Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on.

Stay Classy, PA: Voter Suppression 2012, 2013, 2014... and so on. (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 02:14 PM
 
Senate Republicans unveil stricter NC voter ID bill | CharlotteObserver.com
The new measure would require voters to show one of seven types of photo identification issued by the government, such as driver’s licenses, passports, non-driver IDs and military or veteran cards.

It eliminates about half the types of photo identification allowed under the House version, including cards from UNC system colleges, state community colleges, local governments, private employers and law enforcement agencies. The bill would take full effect in the 2016 elections.

“We want a state-issued ID or a federal-issued ID,” said Sen. Tom Apodaca, the bill’s chief supporter, expressing concern that college IDs “could be manipulated” and allow out-of-state students to vote in two states.
Yeah, I hear so much about how those lazy kids vote in two states in one day…


“We want it succinct, and we are willing to pay for it,” he added, noting that the bill would provide free photo IDs to people without them.
I'll give them credit on that, however.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 03:10 PM
 
The always claim "free photo IDs". The problem is the supporting documentation is never "free".

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 04:47 PM
 
A birth certificate and SS card are expensive?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 05:05 PM
 
For poor people or elderly people on a fixed income? Yes. Especially if you don't have a copy of your birth certificate which ... believe it or not ... a lot of people don't. Because given government hours ... now you have to take off work and lose hours that you can't afford if you are even allowed, hope there is public transportation that can take you even remotely close to where you need to go, etc. Or if you are a female and your birth certificate is in your maiden name but you no longer have your marriage license available. If you are an elderly black person born in the South during Jim Crow chances are no birth certificate for you even EXISTS. Because a lot of them were born at home and even those born in hospitals rarely received one because it wasn't deemed important. Imagine the nightmare these legitimate voters would have to go through to get a birth certificate issued now.

Voter fraud at the ballot box is virtually non-existent. So it just seems to me that all of this is a whole lot of "extra" for a solution that's in search of a problem.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 06:43 PM
 
I didn't have a real birth certificate for most of my life. I decided to get a passport awhile back.

All I had to do was print out a form from the State of Oklahoma's website, get it notarized (just about any big bank will do this for free for any account holders) and mail it to the state with a check for, like, $10. Few weeks later I had two official copies of my birth certificate, one for my passport application and one so I could get into Mexico.

It's not that hard. Hell, if you need one and don't have the money, I'm betting you could talk the state into letting you get one for free if it's for legitimate purposes (like ID and proving citizenship).

The "South + Jim Crow" excuse is growing long in the tooth. There aren't many of those folk around anymore. Doesn't make it invalid, but it also means it shouldn't be the standard on which these requirements are based.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:41 PM
 
You're lucky to be a single mother of three kids and still have the time you do.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:54 PM
 
If time's that short, I'm shocked they have enough of it to go vote.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 10:00 PM
 
Hence the desire not to tack on extra shit which accomplishes nothing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're lucky to be a single mother of three kids and still have the time you do.
LOL. The amount of time it takes your precious single mother with three kids to go buy a pack of cigarettes or a lottery ticket is enough to get a goddamn piece of paper notarized.

I have zero pity for people who choose to have babies, in or out of marriage. That was YOUR choice. It's not my problem that you don't have enough time to live your life because of your choice to procreate.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 10:17 PM
 
So, you mean South + Jim Crow + Babies, or was your original point full of shit?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2013, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Voter fraud at the ballot box is virtually non-existent. So it just seems to me that all of this is a whole lot of "extra" for a solution that's in search of a problem.

OAW
This.

The voter identification laws are nothing but a blatant attempt to inhibit people from voting. It's not solving any problem.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2013, 05:45 PM
 
I'm still wondering what's wrong with the system we have where I live. They send you a card before every election which says you're registered.

When you vote, you bring the card and sign an affidavit which says you are you. The people behind the counter check your signature against the signature from when you registered.

More importantly, no one has addressed the virtual non-existence of impersonation at polling places, because it's a half-dozen felonies for one vote.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2013, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist View Post
The voter identification laws are nothing but a blatant attempt to inhibit people from voting.
What people is that ?

Do you mean those people that don't have an ID, and can't even take advantage of free services that would help them to get their free ID ?
(While at the same time, being completely able to game the social system in thousands of ways to squeeze every last obtainable penny out if it ?)

