Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Four words that the " no such thing as fraud" crowd refuse to acknowledge.
I still flinch as well at the mention of not fighting harder in Bush v Gore. It's like a closed fist in the gut that has gotten more clenched as each year goes by since.
Look at what was wrought by that Bush administration and its ramifications today.
It would have been a different world, even if 9/11, with Gore. I hope he has nightmares for not insisting Dems fight for justice. We're living the whirlwind.
Look at what was wrought by that Bush administration and its ramifications today.
It would have been a different world, even if 9/11, with Gore. I hope he has nightmares for not insisting Dems fight for justice. We're living the whirlwind.
1
I agree with the states that were singled out for federal monitoring under the Voting Rights Act that they were not treated equitably. The fact is, we need federally monitored and guaranteed voting rights in EVERY state.
2
Again, where was or is the massive and effective fraud that these anti-voter laws are supposed to stop or prevent? The cynicism behind these efforts is almost laughable because the advocates surely know that election fraud does not come from grass roots organizing. It has and will continue to come from those who have the power to stuff or empty the ballot boxes. That usually means the politicians and their benefactors. Any history of a banana republic or certain American cities will tell you that.
And when every last eligible citizen has their ID, what then? What chicanery will the pols pull to keep as many of Those People from the polls as they can? That's the real voter fraud we're experiencing at present.
And when every last eligible citizen has their ID, what then? What chicanery will the pols pull to keep as many of Those People from the polls as they can? That's the real voter fraud we're experiencing at present.
1
I found Ari Berman's book and Jim Rutenberg's NYT article to be useful in understanding the enduring opposition to extending voting rights to all those constitutionally qualified to vote in the US. Many thanks for this timely interview from two well-qualified individuals.
1
Every US citizen should be registered to vote at age 18, and a voter card issued. Students should be able to vote with that and their college ID within a voting district. This nonsense of honoring one form of ID over another is ridiculous.
One hears stories of busloads of voters being delivered from other states or other counties - but no evidence, other than anecdotal, is ever presented. A red herring, just like nearly every other argument restricting voting access.
I'm much more concerned with voting machine fraud - there is overwhelming evidence that it exists, and that it is being used to rig elections. If the (R) are concerned about "fraud," let them join the call for transparency and a paper trail for ALL votes cast in every election.
One hears stories of busloads of voters being delivered from other states or other counties - but no evidence, other than anecdotal, is ever presented. A red herring, just like nearly every other argument restricting voting access.
I'm much more concerned with voting machine fraud - there is overwhelming evidence that it exists, and that it is being used to rig elections. If the (R) are concerned about "fraud," let them join the call for transparency and a paper trail for ALL votes cast in every election.
10
RoughAcres - "This nonsense of honoring one form of ID over another is ridiculous."
Only citizens are allowed by law to vote, exactly what form of ID proves US citizenship? Does a "student ID" prove citizenship?
“Voters with names so unusual that there has been only one in the District of Colombia and one in Prince George’s County and who are listed as voting in both jurisdictions in the 2012 election is in the thousands.”
Only citizens are allowed by law to vote, exactly what form of ID proves US citizenship? Does a "student ID" prove citizenship?
“Voters with names so unusual that there has been only one in the District of Colombia and one in Prince George’s County and who are listed as voting in both jurisdictions in the 2012 election is in the thousands.”
The voter ID kerfuffle is like a rotting onion, it stinks more as you peel back another layer.
Exploiting the color of my skin and the martyrs of the American Civil Rights movement that are a part of my heritage as a Black man to allow undocumented illegals to vote in national elections is offensive enough, but this notion that somehow the evil White GOP boogeyman is doing this as part of the vast right wing conspiracy is untenable.
This has nothing to do with political parties. Or the constant, 24 hour drumbeat of "liberal Obama supporters think every human being who hasn't washed Obama's feet with their tears is a Confederate flag waving Tea Party racist"...this is about America.
Just for one second, back away from the race card. Obama is a two term president, the Republicans lost, you won, and Obama successfully exploited the color of my skin and a Black community he couldn't care less about to become rich, famous and powerful for life. Congrats.
