Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[chasfh]

17 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

There is little need for any system of proof beyond the person's attestation because impersonating other people is just not an effective form of voter fraud. What few cases of voter  fraud there are come mostly from people registering where or when they are not legal voters. ID at the poll gets you nowhere against that if the person is already on the rolls but shouldn't be.

This is a really underappreciated argument against the efficacy of voter fraud as a potent weapon to steal elections: it's just too damn succeed doing so at a granular level.

How do paranoid people actually believe that someone could effectively go from precinct to precinct on Election Day impersonating other people in order to steal their votes in their place? How many could a single person even manage to pull off? Six? Eight at the most? That's nowhere near enough to swing an election that's starting out tilted against you to go your way. Doing that would take a person literally all day long to accomplish.

And how many people would you have to enlist in such a scheme to have any chance of swinging an election in a particular jurisdiction away from a sure Republican winner to the Democratic side? Hundreds? Thousands? And multiplied by how many jurisdictions to steal a whole congressional district, or senatorial race, or presidential election? And how could you keep such a conspiracy quiet, never to be found out? They odds against pulling off something like that are so astronomical that it barely rates trying to even seriously calculate it.

The whole idea of voter fraud of this type is just so illogical that it crumbles at the merest examination. This is why the concept bottoms-up voter fraud is literally no threat to elections. To cheat at winning elections, you'd need to do it at a scale massive enough to swing the election. Doing so requires top-down elections fraud, the kind people with institutional connection can arrange through dodgy tactics such as mid-term redistricting, or the kind of onerous voter requirements that favor people of means over people without. Elections fraud that neutralizes votes, or that invalidates the ability of a qualified eligible voter to even vote in the first place.

[ewsieg]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

It's a fairly apt metaphor, but the difference is that your house being broken into isn't a matter of Constitutional rights (granted that's cold comfort if it happens to you, but it is what it is 😉 ), so Constitutional practice demands that there be a actual showing of need before *any* burden is imposed, and for my money the SCOTUS has just been plain been wrong on this issue in letting any state require it - and certainly in any absence of a positive mandate that the state undertake provision of ID to everyone. But in the grand scheme of things to me it's not the hill to die on that something like Gerrymandering or CU are (and that CU should be to more people.)

Even rights afforded to us by the constitution have been ruled time and time again to have limits.  I can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and states can put limitations on fire arm purchases/use.

I feel like you guys are looking at my argument like I disagree with you 100% and I'm some dumb hick that thinks voter ID will fix everything wrong with society.

I want you all to think of every argument you've ever used against a physical ID card for voter verification and for the purposes of this post, assume I concede every point to you.  (Except that ID's are nearly impossible for minorities to obtain, I can't go that far, but I'll still concede it is a barrier)

Here is another fact that I believe you all will agree with:

Where republicans can control the state laws, they are going to have laws which support a physical, government issued, ID card.

With that, we have two competing solutions:

1) Ensure all citizens are fully brushed up on every aspect/study associated with voter (and election fraud) so they can all join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah as they vote out all republicans, making every state Blue.  If that fails though, which will be tougher to do in part because your refusing to play the election 'game' based on the current laws on the books, it turns into nothing more than a soap box talking point to score political points which likely will never become actual law.

2) Play the game the way it's currently designed, which is annoying I'll grant you, but 1) if successful, you eliminate that barrier.  Additionally as I have pointed out, there are many more benefits of having government issues ID.  So even if you don't end up changing the rules to the game, you are at least improving the lives of people.

 

 

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

 

Here is another fact that I believe you all will agree with:

Where republicans can control the state laws, they are going to have laws which support a physical, government issued, ID card.

 

Which is all fine and dandy until it comes time to actually set up the process of issuing the cards. Dollars to donuts they will make the process so burdensome for minorities and poor people to be able to obtain that in reality it becomes a barrier to those to vote. I.E lack of facilities and/or staff to facilitate registration and issuance of ID's. 

[oblong]

I think its a form of privilege to not understand that many people just don't do well or have the ability to deal with bureaucracy.   What if they don't have a car or access to transportation?  Or missing required documentation, like birth certificates. What if they have trouble reading or writing?  Maybe they have anxiety around people.  Maybe they don't know where to go an ID.  Maybe they're afraid because they didn't pay a ticket years ago that they'll get arrested. The list goes on.

These people still have the right to vote.

 

[ewsieg]

6 minutes ago, oblong said:

I think its a form of privilege to not understand that many people just don't do well or have the ability to deal with bureaucracy.   What if they don't have a car or access to transportation?  Or missing required documentation, like birth certificates. What if they have trouble reading or writing?  Maybe they have anxiety around people.  Maybe they don't know where to go an ID.  Maybe they're afraid because they didn't pay a ticket years ago that they'll get arrested. The list goes on.

These people still have the right to vote.

What's your solution then?  Just bitch about it?   This is really all I'm saying.  You can bitch about how it's 'not right' and stomp your feet, or you can make it a part of your party platform that you will promote AND provide services to help people get a voter ID which not only eliminates that first barrier to vote but also gives them additional access to the benefits, both within the government (more representative juries) and personal (checking accounts).  

You could do this WHILE still complaining that it's stupid that it's something you have to do in terms of voting.

[oblong]

9 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

What's your solution then?  Just bitch about it?   This is really all I'm saying.  You can bitch about how it's 'not right' and stomp your feet, or you can make it a part of your party platform that you will promote AND provide services to help people get a voter ID which not only eliminates that first barrier to vote but also gives them additional access to the benefits, both within the government (more representative juries) and personal (checking accounts).  

You could do this WHILE still complaining that it's stupid that it's something you have to do in terms of voting.

I'm not bitching about it.  I'm saying let them vote.

It's not my job to provide your solution.

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

I'm not bitching about it.  I'm saying let them vote.

It's not my job to provide your solution.

THANK you. Exactly right. This is a ****ing social media forum, for god's sake. Why are we being tasked with providing solutions, and then begin criticized when we are deemed not to have adequately satisfied the task?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Where republicans can control the state laws, they are going to have laws which support a physical, government issued, ID card.

actually, I do see another solution here......

[ewsieg]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

It's not my job to provide your solution.

You don't need to provide anything.  But please note, all you did provide was excuses with a blanket "It just shouldn't be that way".   While you may not want to admit it, that certainly sounds like bitching to me.

I come on here to discuss and even challenge my own thoughts.  I feel I gave some legitimate reasons why democrats should be pushing to get more people with state issued ID's, I'll take your lack at providing any useful response for what it is, useless.

[ewsieg]

36 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

actually, I do see another solution here......

Your party lost to Trump.  This solution you hint at apparently isn't as easy as you folks believe it to be.  Getting government issued ID's into the hands of people that agree with you would actually help with your solution as well, but hey, we're not here to discuss solutions.

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Your party lost to Trump.  This solution you hint at apparently isn't as easy as you folks believe it to be.  Getting government issued ID's into the hands of people that agree with you would actually help with your solution as well, but hey, we're not here to discuss solutions.

My point being that politically - its a perfectly valid strategy to put your effort into electing people who will do what you think is right elected as opposed to trying to accommodate people who won't. It's not being 'useless' at all, it's working the process as it was meant to be worked.

There is nothing wrong with trying to take the edge of policies from other side when you can, but I'd submit the opportunities to do that in the current environment could as easily be called 'useless'. Whitmer had gotten things from the GOP because she won the governorship and she had leverage. If she hadn't, the Dems would not have gotten those things in the legislature by saying pretty please.

Edited Tuesday at 05:39 PM by gehringer_2

[oblong]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

You don't need to provide anything.  But please note, all you did provide was excuses with a blanket "It just shouldn't be that way".   While you may not want to admit it, that certainly sounds like bitching to me.

I come on here to discuss and even challenge my own thoughts.  I feel I gave some legitimate reasons why democrats should be pushing to get more people with state issued ID's, I'll take your lack at providing any useful response for what it is, useless.

The fact you refer to reasons as “excuses” speaks volumes. 

[gehringer_2]

And just to add on the topic of 'getting IDs to folks'. You come here speaking as an honest agent that if the poor had IDs it would be easier for them to vote and access services. The problem is that GOP elected officials who you advise the Dems to work with have no interest in either of those things happening, and are not going to create anything like the kind of programs you envision without being forced by a counterweighting political force, which in the end is only going to be Dems winning more elections/seats. This is just a true about getting rollbacks of excess dumb idea liberal politics in blue states. Not going to happen until the Blue side loses seats over it if it's stuff they believe in, and the sad  truth is that much of the current GOP believes just as deeply in suppression of the other side's voters.

Edited Tuesday at 09:34 PM by gehringer_2

[LaceyLou]

9 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Which is all fine and dandy until it comes time to actually set up the process of issuing the cards. Dollars to donuts they will make the process so burdensome for minorities and poor people to be able to obtain that in reality it becomes a barrier to those to vote. I.E lack of facilities and/or staff to facilitate registration and issuance of ID's. 

When I got my Real ID last year, I had to have not only my birth certificate and SS card, but I had to have 4 separate documents indicating that I am a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I'd only read about 3 being required before going to my appointment, so it was a matter of sheer luck that I happened to have another document with me that had the required information. I can easily see how that could prevent a fair number of people from being able to get one.

There has got to be an easier way.

[ewsieg]

17 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

The problem is that GOP elected officials who you advise the Dems to work with have no interest in either of those things happening, and are not going to create anything like the kind of programs you envision without being forced by a counterweighting political force, which in the end is only going to be Dems winning more elections/seats. 

I'm not against democrats trying to work with republicans on this, but that has not been my argument at all.

I'm saying make it a party platform that you want to put government issued ID into every adult in the United States and while you would prefer that a government program would effectuate that, build programs into the DNC to support such efforts.  When asked if citizens should have to present an ID to vote, don't say "No, because these statistics show it would affect minorities votes"  but rather "No, but I would like to see a program put in place to ensure everyone has one as there are many benefits to having an ID outside of just being able to vote in GOP controlled states such as...."

In short, try and change the perception of ID, which would do a lot of good on multiple different issues.  Offer services to try and help.  You don't need government programs to do that, the DNC spends a ton of money on registering people to vote and encouraging folks to get to the polls, this would just be an extension of that.  In part it might just be an information campaign, help folks like LaceyLou know exactly what is needed in each state to obtain an ID the first time.  

In those areas where the GOP has put laws to suppress the vote (In your opinion), this would help Dem voters get over that obstacle and vote still.  This only increases your chances of flipping some seats to help remove these laws altogether.  Will the GOP move the goalposts, sure, probably, but make them move it.  At the same time, even if the goal posts are moved, you will have improved the lives of those you claim you want to help.

 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I'm saying make it a party platform that you want to put government issued ID into every adult in the United States and while you would prefer that a government program would effectuate that, build programs into the DNC to support such efforts

I get the idea, but I think you are being idealistic. If the Dems had it as program plank and then introduced any such thing in a GOP state, the GOP would immediately amend the proposal in to an effective suppression format and the Dems would be left holding the bag politically. I think that is the much more probable political reality. 

And in any case, the idea that lack of state ID is holding back people from accessing services (other than voting) is a presumption not actually in evidence. I've yet to hear any chorus from county social workers that they are being impeded in their work by lack of client documentation. This is about voting, and I'll stand with the all the arg's above that state ID for voting is a red herring that Dems have no good reason to get behind.

Edited 13 hours ago by gehringer_2

[romad1]

this is a tiktok link but its pretty damn right on

 

[oblong]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I get the idea, but I think you are being idealistic. If the Dems had it as program plank and then introduced any such thing in a GOP state, the GOP would immediately amend the proposal in to an effective suppression format and the Dems would be left holding the bag politically. I think that is the much more probable political reality. 

And in any case, the idea that lack of state ID is holding back people from accessing services (other than voting) is a presumption not actually in evidence. I've yet to hear any chorus from county social workers that they are being impeded in their work by lack of client documentation. This is about voting, and I'll stand with the all the arg's above that state ID for voting is a red herring that Dems have no good reason to get behind.

A solution in search of a problem.