Were voter's "really" disenfranchised?

Becky wrote: I am just shaking my head.
Is it really that hard to understand that Americans are tired of this.
Reading this thread is just sad.

Disenfranchised?

I smell sour grapes.

I appreciate those who are sitting on the winning side of the election results being a lot more dignified about your gain that you have been treated in the past.
Classy.

I heard something today that struck a chord.

"The only thing that government can give you that does not come at the expense of someone else is FREEDOM!"

You now have my one political post of the year. Have a good night.

As for the comparison, I'd have to say we may be looking at apples and oranges. Voting is not mandatory. It isn't even written into the Constitution as a guaranteed right, although some would like to see an amendment that makes it so. Even the 15th Amendment doesn't absolutely guarantee the vote as a right:

Actually....voting is a privilege

Good post Becky, don't be such a stranger, and I love that quote!

I'm not sure I fully understand the problem with this thread, Becky. The fact is, there are some who have already taken up the mantra of disenfranchisement. Does that mean, then, we shouldn't even discuss it? This was an issue even before these midterms. That it will be discussed more in earnest following these elections seems to me to be a logical follow-on. Whether it is sour grapes or not has yet to be determined as far as I'm concerned.

As is almost always the case, the "truth" will lie somewhere in the middle. That's one of the reasons I tried to point out the issue of Gerrymandering as being a "forgotten" issue. Gerrymandering is a "political" issue and is bi-partisan - both parties are guilty of doing it to the detriment of our "freedom", IMHO.

The quote you used was something I said. In it, I was trying to point out that many Americans do not truly understand that voting is not a right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, that it is, indeed, a privilege. I just did not use the word "privilege". The 15th Amendment is about as close as anything to date that even addresses the issue of voting as a right.

So, with all due respect, I guess my question is along the lines of what's the beef?

Just a thought Z, and you are not required to do this, but maybe you should answer the question you posed as the title of this thread. We are now on page 4 and I've yet to hear YOUR opinion about whether voter disenfranchisement had been committed during the election. I was surprised to not hear this come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton, who happens to be the king of this allegation during and after almost every election. So do YOU believe it happened or is this just another "well maybe it happened and maybe it didn't" circle jerk thread? Just looking for clarity before I start ignoring this thread.

Rick wrote: Just a thought Z, and you are not required to do this, but maybe you should answer the question you posed as the title of this thread. We are now on page 4 and I've yet to hear YOUR opinion about whether voter disenfranchisement had been committed during the election. I was surprised to not hear this come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton, who happens to be the king of this allegation during and after almost every election. So do YOU believe it happened or is this just another "well maybe it happened and maybe it didn't" circle jerk thread? Just looking for clarity before I start ignoring this thread.

Fair enough, Rick.

Did disenfranchisement occur? Probably. A lot depends upon degrees of magnitude.

Was it rampant enough to swing an election either way? Probably not. In fact, more than likely, not. Most of the "evidence" I've seen is anecdotal and from individuals, so reliability is a factor.

Is it something that needs to even be addressed? I believe it is. Just as I believe Gerrymandering should be addressed.

How might disenfranchisement affect individuals? It's arguably focused at minorities, the elderly, and the infirm as being the most possible demographics affected. Whether that focus is real or not is open to debate. I believe, given the run up to these mid term elections that the Republican efforts to get more restrictive voter ID laws into effect were, in fact, focused in that direction. Hopefully, the issue will be addressed in more rational ways, both Republican and Democrat, post mid-term elections.

Edited to add: Is it a problem? No, if and/or until it happens to you and you get turned away for what appears to be ridiculous reasons or are made to jump through an inordinate number of hoops, obtain proper certification(s), make repeated trips to wherever in order to make it happen, etc., etc.

Dis-enfranchised? Consider this, many of the GOP gains in the House were in Blue states that didn't require photo voter ID.