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2013, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm still wondering what's wrong with the system we have where I live. They send you a card before every election which says you're registered.
See, I don't get why nobody ever attacks the voter registration system as "inhibiting people from voting." After all, you need to do something in order to get registered.

How would it be so much different if instead of having to register to vote, you register to get a voter picture ID ?

-t
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2013, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
What people is that ?

Do you mean those people that don't have an ID, and can't even take advantage of free services that would help them to get their free ID ?
(While at the same time, being completely able to game the social system in thousands of ways to squeeze every last obtainable penny out if it ?)

-t
Don't be so thick. You know that's not my point.

Voter fraud is NOT an issue. These laws don't fix a problem. They make it more difficult to vote. Pure and simple. And for no other reason that to inhibit poorer (and more than likely Democratic) voters.

Do you honestly believe that the legislators proposing these laws have no other motive than to stop fraudulent voting?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2013, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The always claim "free photo IDs". The problem is the supporting documentation is never "free".

OAW
The good news is, you'll need to have photo IDs for Obamacare and while Obamacare isn't free; the cost of the photo ID will pale in comparison and everyone will feel better about it.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2013, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
See, I don't get why nobody ever attacks the voter registration system as "inhibiting people from voting." After all, you need to do something in order to get registered.

How would it be so much different if instead of having to register to vote, you register to get a voter picture ID ?

-t
I don't see how that would be a problem going forward as long as it's free.

Everyone currently registered would have to die or move though.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2013, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist View Post
Do you honestly believe that the legislators proposing these laws have no other motive than to stop fraudulent voting?
Perhaps, but there's also legislators that don't want change so manipulation remains an option.

I find it absolutely humorous how Americans think that you should be able to vote w/o an ID. Most developed countries just shake their heads in disbelief about this naive idea.

Do you have a problem with free voter IDs ?

See, I could just say if you don't care enough to get a free ID, why would you allowed to participate in voting ?

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2013, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The good news is, you'll need to have photo IDs for Obamacare and while Obamacare isn't free; the cost of the photo ID will pale in comparison and everyone will feel better about it.
We ARE a f*cked up country anyways.

You need an ID to see the president speak, but you don't need one to vote for him. WTF ?

-t
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Perhaps, but there's also legislators that don't want change so manipulation remains an option.
Citation needed. In fact, are there any examples of significant fraud in the US that would have been prevented by requiring voter ID?

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I find it absolutely humorous how Americans think that you should be able to vote w/o an ID. Most developed countries just shake their heads in disbelief about this naive idea.
Most countries require ID for a lot of things that do not require them in the US - just about any banking, for instance. If you need an ID to pay your rent or pick up a package at the post office, you get an ID pretty soon. The point about requiring ID for voting while not requiring it for many other things in society is that it suppresses voting. Now, this might be an acceptable downside if there was a big problem with voter fraud, but there isn't - which makes bills like this suspect.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 10:28 AM
 
I'm not sure if the GOP people in my state are brazen are idiotic.

Pennsylvania GOP chairman: Voter ID law helped ‘cut Obama’ during 2012 election | The Raw Story

“We probably had a better election,” he explained. “Think about this, we cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. A lot of people lost sight of that. He won, he beat McCain by ten percent, he only beat Romney by five percent. I think that probably voter ID had helped a bit in that.”
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 12:48 PM
 
You've been had.

PA doesn't have a photo ID law yet, so how could he be talking about how the photo ID requirement helped?

Answer: he's not. They took the answer to a different (though related) question, and assumed you wouldn't double-check them because it meant watching a boring 30 minute video. Either that, or they're so beside themselves with RAEG, they can't parse a basic English sentence.

It doesn't justify it, but if you want reason number one why Republicans are assholes, it's shit like this. If you're going to get called an asshole whether you are one or not, why be nice?


The question by the way was "did the contoversy about photo ID help you?" [emphasis added]
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 12:49 PM
 
^^^^^ Once again we have it straight from the horse's mouth what the true intent behind voter photo ID laws really is.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've been had.

PA doesn't have a photo ID law yet, so how could he be talking about how the photo ID requirement helped?
All the polls still asked for ID last November, you just could refuse and still vote. Wanna bet a lot of people didn't know they could do that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 12:53 PM
 
See my post.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All the polls still asked for ID, November, you just could refuse and still vote. Wanna bet a lot of people didn't know they could do that?
Fair enough.