But what about the real issue here?
If states are no longer allowed to VERIFY citizenship and anyone who shows up at a voting booth during a Presidential Election can vote, what's to keep China, India or any country from bringing in non-citizens to sway an election? Maybe a referendum by popular vote? Maybe a Manchurian candidate? Then we all lose.
Why not at least have someone who wants to vote PROVE US Citizenship? Exactly what in the heck is wrong with that? Oops, I'm making sense, that turns liberals off. My bad.
Exploiting the color of my skin and the martyrs of the American Civil Rights movement that are a part of my heritage as a Black man to allow undocumented illegals to vote in national elections is offensive enough, but this notion that somehow the evil White GOP boogeyman is doing this as part of the vast right wing conspiracy is untenable.
This has nothing to do with political parties. Or the constant, 24 hour drumbeat of "liberal Obama supporters think every human being who hasn't washed Obama's feet with their tears is a Confederate flag waving Tea Party racist"...this is about America.
Just for one second, back away from the race card. Obama is a two term president, the Republicans lost, you won, and Obama successfully exploited the color of my skin and a Black community he couldn't care less about to become rich, famous and powerful for life. Congrats.
But what about the real issue here?
If states are no longer allowed to VERIFY citizenship and anyone who shows up at a voting booth during a Presidential Election can vote, what's to keep China, India or any country from bringing in non-citizens to sway an election? Maybe a referendum by popular vote? Maybe a Manchurian candidate? Then we all lose.
Why not at least have someone who wants to vote PROVE US Citizenship? Exactly what in the heck is wrong with that? Oops, I'm making sense, that turns liberals off. My bad.
6
In my 51 years of voting NOBODY ever asked me to PROVE my citizenship! And if they had wanted me to I am lucky I could afford to do so. It cost me $25 for the birth certificates I used to obtain my passport, not to mention the weekday I spent waiting for an appointment with someone at the post office. This is a matter for THE REGISTRATION process at the most and only when you can make the case that it has ANY effect on elections. Unlike, say, electronic voting machines that credit the Republican winner with more votes than the number of registered voters in a county. Say OHIO.
I would welcome a process to allow residents without documents to become legal citizens as millions have done before as well as a process which allows 'guest" workers to be legally open about their necessary functions in the US economy. And I agree that no political party or institution has been an effective advocate for changing the current chaotic environment to any system which recognizes the realities of humans seeking what they need without regard to artificial boundaries.
That being said, anger about "undocumented illegals" is a distraction to the topic of ensuring all people who meet the constitutional requirements to vote in the US are able to do so without regard to the state in which they reside.
Currently voters must swear an oath they meet those constitutional requirements when they register. To change that process to one which includes laboriously obtained documents is to challenge all the previous elections in US history. Those wishing to limit the right to vote to "verified citizens" should seek a constitutional amendment which clearly defines how that status is achieved, proved and which circumstances allow it to be challenged.
Feeling exploited by political opportunists is not limited by race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Welcome to the human race.
That being said, anger about "undocumented illegals" is a distraction to the topic of ensuring all people who meet the constitutional requirements to vote in the US are able to do so without regard to the state in which they reside.
Currently voters must swear an oath they meet those constitutional requirements when they register. To change that process to one which includes laboriously obtained documents is to challenge all the previous elections in US history. Those wishing to limit the right to vote to "verified citizens" should seek a constitutional amendment which clearly defines how that status is achieved, proved and which circumstances allow it to be challenged.
Feeling exploited by political opportunists is not limited by race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Welcome to the human race.
1
The only problem with what you say is that the so-called "voter fraud problem" that recently restrictions of voting are supposedly meant to address, is basically non-existent. There is something truly perverse, not to mention dishonest, about effectively disenfranchising many thousands of people for the sake of preventing one or two acts of voter fraud. The notion that non-citizens are voting in anything other than next-to non-existent numbers is fraudulent, & not based on any factual analysis. The way that China, for instance, might be able to sway an election is not a crazy idea, though. But they won't do it my importing voters. They will do it by funding the campaigns of US politicians, which they can do in perfect discreet anonymity, thanks to recent SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance funding.
