FredHayek wrote: 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.
Do you have actual proof of this allegation? Or is this just another sound bite?
There are other dispicable flyers but this one covers the tactic pretty well.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
FredHayek wrote: 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.
Do you have actual proof of this allegation? Or is this just another sound bite?
There are other dispicable flyers but this one covers the tactic pretty well.
FredHayek stated media and Dems tried to encourage voter turnout by lying.......
How is the flyer you shared a "lie", specifically?
Rick wrote: Well Z, if you don't understand the message of that race baiting flyer, I may as well go talk to the wall.
It's not that I don't "get" the implied message. It's that the flyer, itself, doesn't lie, nor does it tell the truth. I believe because both are unknown at this point in time with regard to Michael Brown. Trayvon Martin is another story altogether. And Dantre Hamilton I need to do more research on.
Regarding voter fraud vs. disenfranchisement I'll give some thoughts. And please let me call them VF and DIS from now on to save some typing.
I think VF is easy to define. If a person votes who is not legally entitled to vote, that is VF. If a person manipulates votes to change the actual vote, that is VF. Any disagreement? I think there are other examples too. And yes, there are plenty of examples of VF actually happening. The question is if it's enough to turn an election.
But what is DIS? I think it is in the eye of the beholder. It's kind of a soft definition depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on. And it could also mix in with VF in the case I mentioned above of someone manipulating the vote of others.
There are all kinds of claims of DIS from what I see. I'll talk about a few of them.
I guess the biggest is having an ID. So long as the ID is not hard to get and it's free, I don't see that as DIS at all. You have to go through some effort to register too, so is that DIS? As Rick mentioned, we have a required ID for Obamacare (and before), and I think that's a good analogy. And voting is a privilege, as is driving. You need an ID to drive too. The Dems make the point all the time about voter fraud not being a problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't, or won't be in the future. It's just common sense to me.
I don't know the order of the other cases of DIS, many seem to pop up after a party loses an election.
I'll agree if someone is showing a weapon in front of a voting place, or in it, that could intimidate voters and is not right and should be prosecuted if illegal. Is it DIS? It could be, depending on the circumstance. Seeing a weapon could turn off voters from both sides, but if it's coming from a group with a racial agenda then it probably is DIS. Still, I don't want to see either case happen at a voting place.
Hanging chads and butterfly ballots? That's a good example of DIS after the election results. Look, there is no perfect way for dummies to vote that I can think of. Sure, those methods can be improved, but it's simple to punch out a hole in a ballot, and the administrators can take care of hanging chads that the voter should of noticed in the first place. But trying to interpret a vote from a slight mark on the card is crazy, and wrong IMO. In theory, both sides of the issue have dumb voters so all things should be equal. When one party complains about it (the losing one, of course), what are they saying about their own voters?
And what was the great fix for hanging chads and butterfly ballots? Hey, let's go with electronic voting machines! With hanging chads and butterfly ballots you just possibly DIS individual voters who don't have a clue, but like I said it should be equal from both sides. With electronic voting machines we now have a case where one person could possibly DIS hundreds or thousands of voters and that could be called VF too. At the time after the hanging chads, I was in Nevada and they added the electronic machines but they did the right thing, IMO, by having each vote also printed out as a hard copy backup. I think at the time that most other places had machines that didn't provide a hard copy, and that's unacceptable. If there is a challenge to the voting machines, you need a hard copy to count the votes.
We also have the issue of voting by felons. I used to think they lost the privilege to vote, at least depending on what state they were in. And I think that was the accepted policy from both parties at the time. But later some governors decided to change things and give a path to vote again (to their party's advantage, of course). Then the other party gets voted in and decides to go back as it was before. DIS? It's in the eye of the beholder.
I'm sure there are many other examples of DIS. But that's all I have time for now. Maybe I'll get to gerrymandering later, but I think that's another topic.
It's still strange this topic seems to pop up after a certain party loses an election. They had plenty of time to clean it up or at least make a big election issue of it while in charge over the last 6 years.
The one thing I would ask regarding voter ID is whether or not it might, just might, be considered a "poll tax", especially given the documented expenses associated with acquiring them in some cases?
ZHawke wrote: The one thing I would ask regarding voter ID is whether or not it might, just might, be considered a "poll tax", especially given the documented expenses associated with acquiring them in some cases?
The states that require them usually sell them at low cost or no cost. And since a valid photo ID is useful for a lot more than just voting, I don't think it constitutes a poll tax.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Voter fraud does, in fact, exist. That's a given. As presented in this OpEd, whether it is a factor in disenfranchisement of voters is something as yet to be determined, in my view. The possibility does exist for that to happen. That may, in turn, have an impact on the larger electoral process simply by virtue of the fact there is so much voter apathy today, not only in midterm elections, but in the election year cycle, as well.
One could then arguably infer that to mean more restrictive voter ID laws favor the party that pushes for them. Again, this is an inference that "could" be made. However, given the dearth of actual statistics to verify that inference, I believe this is a debate that will be ongoing for a long time if, or until, a "right to vote" amendment to the U.S. Constitution is introduced and passed according to Constitutional procedure and law. Failing that, voting "privileges" will almost always be subject to the whims of politicians and how they can skew the system in their favor. That's my two cents worth.
ZHawke wrote: The one thing I would ask regarding voter ID is whether or not it might, just might, be considered a "poll tax", especially given the documented expenses associated with acquiring them in some cases?
Yes, except for the negative connotation of "poll tax". I prefer to consider it a citizenship tax which I would consider a good thing.
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.