I'll come up with a longer form response. Listening to 20 minutes of old whitey took it out of me.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2013, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^^ Once again we have it straight from the horse's mouth what the true intent behind voter photo ID laws really is.

OAW
Why, because for whatever reason Obama voters can't get IDs? Again, they'll all need it here in about 12 months for Obamacare. Was the intent of Obamacare to treat only those capable of getting a photo ID so that the others could lie dying at home?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2013, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All the polls still asked for ID last November, you just could refuse and still vote. Wanna bet a lot of people didn't know they could do that?
I still think I can address this particular story constructively, but since that may take a day or two, I didn't want to wait to apologize for claiming you didn't know what the **** you were talking about when it's clear I'm the one who doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.

Mea culpa.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2013, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why, because for whatever reason Obama voters can't get IDs? Again, they'll all need it here in about 12 months for Obamacare. Was the intent of Obamacare to treat only those capable of getting a photo ID so that the others could lie dying at home?
This was brought up on our local talk radio station and it completely shut down the conversation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Why, because for whatever reason Obama voters can't get IDs? Again, they'll all need it here in about 12 months for Obamacare. Was the intent of Obamacare to treat only those capable of getting a photo ID so that the others could lie dying at home?
The sneaky way to think of it is that the ACA includes an ID requirement to defang voter ID laws. By making IDs more common, the skewing effect of these laws will disappear.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The sneaky way to think of it is that the ACA includes an ID requirement to defang voter ID laws. By making IDs more common, the skewing effect of these laws will disappear.
Only if you maintain that IDs are somehow a scarce commodity; a claim I've not seen anyone attempt to make with a straight face. More like a silly way to think of it, IMO. IDs are first and foremost a means of defanging -- fraudulent behavior. Of course, the intellectual conundrum here is that if Voter IDs are less about fraud and more about suppression, it is so with regard to Obamacare as well and the intent must be to produce a legal means of suppressing health care to the poor and elderly who have no access to the scarce ID commodity.
ebuddy
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 10:28 AM
 
IDs are not a scarce commodity, but if you only ever need them when voting once every four years, you might not bother getting one. By requiring IDs for more things, you make IDs more common by increasing the incentive to get one.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 10:37 AM
 
So NC's voter ID bill has been amended with lots of important measures to prevent fraud. Such as:

Eliminating same-day voter registration, which allowed residents to register at the polls.

Cutting early voting by a full week.

Increasing the influence of money in elections by raising the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 and increasing the limit every two years.

Making it easier for voter suppression groups like True The Vote to challenge any voter who they think may be ineligible by requiring that challengers simply be registered in the same county, rather than precinct, of those they challenge.

Vastly increasing the number of “poll observers” and increasing what they’re permitted to do. In 2012, ThinkProgress caught the Romney campaign training such poll observers using highly misleading information.

Only permitting citizens to vote in their specific precinct, rather than casting a ballot in any nearby ward or election district. This can lead to widespread confusion, particularly in urban areas where many precincts can often be housed in the same building.

Barring young adults from pre-registering as 16- and 17-year-olds, which is permitted by current law, and repealing a state directive that high schools conduct voter registration drives in order to boost turnout among young voters.

Prohibiting some types of paid voter registration drives, which tend to register poor and minority citizens.

Dismantling three state public financing programs, including the landmark program that funded judicial elections.
Weakening disclosure requirements for outside spending groups.

Preventing counties from extending polling hours in the event of long lines or other extraordinary circumstances and making it more difficult for them to accommodate elderly or disabled voters with satellite polling sites at nursing homes, for instance.
I'm curious to see how the vote goes.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The sneaky way to think of it is that the ACA includes an ID requirement to defang voter ID laws.
Unless ACA provides for free IDs, I doubt this.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 06:52 PM
 
Time to ramp up advertising of mail-in balloting.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2013, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
IDs are not a scarce commodity, but if you only ever need them when voting once every four years, you might not bother getting one. By requiring IDs for more things, you make IDs more common by increasing the incentive to get one.
If you only ever need one when you're sick, many wouldn't bother getting one either.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2013, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So NC's voter ID bill has been amended with lots of important measures to prevent fraud. Such as:

I'm curious to see how the vote goes.
Surprise, surprise, it got passed and signed.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 03:29 PM
 
The audacity is mind-blowing.