3
This is just another part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and one of the most successful. At our nation's founding, voting was limited to males, and generally to white males of property (the rules varied from state to state). This is in accord with a phrasing of the Declaration of Independence that had our inalienable rights as life, liberty, and property. Property, of course, started with making the native population (who thought of the relation of people and land in very different terms) offers they could not refuse and whose meaning was not understood because that meaning was an abomination.
1
sdavidc9 - "This is just another part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and one of the most successful."
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The operative word is CITIZEN. Prove that and you can vote or is that a "vast right-wing conspiracy?"
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The operative word is CITIZEN. Prove that and you can vote or is that a "vast right-wing conspiracy?"
The federal lawsuit against the NC voter ID bill does not contain the name of a SINGLE Black person or US citizen that has been or will be denied the right to vote under this law. Not one.
Yet Al Sharpton, NAACP "leaders" and so-called civil rights leaders who are getting richer and more powerful as Black communities continue to suffer poverty, homelessness and violent crime problems are joining with Barack Obama to gin up racial tensions over a non-event.
I am a Black attorney. In Washington DC. With a degree in American history. I know the painful struggle for equality, and the tragic deaths of those who paid the ultimate price for my freedom as an American today. It is offensive to dig them up from their graves and exploit the color of my skin to enable non-citizens (i.e. undocumented illegals) to vote in national elections.
Just THINK about it. Who stands to gain the most, if the NC voter ID law is struck down and liberals are allowed to force states to waive all voting requirements? Answer: people who cannot prove or establish US citizenship.
The NC voter ID law is NOT a poll tax, and it is intellectually dishonest to say so and just another way to conjure up ghosts of struggles past for pecuniary gain today. There are waivers in the NC voter ID law of ALL fees required to get the card.
So this looks like a national strategy?
No, this looks like a national hoax.
Yet Al Sharpton, NAACP "leaders" and so-called civil rights leaders who are getting richer and more powerful as Black communities continue to suffer poverty, homelessness and violent crime problems are joining with Barack Obama to gin up racial tensions over a non-event.
I am a Black attorney. In Washington DC. With a degree in American history. I know the painful struggle for equality, and the tragic deaths of those who paid the ultimate price for my freedom as an American today. It is offensive to dig them up from their graves and exploit the color of my skin to enable non-citizens (i.e. undocumented illegals) to vote in national elections.
Just THINK about it. Who stands to gain the most, if the NC voter ID law is struck down and liberals are allowed to force states to waive all voting requirements? Answer: people who cannot prove or establish US citizenship.
The NC voter ID law is NOT a poll tax, and it is intellectually dishonest to say so and just another way to conjure up ghosts of struggles past for pecuniary gain today. There are waivers in the NC voter ID law of ALL fees required to get the card.
So this looks like a national strategy?
No, this looks like a national hoax.
5
If one is going to use caps lock to scream about evidence, the position of supporting flaming-hoops voter ID laws quickly becomes untenable. What I mean to say is, where is the evidence that there is even a problem that these laws seek to address? I'll wait here quietly. No caps lock needed.
4
typing my response in all lowercase for your enjoyment. so according to your logic, new jersey should not enact murder or homicide laws until somebody dies.
legislators legislate both reactively and proactively. that means laws are passed in advance of or to avoid foreseeable problems.
thanks for waiting.
legislators legislate both reactively and proactively. that means laws are passed in advance of or to avoid foreseeable problems.
thanks for waiting.
2
That China, for instance, or some trans-national corporation working perhaps in concert with a foreign nation, might be able to sway an
american election is not a completely crazy idea. But they won't do it my importing voters, or by promoting voter fraud of the sort that the recent round of red-state voter suppression acts is putatively meant to address. No - instead they will do it by funding the campaigns of craven US politicians, who spend the majority of their time seeking funds to finance the next campaign, which they can do in perfect discreet anonymity, thanks to recent SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance funding.
