Question for the right: Do you support voter suppression?

[Craig234]

It's a political fact that an important factor in elections involves voter turnout. A general increase in turnout almost always favors Democrats, while of course targeted increases in turnout can help either party. So, if groups who vote Democrats turn out less, that helps Republicans win.

This year, we're seeing statehouses, which had historic record wins for Republicans in 2010 as they concentrated on those races, push voter suppression measures.

From new laws requiring 'photo id's' - which exclude student photo id's, student vote heavily democratic - to closing and reducing DMV offices in Democratic areas while increasing hours in Republican areas, and a variety of other measures, there are clear efforts to reduce the voter turnout for Democrats, measures targeting the elderly, students, and minorities in particular (who have the lowest rates of having state id's.)

(Another measure isn't voter suppression; Pennsylvania's Republicans just changed the laws for 2012 so that their electoral votes, which all 21 went to Obama in 2008 when he won the state's popular vote, will instead be assigned by each district; as a Republican-governed state, they have more Republican congressional districts than Democrats, so reportedly in the same 2008 election results, under the new law, Obama would get at most one net electoral vote from the state instead of 21).

My question is a simple one:

Do Republicans here support measures aimed at voter suppression to win elections, or do they support democracy, 'the more who vote the better', even if it hurts them?

Republican leaders try to claim some measures are justified to 'prevent voter fraud', which is practically non-existent; their measures prevent far more votes.

It's clear that measures across the nation are aimed at voter suppression to win elections, the question is whether Republicans approve of them.

 

[Fern]

Oh Gee, that's not a loaded question.

Do you support voter fraud?

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Anything wrong with ensuring that a person is voting where they are required to and who they say they are?

Or are you in favor of proxy voting?

All these polling places setup for students on campus - however that is not their legal residence. Seems like fraud.

Helping elderly mark their ballots - seems like fraud.

Having people shouting at a polling place entrances - seems like intimidation.
Having people with bats and clubs standing by polling areas - intimidation.

All sides want an edge - some are more concerned with forcing the edge in different ways.

 

[spidey07]

Go even further. Receive government entitlements, lose right to vote. Period. That would quickly end all our problems.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do we have to keep having this discussion? We have spent a great deal of time and energy investigating voter fraud in the US of the type that this sort of legislation is designed to prevent.

For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist. The cases are so few and far between that they are meaningless. These laws only exist to stop a crime that isn't happening, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence that these laws disproportionately affect people who vote for Democrats. Yessirree.

 

[chucky2]

How would one determine if voter fraud is almost non-existent? Seems to me it'd be like illegal immigration, the reported cases would be orders of magnitude less than the real problem.

That being said: There is no excuse really not to show up with a photo ID to vote if the paper you get mailed on where to vote says to bring a photo ID or acceptable substitute (2 different bills or somesuch thing).

Too lazy to get/bring the proper stuff? If your vote isn't important enough for you to worry about, why should anyone else (unless they had motives for doing so)?

Chuck

 

[davmat787]

Why are you only asking "righties" if they are for or against voter fraud? Loaded question is loaded.

 

[chucky2]

Because he already knows the Left is for voter fraud, he was just curious to know what Righties thought.

 

[Craig234]

Why are you only asking "righties" if they are for or against voter fraud? Loaded question is loaded.

The left benefit from more voters, they have no incentive to suppress voting, quite the opposite. They have an interest in suppressing Republican voters, but there's no history of that happening, it's not even clear how it would be done. The fact is it's the Republicans and only the Republicans who are suppressing voting, that's why.

 

[fskimospy]

How would one determine if voter fraud is almost non-existent? Seems to me it'd be like illegal immigration, the reported cases would be orders of magnitude less than the real problem.

That being said: There is no excuse really not to show up with a photo ID to vote if the paper you get mailed on where to vote says to bring a photo ID or acceptable substitute (2 different bills or somesuch thing).

Too lazy to get/bring the proper stuff? If your vote isn't important enough for you to worry about, why should anyone else (unless they had motives for doing so)?