Texas and the Voting Rights Act: Bigotry for the right reasons | The Economist
Last week Greg Abbott, the attorney-general of Texas, filed his response, and it is a doozy. He notes, correctly, that the redistricting plans are moot, and have resulted in no violations of the 14th and 15th amendments. Fair enough. He then writes that the Shelby County ruling "makes clear that the extreme sovereignty-infringing remedy of pre-clearance is constitutionally suspect" and applies "only to cases where more traditional remedies have proven demonstrably adequate, as in the south in 1965". And he calls Mr Holder's allegations of discrimination "baseless...[R]edistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats... [They] were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary."
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 03:54 PM
 
Wow. Just wow!

OAW

PS: Anybody else think it's a good idea to have non-partisan commissions draw up Congressional Districts?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Wow. Just wow!

OAW

PS: Anybody else think it's a good idea to have non-partisan commissions draw up Congressional Districts?
They did in Arizona. My new district was evenly split.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
They did in Arizona. My new district was evenly split.
Does your district being split mean it was rigged?

Anyway, the GOP is getting right on that.
While many states let their state legislatures decide on their redistricting maps, Arizona voters opted in 2000 to entrust the process to an independent redistricting panel. By design, the commission consists of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent. Its maps must include districts, drawn from scratch, that are “roughly equal in population.” They are encouraged to also make districts as compact as possible, respectful of the federal Voting Rights Act, respectful of communities of interest, and — if possible — politically competitive.

Though the Congressional maps approved by the commission in 2012 did just that, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and her Republican legislative majorities attempted to remove the independent chairwoman because they found the map too competitive; the state Supreme Court rejected this power grab as illegal.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Does your district being split mean it was rigged?

Anyway, the GOP is getting right on that.
I'm still waiting for your outrage when the Maryland democrats did the exact same thing this past year. Actually, there wasn't even an attempt at an "independent panel."

Hint: go back one page.

I'll say again, this thread is nothing but partisan shillery. If you have a problem with these types of things, you can look to your local (D) as a great place to start cleaning up.

I personally do have a problem with it - but this isn't a (R) vs (D) problem. This is a ruling class vs you and me problem. You've bought into their narrative on the subject hook line and sinker, and when I give you an example of it happening in a blue state you simply retort that 'both sides doing it is a shit reason not to care' then continue acting as if the problem applies strictly to one party.

What do you do when the wolf cries wolf?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm still waiting for your outrage when the Maryland democrats did the exact same thing this past year. Actually, there wasn't even an attempt at an "independent panel."

Hint: go back one page.
Hint: We already discussed this. Maryland's voters approved the map. It doesn't make gerrymandering right, but it sure as hell lays some of the blame on the very people it affects (Like Prop 8). The real solution is independent panels, but Arizona shows how bitter of a pill that is to swallow.

Also it's Page 2 and 3

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'll say again, this thread is nothing but partisan shillery.
It wouldn't look that way if people posted examples that Ds are trying to do the same things. The best we have is accusations they want illegals to vote (The opposite of voter suppression but also blatant rigging).


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I personally do have a problem with it - but this isn't a (R) vs (D) problem. This is a ruling class vs you and me problem.
This is quickly evolving into a personal version of the illuminati.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You've bought into their narrative on the subject hook line and sinker
What narrative? The narrative two GOP members have admitted to that they're trying to rig this shit? It's not rocket science.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
and when I give you an example of it happening in a blue state you simply retort that 'both sides doing it is a shit reason not to care' then continue acting as if the problem applies strictly to one party.
Acting? I'll post any voting shenanigans I run into. If I'm overlooking stuff that happening its a public forum and anyone can chip in. God knows chongo tries.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What do you do when the wolf cries wolf?
Rehash old accusations, blame nebulous people and provide no proof, apparently.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:24 PM
 
The best part is, when I started this thread for the 2012 election season, I never imagined it'd still have life afterwards. But then you have states like North Carolina strengthening their ID laws (which is arguably reasonable) and then adding heaps of unnecessary suppression tactics onto the bill (which still gets passed!)

But I'm the bad guy because I won't stop posting about it. Oh, ok.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The best part is, when I started this thread for the 2012 election season, I never imagined it'd still have life afterwards. But then you have states like North Carolina strengthening their ID laws (which is arguably reasonable) and then adding heaps of unnecessary suppression tactics onto the bill (which still gets passed!)