Too bad we can't get some proactive legislation to stick that will forestall such an eventuality - which i do believe is an actual inevitability, if not a present fact.
american election is not a completely crazy idea. But they won't do it my importing voters, or by promoting voter fraud of the sort that the recent round of red-state voter suppression acts is putatively meant to address. No - instead they will do it by funding the campaigns of craven US politicians, who spend the majority of their time seeking funds to finance the next campaign, which they can do in perfect discreet anonymity, thanks to recent SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance funding.
Too bad we can't get some proactive legislation to stick that will forestall such an eventuality - which i do believe is an actual inevitability, if not a present fact.
The Republican strategy of enslaving the workforce and protecting 'white rights' requires voter suppression. The road to despotism begins with classism and ends with the one 'wannabe emperor/winner' taking it all.
The story is as cliche and as old as the human race.
The story is as cliche and as old as the human race.
The conservative majority wants to win by any means possible. They think that Democrats buy votes with antipoverty programs (they buy votes with defense spending, but take care not to see it that way), so they see the restriction of the franchise is justified countercheating, and the specious justifications for the restriction are just what must be said to outsiders or opponents to shut them down.
The test of anything's truth is whether it helps you win. This corruption of the electorate turns democracy into a pure power struggle, with questions of rightness and fairness useful only in silencing opponents and confusing the naive.
The test of anything's truth is whether it helps you win. This corruption of the electorate turns democracy into a pure power struggle, with questions of rightness and fairness useful only in silencing opponents and confusing the naive.
9
@sdavidc9
I agree that that's the way the other side tends to justify things. But there's a qualitative difference between what they purport WE do; with the voting restrictions that they, very openly, do. They CAN call progressive or anti-poverty programs 'vote-buying', but there's nothing even vaguely cheating, illegal or even unseemly about it. Its simply responding to the popular will of a majority of Dem constituents who, last I checked, are still valid US citizens. Fundamentally, such policies represent an opinion about the function of government.
As an opposition party they can challenge that, and they always have. Arguably, their argument falls flat, I suspect, because too many Americans...ARE in virtual poverty! Were Americans doing better, materially/financially, the GOP might have hit upon a winning argument.
But by choosing to respond by restricting voting opportunities and even the ability to vote, they are NOT responding to any kind of populism that would normally be described as such. But that's the story of our times, isn't it? Its not about what 'most people' want, but about what your most valuable constituencies want: campaign donors, and gerrymandered voters. Either the most rabid, or the most consequential of voters. That is NOT populism by any stretch. And it is most certainly cheating or, at the very least, indicates an unseemly repudiation of accepted democratic principles.
That's a canyon of difference between the two stereotypes.
I agree that that's the way the other side tends to justify things. But there's a qualitative difference between what they purport WE do; with the voting restrictions that they, very openly, do. They CAN call progressive or anti-poverty programs 'vote-buying', but there's nothing even vaguely cheating, illegal or even unseemly about it. Its simply responding to the popular will of a majority of Dem constituents who, last I checked, are still valid US citizens. Fundamentally, such policies represent an opinion about the function of government.
As an opposition party they can challenge that, and they always have. Arguably, their argument falls flat, I suspect, because too many Americans...ARE in virtual poverty! Were Americans doing better, materially/financially, the GOP might have hit upon a winning argument.
But by choosing to respond by restricting voting opportunities and even the ability to vote, they are NOT responding to any kind of populism that would normally be described as such. But that's the story of our times, isn't it? Its not about what 'most people' want, but about what your most valuable constituencies want: campaign donors, and gerrymandered voters. Either the most rabid, or the most consequential of voters. That is NOT populism by any stretch. And it is most certainly cheating or, at the very least, indicates an unseemly repudiation of accepted democratic principles.
That's a canyon of difference between the two stereotypes.
2
Republicans also go in for extravagant gerrymandering as well.
I believe a Wisconsin Republican state legislator - in the interest of "fairness" - wanted to reduce the hours the polls in Milwaukee - where voters often have to wait in line for lengthy periods - to the same as those of small rural towns whose entire populations could vote in an hour or two.