Chuck

When Bush came into office, he made the prosecution of voter fraud one of his top priorities. Across a country of around (at the time) 250,000,000 people over five years, they convicted 86 people... and of those 86 people only twenty six involved cases of people voting when they shouldn't have been.

An organization with all the power of the DoJ was given an explicit order to find and prosecute voter fraud and they found 26 people like this in half a decade. Say they were only catching 1% of the fraud, that's 2,600 voters over five years, or all of 520 votes per election, nationwide. Does that REALLY sound like a problem that needs fixing?

This information is widely available, and if the people pushing this legislation aren't aware of it they are incompetent. I don't know why it's so hard to call a spade a spade, it's an attempt to suppress the votes of Democratic leaning constituencies.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The left benefit from more voters, they have no incentive to suppress voting, quite the opposite. They have an interest in suppressing Republican voters, but there's no history of that happening, it's not even clear how it would be done. The fact is it's the Republicans and only the Republicans who are suppressing voting, that's why.

You sir, are liar:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/23/the-voter-fraud-hall-of-shame-milwaukee-voter-fraud-conviction-makes-acorn%E2%80%99s-2010-total-at-least-15/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/plea_bargains_for_election_tire_slashers/

http://johnpaulus.com/blog/2011/08/04/fraud-plaguing-wisconsin-recall-election-tied-to-liberal-groups/

http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2011/04/07/scott-walker-smokes-for-votes/texasgalt

Those are just a few quick links I found for one state. I'm sure some of the links are 'biased' so feel free to research them further if you want. Seems like Wisconsin Democrats certainly have a proven record of supporting vote fraud, but that is pretty much an undisputed fact.

 

[Kadarin]

If only there were a way to encourage an informed vote rather than encouraging people to vote on either wedge issues or to vote for "which candidate I'd rather have a beer with".

 

[Fern]

When Bush came into office, he made the prosecution of voter fraud one of his top priorities.
-snip-

I'm curious about the procedures used to detect voter fraud. Do you know how they are attempting to determine it?

Since we have dang little paper trail with current voting procedures, I find it difficult to believe that we can adequately investigate it, much less prosecute for it.

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Oh Gee, that's not a loaded question.

Do you support voter fraud?

Fern

If Craig doesn't support proving that you're a registered voter then yes, he supports voter fraud.

 

[davmat787]

The left benefit from more voters, they have no incentive to suppress voting, quite the opposite. They have an interest in suppressing Republican voters, but there's no history of that happening, it's not even clear how it would be done. The fact is it's the Republicans and only the Republicans who are suppressing voting, that's why.

I suggest you look into the recent race between Gregoire and Rossi for WA state Governor. Lots of shenanigans going on there, although none were proven but there was plenty of smoke. But since it does not fit with your stance that all Democrats are perfect law abiding people who would never fuck with a vote you will dismiss it out of hand.

All these "righties" want is a system that ensures only legal and eligible citizens can vote, and only vote once. What is wrong with that?

 

[ShawnD1]

It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes. Here in Canada we vote by marking a piece of paper with a pencil, and I'm never really sure if my vote is counted.

 

[Craig234]

I'm curious about the procedures used to detect voter fraud. Do you know how they are attempting to determine it?

Since we have dang little paper trail with current voting procedures, I find it difficult to believe that we can adequately investigate it, much less prosecute for it.

Fern

Since the voters are registered, it's not that hard to take a random sample and check them to see if they were valid votes.

One state did a pretty exhaustive investigation of 3 million votes, and found 7 cases of fraudulent voting if I recall. Here's one that found one fraudulent vote:

http://www.pressherald.com/news/vote-fraud-probe-finds-one-illegal-incident_2011-09-22.html

 

[Craig234]

I suggest you look into the recent race between Gregoire and Rossi for WA state Governor. Lots of shenanigans going on there, although none were proven but there was plenty of smoke. But since it does not fit with your stance that all Democrats are perfect law abiding people who would never fuck with a vote you will dismiss it out of hand.

All these "righties" want is a system that ensures only legal and eligible citizens can vote, and only vote once. What is wrong with that?

Stop lying about my position and making a straw man, if you want any response.

There has been historical voter fraud; it has nothing to to do with these new laws.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I voted yes, I believe Craig is a liar. That was the poll right?