But I'm the bad guy because I won't stop posting about it. Oh, ok.
It's just hard to take your complaint seriously when presented with examples of your preferred party doing the exact same thing, there's nothing but deflection and "well, but"


So Maryland voters approving a blatantly unfair law because it was written to be confusing (even the lefty papers reported as such) makes it ok? Isn't that exactly what you're railing against with Voter ID? Sheesh man

Originally Posted by MD Question 5
Question 5
Referendum Petition
Congressional Districting Plan (Ch. 1 of the 2011 Special Session)

Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law
Who wouldn't say yes to that question as asked? For ****'s sake man. That's your idea of acceptable gerrymandering?


I don't see this as anything other then you bitching about a pre-defined boogeyman - in this case it's those dirty racist republicans. No matter what evidence about your own preferred party gets aired, the republicans are still evil racists and the democrats doing it isn't such a big deal - after all, we voted for it right?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2013, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's just hard to take your complaint seriously when presented with examples of your preferred party doing the exact same thing, there's nothing but deflection and "well, but"
You posted one example.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Isn't that exactly what you're railing against with Voter ID? Sheesh man
Voter ID being passed by the voters would be a huge improvement.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Who wouldn't say yes to that question as asked? For ****'s sake man. That's your idea of acceptable gerrymandering?
There's no such thing as "acceptable" gerrymandering. In this case the question is phrased neutrally – which is fair, but since most people don't generally know whats going on (myself included on PA initiatives) it'll pass regardless of whether the initiative behind it is actually fair. I don't know if there's a concise, easy way to convey what you're voting for on the ballot.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
No matter what evidence about your own preferred party gets aired
One piece of evidence. One. No matter my ass. You're not going to be happy unless I light a democrat effigy on fire. You highlighted Democratic gerrymandering in Maryland. Good. Keep doing so. I welcome it.

But don't try to brow-beat me with some kind of equal-time failing when you're talking about gerrymandering and I'm talking about gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the rolling back of voting rights. I'll post what I find, and I encourage you to do the same.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 07:23 AM
 
What people are missing here is that Governors oversee districting and that the recent elections had 30 Republican governors over 20 Democratic governors. This is nothing more than a math problem, not a Republican problem. Redistricting is an age-old practice of both Democrats and Republican governorships, but the governor can approve or veto a plan to redistrict not unlike the Democrats' attempt to redistrict in Nevada, vetoed by the Republican governor. Of course, we wouldn't be talking about any of this if it weren't for the large influx of new Republican governorships so... if you want to "fix" this, get your Democrat gubernatorial candidate elected who will in turn redistrict to their liking.

Of course, none of this begins to address the incredible disenfranchisement of the traditionally, right-leaning, absentee military ballot up to and including abject failure to uphold provisions of the Federal Voting Assistance Program enacted to resolve this very issue. We don't hear much about that of course because they are not of the preferred ideology and therefore will not be covered by any of the popular clown-pundits on Comedy Central who bring news to the weary, distracted masses.
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What people are missing here is that Governors oversee districting and that the recent elections had 30 Republican governors over 20 Democratic governors. This is nothing more than a math problem, not a Republican problem. Redistricting is an age-old practice of both Democrats and Republican governorships, but the governor can approve or veto a plan to redistrict not unlike the Democrats' attempt to redistrict in Nevada, vetoed by the Republican governor. Of course, we wouldn't be talking about any of this if it weren't for the large influx of new Republican governorships so... if you want to "fix" this, get your Democrat gubernatorial candidate elected who will in turn redistrict to their liking.

Of course, none of this begins to address the incredible disenfranchisement of the traditionally, right-leaning, absentee military ballot up to and including abject failure to uphold provisions of the Federal Voting Assistance Program enacted to resolve this very issue. We don't hear much about that of course because they are not of the preferred ideology and therefore will not be covered by any of the popular clown-pundits on Comedy Central who bring news to the weary, distracted masses.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 03:21 PM
 
I said it before and I'll say it again. Re-districting should be handled by non-partisan commissions. Doing it based upon which party happens to win the election every 10 years is all kinds of stupid and just asking for abuse.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2013, 06:45 PM
 
I'd prefer an algorithm.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2