I believe a Wisconsin Republican state legislator - in the interest of "fairness" - wanted to reduce the hours the polls in Milwaukee - where voters often have to wait in line for lengthy periods - to the same as those of small rural towns whose entire populations could vote in an hour or two.
17
Oh please, gerrymandering is used by both parties. A poX on them both.
5
Not nearly in the same manner. The Dems have historically done it (as both sides have) for favoritism and nepotism usually on the local/state level, in state legislatures. Yes, that might send a few extra reps to DC, but that was incidental. When the Dems lost the House majority during the Reagan years, they didn't respond with a tsunami of gerrymandering to win the House back. They just tried to make the better argument.
But the gerrymandering the GOP does, on the scale its doing it on, for the express purpose of changing the nature and makeup of the FEDERAL government is something new. Democrats have never done that. Ever. Not even during FDR's 4 election wins. And its resulted in the perversity of repeatedly allowing an electoral minority to achieve a political majority. Fewer numbers of Americans nationwide actually vote Republican, yet Republicans consistently achieve political majorities. That can statistically happen once in awhile, as history shows. But that it happens every election cycle since 2011 tells us something else is going on. http://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-ho...
But the gerrymandering the GOP does, on the scale its doing it on, for the express purpose of changing the nature and makeup of the FEDERAL government is something new. Democrats have never done that. Ever. Not even during FDR's 4 election wins. And its resulted in the perversity of repeatedly allowing an electoral minority to achieve a political majority. Fewer numbers of Americans nationwide actually vote Republican, yet Republicans consistently achieve political majorities. That can statistically happen once in awhile, as history shows. But that it happens every election cycle since 2011 tells us something else is going on. http://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-ho...
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck ...
2
The premise of this article is absurd. Voting rights are not under attack. Photo ID is a reasonable minimal requirement to ensure that the person at the polls is legally entitled to vote. A photo ID is a simple requirement of modern life. There is no evidence that it has prevented anyone from legally voting.
Similarly, reducing early voting is another reasonable policy preference that harms no one and may serve a legitimate interest. Plenty of states don't even have it, like New York, and to my knowledge no one is accusing NYS of being hostile to minority voters.
Similarly, reducing early voting is another reasonable policy preference that harms no one and may serve a legitimate interest. Plenty of states don't even have it, like New York, and to my knowledge no one is accusing NYS of being hostile to minority voters.
6
TPierre Changstien - It's not having a photo ID that's the problem - it's the kind of photo ID that is required and the location in which they can be obtained.
In Wisconsin, either a driver's license or a state issued ID, availed ONLY at state department of transportation offices is acceptable for voting. These offices are often located in out of the way places, difficult of access for those without cars. Many low-income people cannot easily get off their hourly-wage jobs to spend half a working day to travel by public transportation to get to where the state ID's are issued. That this was all part of Republican plans, many are sure.
If Republicans are so keen on everyone having an ID to vote, they would see that they are obtainable in easily accessible places for those who don't have cars, the elderly, and students.
In Wisconsin, either a driver's license or a state issued ID, availed ONLY at state department of transportation offices is acceptable for voting. These offices are often located in out of the way places, difficult of access for those without cars. Many low-income people cannot easily get off their hourly-wage jobs to spend half a working day to travel by public transportation to get to where the state ID's are issued. That this was all part of Republican plans, many are sure.
If Republicans are so keen on everyone having an ID to vote, they would see that they are obtainable in easily accessible places for those who don't have cars, the elderly, and students.
26
Yes! These things are entirely reasonable to protect the electorate from the non-existent scourge of voter fraud.
16
Your argument would be slightly more compelling if Republicans in many of these states hadn't actually admitted that the measures are designed to reduce voting among presumed Democratic constituencies.
34
It didn't have to be this way. Republicans did not need to fear that nine out of every ten votes cast in low-income, predominantly minority districts or cities would be against their candidates. They didn't need to adopt a deliberate strategy to suppress the "urban" vote as much as possible. They could have tried to genuinely speak to these voters and understand their interests and do at least as well as Nixon did in 1960, when many minority voters looked at the Democratic Party with deep skepticism, if not hostility due to its tragic history until the mid-1960s. It didn't have to be this way. Now it is.