 

[chucky2]

When Bush came into office, he made the prosecution of voter fraud one of his top priorities. Across a country of around (at the time) 250,000,000 people over five years, they convicted 86 people... and of those 86 people only twenty six involved cases of people voting when they shouldn't have been.

An organization with all the power of the DoJ was given an explicit order to find and prosecute voter fraud and they found 26 people like this in half a decade. Say they were only catching 1% of the fraud, that's 2,600 voters over five years, or all of 520 votes per election, nationwide. Does that REALLY sound like a problem that needs fixing?

This information is widely available, and if the people pushing this legislation aren't aware of it they are incompetent. I don't know why it's so hard to call a spade a spade, it's an attempt to suppress the votes of Democratic leaning constituencies.

I'm curious about the procedures used to detect voter fraud. Do you know how they are attempting to determine it?

Since we have dang little paper trail with current voting procedures, I find it difficult to believe that we can adequately investigate it, much less prosecute for it.

Fern

That's what I'd like to know. It's not like they can go and ask every voter at a voting location: Excuse me, did you vote illegally? Oh, you did? Ok, I'll just mark you down in this column here...

How do they know people voting with those names actually were those people?

 

[MovingTarget]

I am not Republican, but I do value votes and democracy more than winning elections through suppression.

Although I do support voter ID laws, I believe that the recently passed ones are voting suppression measures as they do not accept student identifications (which, mind you, are often issued by state universities). Voting where you go to college is not fraud, so long as you do not vote twice so to speak. Either vote absentee in your home district, vote directly in your home district, or vote where you reside the vast majority of the time - wherever you go to university. Pick one.

Also, any state requiring photo id to vote must provide said ID free of charge, otherwise it is rightfully considered a poll tax. I'm not sure how most states have gotten around this....or even if they have.

 

[JS80]

By your logic that means you support voter fraud

 

[Bowfinger]

Anything wrong with ensuring that a person is voting where they are required to and who they say they are?

Or are you in favor of proxy voting?

All these polling places setup for students on campus - however that is not their legal residence. Seems like fraud.

Why? If that's where they live eight months out of twelve, and if that's where they registered to vote, how can you possibly call it fraud? What difference does it make where their "legal" residence is for other purposes?

Helping elderly mark their ballots - seems like fraud.

Nonsense, if the ballot accurately records that elderly person's wishes. Why should someone lose the right to vote just because they have physical ailments that make it difficult for them to use a pencil, for example?

Having people shouting at a polling place entrances - seems like intimidation.
Having people with bats and clubs standing by polling areas - intimidation.

Agreed. Should be prohibited if it's not already and enforced.

All sides want an edge - some are more concerned with forcing the edge in different ways.

So ... two wrongs make a right, is that your position? Craig's thread is about voter suppression, a tactic that is becoming ever more widely used by pubic officials -- mostly Republican -- under the guise of performing their official duties. While suppression tactics in general are wrong, they are a whole different league of heinous when done by public officials. That is a violation of the public trust, and should be rewarded with harsh punishment.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why? If that's where they live eight months out of twelve, and if that's where they registered to vote, how can you possibly call it fraud? What difference does it make where their "legal" residence is for other purposes?

So it's okay for them to vote by mail where they're a legal resident and then vote again on campus. One person, one vote.

 

[Bowfinger]

That's what I'd like to know. It's not like they can go and ask every voter at a voting location: Excuse me, did you vote illegally? Oh, you did? Ok, I'll just mark you down in this column here...

How do they know people voting with those names actually were those people?

Much like you investigate other forms of fraud. For example, they can sample those who were recorded as voting and ask for confirmation that they actually voted. That wouldn't catch people who were complicit in allowing someone else to vote for them. (Though that's easier to do with absentee ballots, with virtually no risk of being caught.) It would, however, catch people who "borrowed" someone else's name to vote.

They can also match signatures. I don't know if this is true in every state, but at least in Iowa you have to sign in to vote. Pick a sample of people who were recorded as voting and verify their signatures.

Either way, if you detect any material level of vote fraud, you escalate the investigation. If not, you accept that the vote is accurate enough and move on.