratic turnout, as critics charge."

    Seems to me the VoterID law is suppression - put down by force, rahter than depression - make lower.  But I'm not a professor of journalism, so what do I know.