I don't think there is any doubt that the '08 election ratcheted up this great, pernicious fear that "those people" would take away "our" America, in the minds of many conservatives. Early voting does not lead to fraud; same-day registration does not lead to fraud. Both do, however, lead to more votes for Democratic candidates when implemented, and for some people that's just not acceptable. And they lead to more Dem votes precisely because the Republican Party offers nothing for these less-likely voters.
Absent a change at the Supreme Court, it's difficult to be optimistic for voting rights in the near term. Shelby County may have just been the beginning, does even the Chief Justice have temerity to strike down Section II of the VRA as well? Probably not, that would be too obvious, but what he and his majority have enabled with their 2013 decision is the real disaster.
I don't think there is any doubt that the '08 election ratcheted up this great, pernicious fear that "those people" would take away "our" America, in the minds of many conservatives. Early voting does not lead to fraud; same-day registration does not lead to fraud. Both do, however, lead to more votes for Democratic candidates when implemented, and for some people that's just not acceptable. And they lead to more Dem votes precisely because the Republican Party offers nothing for these less-likely voters.
Absent a change at the Supreme Court, it's difficult to be optimistic for voting rights in the near term. Shelby County may have just been the beginning, does even the Chief Justice have temerity to strike down Section II of the VRA as well? Probably not, that would be too obvious, but what he and his majority have enabled with their 2013 decision is the real disaster.
30
The great irony is that in trying to prevent "those people" from taking away "our" America, those who vote Republican have let "those other people" take away "our" America, those other people being billionaires and corporations -- the 1%.
31
This is shameful behavior by the GOP. Laws suppressing voting are a war on democracy.
For his part in disenfranchising Florida voters in 2000, Jeb Bush is unfit to be president.
Beyond that, the decision by Gore to stop contesting the election was nightmarish. Gore was 'uncomfortable talking about race'? Look where that led: 9-11, W's Iraq War. Several SCOTUS justices were appointed by W's father - of course they supported Bush. Gore was an establishment white southerner, son of a powerful Senator, born in D.C. and raised in an Embassy Row hotel. Gore's capitulation to the political establishment was pre-ordained. The politicians and pundits/media who praised Gore for 'not traumatizing the country' by continuing to fight for disenfranchised voters and an honest election were the wealthy entrenched white establishment that's controlled this country for generations. Many were Gore's lifelong friends, buddies from St. Albans and Harvard. (See Mark Leibovich's book "This Town" about the clubby incestuous D.C. elite). Gore chose their approval over fighting for voters. (Gore's current net worth: $300 million).
When will we stop nominating people like Al Gore?
The 2000 election theft by the Bushes and SCOTUS got us where we are now - overwhelming cynicism and distrust of politicians and the media - regarded as appendages of entrenched political interests/Wall Street. The 2000 election was the beginning of the end of our democracy, paving the way for President Trump.
For his part in disenfranchising Florida voters in 2000, Jeb Bush is unfit to be president.
Beyond that, the decision by Gore to stop contesting the election was nightmarish. Gore was 'uncomfortable talking about race'? Look where that led: 9-11, W's Iraq War. Several SCOTUS justices were appointed by W's father - of course they supported Bush. Gore was an establishment white southerner, son of a powerful Senator, born in D.C. and raised in an Embassy Row hotel. Gore's capitulation to the political establishment was pre-ordained. The politicians and pundits/media who praised Gore for 'not traumatizing the country' by continuing to fight for disenfranchised voters and an honest election were the wealthy entrenched white establishment that's controlled this country for generations. Many were Gore's lifelong friends, buddies from St. Albans and Harvard. (See Mark Leibovich's book "This Town" about the clubby incestuous D.C. elite). Gore chose their approval over fighting for voters. (Gore's current net worth: $300 million).
When will we stop nominating people like Al Gore?
The 2000 election theft by the Bushes and SCOTUS got us where we are now - overwhelming cynicism and distrust of politicians and the media - regarded as appendages of entrenched political interests/Wall Street. The 2000 election was the beginning of the end of our democracy, paving the way for President Trump.
15