One more thing on this issue - doesn't it seem at least a little bit contradictory/puzzling for so many to believe there is rampant voter fraud but not rampant voter disenfranchisement, especially given the fact there is so little credible evidence to support either position on this issue? It seems to me the two are very closely inter-related since they both involve the issue of voting, in general.

Just asking.

I actually don't believe there is a lot of voter fraud, even if a few people vote 19 times, that won't turn an election, but I do believe in election fraud. One of the reasons I am very happy the GOP won Secretary of State in Colorado this year so that elections will stay honest.
Early voting stories were more about machines turning Republican votes into Democrats versus catching someone voting more than once.

ZHawke wrote: One more thing on this issue - doesn't it seem at least a little bit contradictory/puzzling for so many to believe there is rampant voter fraud but not rampant voter disenfranchisement, especially given the fact there is so little credible evidence to support either position on this issue? It seems to me the two are very closely inter-related since they both involve the issue of voting, in general.

Just asking.

I recently stated that I don't believe there is any more evidence of disenfranchisement than there is voter fraud. But in both cases you need actual indisputable evidence to prove even a single case. To say there is "probably" voter disenfranchisement is like saying the tea party is probably a racist organization because people on the left say so (even though the first southern black man was just elected to congress and happens to be a tea party favorite).

I also think that voter disenfranchisement is very selective on the left. If a couple KKK skinheads with billy clubs were standing outside a polling place like punk thugs, I guarantee Eric Holder would have had these guys in cuffs faster than you can say racebaiter.

Bottom line, this term is a great way for the left to cause anger among it's minority voters in order to get them excited about voting, which is the same lame tactic as the "war on women". I'll entertain that voter disenfranchisement is an actual problem the day I see real evidence beyond what race hustlers and desperate politicians proclaim.

Great point. The media and Dems also tried to encourage voter turnout by lying about the Brown case in Missouri and it still didn't help.

Rick wrote: I recently stated that I don't believe there is any more evidence of disenfranchisement than there is voter fraud. But in both cases you need actual indisputable evidence to prove even a single case. To say there is "probably" voter disenfranchisement is like saying the tea party is probably a racist organization because people on the left say so (even though the first southern black man was just elected to congress and happens to be a tea party favorite).

I also think that voter disenfranchisement is very selective on the left. If a couple KKK skinheads with billy clubs were standing outside a polling place like punk thugs, I guarantee Eric Holder would have had these guys in cuffs faster than you can say racebaiter.

Bottom line, this term is a great way for the left to cause anger among it's minority voters in order to get them excited about voting, which is the same lame tactic as the "war on women". I'll entertain that voter disenfranchisement is an actual problem the day I see real evidence beyond what race hustlers and desperate politicians proclaim.

Would you rather I said there was rampant voter disenfranchisement? I don't believe that to be the case. That I used the word "probably" doesn't change that fact. Would you rather I said voter fraud is non-existent? I don't believe that to be the case either.

I believe voter fraud is very selective on the Right, and that the Right uses this issue to further their agenda of trying to disenfranchise minority groups, the elderly, and the infirm. Not to be confrontational, but prove me wrong.

I saw a report of a gun rights advocate standing outside a polling place. The guy was white. Holder was nowhere to be found. www.myfoxal.com/story/27271954/pelham-vo...n-into-polling-place . This guy chose to be arrested rather than comply with the rule as posted on the outside of the polling place that disallowed guns. He could have left his weapon in his car. He chose the exact opposite.

This is also a great way for those on the Right to dismiss minority segments of our population out of hand as having any kind of problems in this country. The "there is no more racism" toward minorities kind of just got blown out of the water ( www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidb...hate_that_n_er_obama ) in this clip.

Bottom line, these two issues are inextricably inter-twined. To shout to the rooftops "VOTER FRAUD" while failing to acknowledge the possibility of voter disenfranchisement is as much of a race baiting tactic as anything, in my opinion.