[FoRK] Newsroom score: American Taliban
dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Wed Aug 29 14:36:40 PDT 2012
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the place where Democrats and Republicans differ on this is
> not the principle of whether vote fraud is acceptable. The questions
> are about the optimal balance of false positives and false negatives,
> and I believe that's where your comments here are going.
This is wrong. There are no high ethical principles involved at all,
no balance seeking, nothing. Its pure realpolitik.
What's involved is a strategy to cause large numbers of people,
primarily democratic voters, not to vote.
The strategy is multi-layered, putting up difficulties to get IDs,
imposing onerous legal requirements on voter turnout groups, or simply
destroying them using dirty tricks (e.g. ACORN), disparaging
"community organisers", etc etc.
This is a pure realpolitik, mean spirited, and well funded and
coordinated, attack on democracy, in order to benefit a party that is
losing its demographic and ideological base.
To the GOP mind, Voter Fraud isnt so much someone who voted illegally,
but rather, Voter Fraud is when someone who might vote Democratic is
helped to do so. ACORN, in the GOP mind, was a Voter Fraud
organisation, because it was working to achieve higher voter turnout.
In the GOP mind, this is the fraud they are talking about. I read
recently of one Republican talking about strategies to counter "the
numerical superiority" of their opposition. The thing is, in a
democracy, countering the numerical superiority of your opposition is
tantamount to treason.
Just look at the all-white audience at the RNC, yelling "get out"
"usa" to drown out the republican representative from Puerto Rico.
This is a party that has completely lost its way, and is well on the
way to irrelevance.
> One part of this conversation that's worth exploring is the dividing
> line where Democrat/Republican reality filters yield different results
> and where we see the same things.
> The Democrat filter says that voter fraud is insignificant and the
> number of legit voters who would be disenfranchised is significant.
> The Republican filter yields the opposite reality.
> Democrats believe the disenfranched voters would have voted
> Democratic. Here's a question for Republican-leaners: do you agree
> that the lost votes would have been Democratic, or do you think there
> are no lost votes? (Or is there a third option)?
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org> wrote:
>> She absolutely, positively had a right to vote.
>> She also could vote absentee as she's already registered and has an address
>> of record.
>> So independent of voter id laws, according to the arguments put forth in
>> this thread, given the diminutive number of people in her situation, it's
>> okay to disenfranchise them?
>> I don't think so. I think people that are eligible to vote should be
>> afforded every right to do so. I think people who vote who aren't eligible
>> to do so are an affront to everyone who does and should be weeded out.
>> Let me ask a different question. How many innocent people should go to
>> prison to insure that guilty people pay for their crimes?
>> On 8/29/2012 1:13 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
>>> My mom didn't have a driver's license or passport for the last ten
>>> years of her life. She didn't drive or travel, and going to the DMV
>>> was beyond her ability.
>>> When she moved out of home, right at the end of her life, she had to
>>> get on a plane, and that required a government ID that would also have
>>> qualified her to vote. To make it happen I flew from California to
>>> Maryland to take her to the DMV for a non-drivers license, rented a
>>> van and wheelchair, went to her house, escorted her to the desk at the
>>> DMV, brought her home again.
>>> With voter ID requirements that's what it would have taken for her to
>>> be able to vote.
>>> Before retirement she worked as an aide to a couple members of
>>> Congress, and her vote was well reasoned to an extreme.
>> FoRK mailing list
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK