Irony. Hypocrisy. Just Another Day In The Liberal Neighborhood

So our contemptible Attorney General was in Houston today to address the NAA(L)CP National Convention. Luckily there was no shortage of irony or hypocrisy.

First the irony. Just in case someone may not have been aware, Houston is in Texas. Texas is currently being sued by the aforementioned and contemptible Holder's Department of "Justice" over the recent enactment of a voter ID law in the state.

And since we're talking about liberals, we can't forget the hypocrisy.

Both Holder and NAA(L)CP President Ben Jealous predictably brought out the dog whistles in their speeches likening voter ID laws to, "poll taxes" and "Selma and Montgomery times". But as reported by Katie Pavlich of Townhall.com, members of the media attending the event were not only required to present valid media credentials, but also a government-issued photo ID.

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID

You can't even make this stuff up.

No votes yet

Yes, I was greatly amused by this. These guys contradict themselves right out in the open. They believe they've invulnerable.

I support strong ID for elections. There's no point in holding an election unless you can ensure that each vote is unique. It's basic protocol. And that requires a strong ID system.

Doesn't it seem odd that democrats/liberals view requiring a photo id as discriminatory/voter intimidation, yet they don't complain about any of the numerous other things where a photo id is required?

You don't hear them complaining that a photo id is required for cashing a check, renting a car, driving, using a credit card, applying for a loan, etc, etc.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

And, that's the way they've always been....convoluted cognition and being sinfully envious of others , causes their brains to pinball thoughts banging about their skulls, creating complexes no one completely understands.

Let's call these laws what they are--a scheme cooked up by the GOP to whittle down votes that Democrats typically get. Voter fraud is rare, yet these laws will prevent thousands from voting--exactly what they are intended to do. It's a scam, and everyone knows it.

Pink Slip

"Voter fraud is rare" Not according to New York State Senator Andriano Espilliat.

"yet these laws will prevent thousands from voting" How? Any case where an individual does not have the proper ID they are given temporary or provisional ballots depending upon how the state in question decides validity. So they still are afforded the chance to vote.

Here is what Ohio accepts as "ID"
Current photo ID issued by the state of Ohio or the U.S. government (even if it shows a previous address)
Military identification
Bank statement
Current paycheck
Current government check
Current Utility bill
Any current government-issued document showing your current address

Someone who does not have at least one of the above "ID's" then is probably a very good chance not eligible to vote i.e. not naturalized, convicted felon, under the age of 18, does not meet residency requirements of the district, deemed ineligible by an elections board, deemed incompetent by the state, etc (eligibility varies state to state).

MikeyA

An investigation from the NYT concluded that 86 voters had been convicted of voter fraud over a five-year period (out of hundreds of millions of votes). Or .0000002 %, or something like that...you get the point--it's a very small number.

On the other hand, over 1,200 votes were tossed out in Georgia and Indiana alone in 2008--the first states to implement voter ID schemes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0708/What-could-tigh...

It's a vote-shaving scheme--nothing more.

Pink Slip

First, what you cite does not talk about the NY times investigation. So it's findings cannot be credibly challenged. I have a strong suspicion that these are instances where voter fraud is proven to get that number. In most cases the elections are not so close that it matters so further investigation would be a huge misappropriation of resources.

Secondly, the article you do cite suggests the number of ballots turned away could sway an election. Well with that argument one could say voter fraud could also sway it in small margin elections.

Unlike the Healthcare argument this is actually a RIGHT of the people. People have a RIGHT to vote and they have a RIGHT that their vote be reasonably assured and that their vote granted credibility. ANY case of voter fraud removes the credibility of the vote of the individual.

AND in those tossed out votes in GA and IN all of those people were given a reasonable chance to prove their vote should be counted. Failure to do that is not the fault of the state nor should my vote be marginallized or nullified for another voter failing to meet the standard. Each state gets to decide what the standard is. I think Ohio's especially is both reasoned and appropriate.

MikeyA

You're right! My citation dealt with the votes that were thrown away in Indiana and Georgia. Here's the link for the NYT investigation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html

"In most cases the elections are not so close that it matters so further investigation would be a huge misappropriation of resources."

Well said--I agree. Thanks for helping me make my argument.

Here's another study from Wisconsin:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/wisconsin_2004.html

"There were 7 substantiated cases of individuals knowingly casting invalid votes that counted -- all persons with felony convictions. This amounts to a rate of 0.0025% within Milwaukee and 0.0002% within the state as a whole. None of these problems could have been resolved by requiring photo ID at the polls."

Again! 0.0002% Holy shit, call in the Feds!

"this is actually a RIGHT of the people. People have a RIGHT to vote"

Again, I agree. People have a right to vote. So let's not fuck with that right by putting a bunch a conditions on it.

Pink Slip

So Dems tend to get vote from dead people and illegal aliens?

Also, from the above link:

"Supporters of the laws cite anecdotal cases of fraud as a reason that states need to do more to secure elections, but fraud appears to be rare. As part of its effort to build support for voter ID laws, the Republican National Lawyers Association last year published a report that identified some 400 election fraud prosecutions over a decade across the entire country. That's not even one per state per year."

Pink Slip

Those who support the voter ID laws: please name the last election which was decided by less than the 0.0000002% of the vote calculated by Pink Slip based upon factual evidence, rather than supposition.
I strongly support voter registration. When I first started to vote, many, mostly rural, counties in Ohio did not have voter registration. Voter registration eliminated almost all voter fraud decades ago! In order to register to vote, one must prove that one is a citizen and have proof of one's permanent address. Unlike on an election day, the proof in order to register to vote does not come under the pressure of "prove it now, or leave".

Until very recently, all political parties were commited to expanding voter participation. The voter ID movement is a transparently partisan attempt to decrease voter participation by those who are most likely to vote for Democrats. Period! End of story!

shed some light on what the (L) in NAACP stands for?

The "L" is for liberal, the "CP" is for colored people

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

He childishly added the "L" (for liberal) to NAACP. It's not an official acronym.

How many would honestly lose their vote if voter ID laws were enacted?

If we look at numbers for Ohio from the 2010 elections, there were:

  • 8,831,740 Licensed Drivers/ID Card Holders
  • 8,037,806 Registered Voters
  • 3,956,045 Votes Cast (49.22% Voter Turnout)

That's just under 800,000 more licensed drivers/ID card holders than registered voters. And to be fair, we can take out the approximately 325,000 individuals (2000 Census*) who were of driving age but not yet old enough to vote. So after all is said and done, we still had roughly 475,000 more licensed drivers/ID card holders than registered voters in 2010.

Of course someone will probably say that since you currently do not need an ID to vote, there will still be people who are disenfranchised. That's possible, but I would then ask the same question that those do about cases of voter fraud (which can be documented). To what extent? We had more people with IDs than registered to vote and turnout was under 50%, how many are honestly and legitimately having their right to vote suppressed?

*2010 Census data was not available when I originally did this research.

Name the election which was decided by a difference of 0.0000002% of the vote. THOSE are the statistics on voter fraud.
On the contrary, some states had thousands who were registered, but DENIED the right to vote in recent elections.

Once again, for those of you like Dale who are slow, showing proper ID to link your vote to the reg and to ensure your vote is unique, is only proper election protocol and in no way, shape or form does it constitute disenfranchisement.

Smart systems always exclude the stupid. And the criminal. Those are the only people being "disenfranchised", much like not working disenfranchises you from having any money. It's only natural.

A photo ID for Ohio is like $20. It's good for 4 years, which is generally 8 elections. If you can't invest that little in certifying your vote, then you have no business voting anyway.

I will close my posting by asking Dale where your anger is that ID-less people can't get into Government Center. Disenfranchisement, right? LOL!

Another flaw they need to change is if you can't prove you are a homeowner then you can't vote on property tax levies.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Uh, what? Some citizens are more equal than others?

Property owner or not, "citizen" is the great equalizer. So a man who rents or lives in his momma's basement or even out in a field in a tent, is still seized of the right to determine government tax policy as a voter.

The real injustice you're complaining about is the very idea of property tax. Why should your home be taxed? The larger problem is that we tax everything that moves, and then everything that doesn't move. Income taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. The government walks away with about 40% of your yearly income each year, on average for the working man. Why does a government need to be this expensive? There's no real liberty in such a system.

That is the heart of the problem property taxing ect. but as it is why should I keep paying for those who don't pay i.e non-home owner and or unemployed? Isn't that Obama's motto..lets pay for those who can't.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Which election was decided by less than 0.0000002% of the vote? Voter registration already takes care of almost all voter fraud issues! You want to cure a disease which does not exist! Or do you?

Your true beliefs are revealed by your statement, "Smart systems always exclude the stupid". I'm sure that you would include me as being among those stupid people you would like to disenfranchise, because I don't see most things your way.

Dale, we're talking about proper protocols for ensuring uniqueness of a vote, hence why elections can even be "certified" in the first place. The voter registers to make sure he's on the list, and then appears with proper ID to match the entry on the list. The guys running the polls aren't going to know who those people are. They are only matching people to entries. That demands ID.

Those are my true beliefs. Protocols and math. Things which are objectively true and have no ideology.

That smart systems kick out the stupid, is another natural effect. You can't fix stupid. I don't even try; it's pointless. The irony here is massive, considering what your career was. The only "fix" for stupid is education, and you clearly fucked that up in your career, considering the state of the TPS from your era.

Don't EVER compare security concerns with attempts to limit basic voting rights! When I was young, we lived in Toledo's central city and NEVER locked our doors, day or night. When we went to an airport, we could sit in the passenger waiting area with those leaving, or to await those arriving
The concern with violence now dominates much of our thinking, and we all pay the price by having numerous inconveniences thrust upon us for security reasons.

The ability to commit voter fraud, is not a basic voting right.

When you match one record to another to validate that a vote is unique, you're not limiting anything. It's the basic function of a vote system. If you remove that validation, then you don't actually have a vote system. You have a fraud system. The prevailing political group will run around and fill the voter rolls with fraudulent entries to make sure all other political groups are out-voted.

The ID requirements are so tiny that you're not even making an economic ("poll tax") argument against me. But this tiny ID requirement does put a dead stop to one single thing: Vote fraud. It stops illegal aliens from voting. It stops a daughter from voting for herself and then for her bed-ridden mother. It stops the "dead vote". Etc. And all that undermines the Democratic Fraud Machine, since all those criminals listed above tend to be Democrats. It terrifies you. That your beloved Communist system in Toledo could be voted out, terrifies you.

WE HAVE VOTER REGISTRATION IN OHIO!! You write as if, up until now, we've had an open voting system. On the contrary, in each election, each of us may only vote one time at one specific polling place. We have had to sign in, and that signature must match. This system means that voter fraud is virtually non-existent -- 0.0000002%. What planet have you been living on?

Oh, I forgot. You only want people to vote who agree with you -- none of us "stupid" people who have differing opinions. Yours is prototypical conservative hysteria, and a desperate attempt to justify keeping those whom you perceive to be your enemies from voting against those you perceive to be your friends! How profoundly sad!!

So all you'd accept is that the signatures matched? Firstly, mine never particularly match. My scrawl is highly variant since I don't sign anything much. But the people at the polls don't care, since I already showed a photo ID. Secondly, the sig is right there, so you can try to match it if you like. There's nearly zero real assurance there against vote fraud.

You and the rest of your credo clones have to face facts: Modern voting has a protocol. It involves ID. You had to show ID in the first place to obtain your registry. That's the back-end. The front end is the polls, and you just show ID again. Note: Again.

Nobody is being denied the right to vote. The state itself has the right and duty to assure that an election can be certified. That's why we bother with databases and ID and locks and receipts and oaths. Anything else just opens a hole for vote fraud, and you can't certify the vote then.

GZ

"But this tiny ID requirement does put a dead stop to one single thing: Vote fraud. It stops illegal aliens from voting. It stops a daughter from voting for herself and then for her bed-ridden mother. It stops the "dead vote".

How often do any of these instances happen?

Pink Slip

Excuse me, Pink Slip, but what part of "certifying the election" proved too difficult for you to understand? Proper protocol for ensuring the uniqueness of a vote, is how elections can be trusted.

GZ

Go ahead and answer the question

Pink Slip

The question you asked is irrelevant. That's why there's no point in answering it. Elections are certified through protocols. Voter uniqueness is part of the protocol. It's trust, not statistics.

You will never understand. I mean, sure, you understand, but you won't accept it. You won't accept it since you like your current system of Democrat voter fraud.

So in conclusion: ID to vote is not disenfranchisement. Anyone who claims different is being ludicrous and in fact, is provably wrong. Elections must be certified or there's no point in holding them at all.

It's amusing how *fake* small government advocates show their true colors when it comes to this subject. Now they are for using the power of government to deny people the right to vote, simply because they tend to vote a particular way.

Thousands have had their votes tossed---all so that these Big Government advocates can catch LESS THAN ONE FRAUD CASE, PER STATE, PER YEAR.

Truly pathetic.

Pink Slip

These new Big Government advocates scream "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!" to make their case, the same way they scream "TERRORISTS!" in order to justify war. Except now the war is against American citizens, who end up losing their vote.

Pink Slip

scream "Illegal Immigrants". It never dawns on them that an illegal most likely wouldn't try to vote for fear that it might bring attention to the fact that they were living here illegally. I would think most illegals are too busy laying low.

It is also well known that the poorer one is, the less well educated one is, and the more mobile one is, the less likely that person is to vote. Few living in America are poorer, have less education, or are more mobile than are illegal immigrants!

How can you lose your right to vote if you register and show ID? Is registering and IDing yourself too cognitively difficult for you?

Pink Slip, you can't get near the elevators in Government Center without producing photo ID. I expect to see you picketing there bright and early on Monday about this injust treatment of citizens in disenfranchising them from their officials!

Showing ID for security purposes is a sad reality of 21st Century America. This is a totally different issue than showing ID at the voting site.

You refuse to answer the questions which Pink Slip and I both ask in different ways about the infrequency of your alleged voter fraud!

You already have made your true feelings on this topic clear. Those who disagree with GZ are "stupid" and who somehow find your empty arguments "to difficult for you to understand", should not have the right to vote.

Your position on voter ID has nothing whatsoever to do with voter fraud of 0.0000002%! The true conservative agenda is to keep turnout as low as possible. We get it!

Absentee voters have had to show ID for years. Do you think I shouldn't have to show it anymore?

MikeyA

However, absentee voters are not under the pressure of immediacy, nor a looming poll closing within minutes or hours.
Mikey -- you may have sincere concerns about this. Not so others who take this position. It is so obvious that this is a partisan Republican-embraced issue to hold down the vote of those who most often vote for Democrats, when the amount of voter fraud is infinitesimally small!

Immediacy does not excuse delegitimizing a person's vote.

So you support having absentee voters prove who they are but not people at polling stations. Dems support this because most absentee voters favor Republicans.

Plus the anti-ID voting side completely ignores that 17,000 military absentee voters were disenfrancished in 2008. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/20/military-voters-soon-to-...

Why where they disenfrancished? States failed to comply with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Yet I'm supposed to be APPALLED that someone was made to bring their water bill (that doesn't have a picture on it) to a voting station or bring it to the county elections board a week later?

In fact, 1/3rd of the states do this! So spare me your outrage at showing an ID that one needs to be an active member of virtually every facet of our society.

MikeyA

While you guys are at it, maybe you should pose the question to a few others. You could start with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said when writing the majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law:

"That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

And I think we all can agree that Justice Stevens was by no means a purveyor of the so-called "true conservative agenda". Or perhaps you would want to ask the Americans, who when polled on the issue, consistently support voter ID laws.

Fox News Poll: Most think voter ID laws are necessary

  • 70% say voter ID laws are needed to stop illegal voting
  • 52% of Democrats agree while only 44% consider the laws an unnecessary deterrent

73% Think Photo ID Requirement Before Voting Does Not Discriminate

  • 64% of likely voters rate voter fraud at least a somewhat serious problem, 24% disagree
  • 35% consider voter fraud a very serious problem, 7% view it as not at all serious

All that being said, there really isn't any point for anyone to answer your questions because whatever response is provided it will be, unsurprisingly, too "infinitesimally small" to matter. For liberals, voter ID has never been about discrimination or disenfranchisement, it has always been about trying to protect an elections process that they can exploit. And while the liberals around here have at least acknowledged that voter fraud occurs, just look back through the comments and see if any of them make any overtures about stopping it. Show your photo ID and vote, it's that simple, yet at the very mention of it, liberals scream bloody murder (or racist). So...when you peel away all of their rhetoric, liberals are perfectly fine with voter fraud (which, by the way, is a felony).

99.9999998% effective at what it does, I'll be shocked. The so-called "problem" is too small to need to be "solved". So, the only logical conclusion is that this is a partisan position for a partisan purpose,

Justice Stevens referred to the historical record. Much of this historical record was recorded BEFORE there was nearly universal voter registration. Why Justice Stevens ignored the more recent statistics is something you'd have to discuss with him. As far as polls are concerned, I have to state my admiration for the way conservatives have educated -- or should I say propagandized -- the public. Generally, conservatives are much better at relating their messages than are liberals.

Of course, since the poll is by Fox news, it would be instructional to know just how the question to be answered was phrased. Along with many other experiences, I have devised surveys, including voter surveys. They can be devised to get an accurate expression of public sentiment, or they can be divised to get the desired public sentiment. I'm sorry. I apologize. I forgot that Fox news is "fair and balanced". Of course, that famous liberal, Commie, Marxist, Newt Gingrich stated that CNN was more fair and balanced than is Fox News. But, why should we listen to such a far-out liberal like Newt anyway?

Mikey -- in all sincerity, I am truly appalled that so many of our military personnel were disenfranchised. My guess is that this situation was merely a failure on the part of state leaders to do their jobs properly. In order to determine if this were truly a partisan situation, we would have to know if all or most of the states who failed to follow the law had Democrats or Republicans in charge of elections there. My guess is that there is no clear pattern; therefore it is a clear case of incompetence. I'm not sure how we fix incompetence in this situation.

Dale you keep using the .0000002 number as if it's a fact. That has not been established because no one cited it other than to say it was the NY Times who got the number. I have provided a likely scenario that could show that number incorrect but again without a citation we cannot prove/disprove it's validity. Facts that can be proven/disproven should be what this discussion deals with because of it's seriousness.

Your analysis on the poll is indeed correct. And Clemson cited it correctly. You can choose to follow his citation and take issue with what you see is a flaw in the polls methodology but to discount it because of the organization that paid for it when that organization is not backed by a campaign, lobbying firm, or PAC is wrong.

My citation has all the states. California, Arizona, Wisconsin are just some of the states. I don't see this as a partisan issue but it's something that could be used to partisian means. The state that disappoints me the most is Minnesota. They allow online voting. There is no excuse for the disenfrancishment of the military. The military disenfranchisement could have affected the Senate race there. Now again, I don't think this is partisan in nature but there I'd say it was used for partisan means.

MikeyA

I am old enough to remember the days before Ohio had mandatory voter registration in every county. There were some fairly significant incidents of voter fraud. Once universal voter registration became state law, at which time the potential voter must prove who (s)he is and where (s)he lives, voter fraud in this state became de minimis! We need the "cure" of voter ID to "treat" the "disease" of voter fraud in Ohio about as much as we need a new polio vaccine! Voter registration "cured" the problem of voter fraud as well as Drs. Salk and Sabine ended the scourge of polio. Mikey, I'm NOT accusing you of using voter ID in a partisan way. In reality, the Republican Party has made the voter ID movement into a partisan issue. And it is the first time in our state's history and in our nation's history that any major political party is pushing for laws which restrict voter participation.

I never stated that I discounted the Fox News poll, but I am always at least as skeptical as that left-wing kook, Newt Gingrich, about anything produced at the orders of King Rupert and his court!

The disenfranchisement of any voters is appalling to me. The disenfranchisement of those who serve the military needs of our nation away from their homes, is even more disturbing to me. Before I would state that the disenfranchisement of military voters from Minnesota was a partisan decision, I would have to know how many military personnel from Minnesota were disenfranchised, what percentage of these mostly young people would actually vote, and have some idea of what percentage would have voted for each candidate. Even though military people tend to vote more heavily for Republicans, I doubt if the percentage is more than 58-60%. And a smaller percentage of younger voters usually cast ballots than do older citizens. I truly believe that the disenfranchisement of military personnel is simple, albeit reprehensible, human error.

Dale, Voter Registration did not cure anything. Like asking for an ID it's a deterrent to voter fraud. As I noted, there is no need to investigate if voter fraud occurred unless the election is close enough for it to matter, most elections are not that close. So because it's not investigated doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means it didn't have an impact. That is no reason to not further legitimize the process.

What makes you skeptical of the poll. You have the links, please look at them and tell us what of the wording, methodology, or sample you take issue with. You haven't even looked at it yet have you?

"Even though military people tend to vote more heavily for Republicans, I doubt if the percentage is more than 58-60%." Military tend to vote Republican for the sheer fact that more Military members come from "Republican" States and Districts. I have no reason to believe that the military members would have voted differently than the rest of Minnesota but Minnesota Dems would have had good reason to see to it the votes were not counted.

"I truly believe that the disenfranchisement of military personnel is simple, albeit reprehensible, human error." Nope. They knew it before the election. Several news organizations reported on it. Sending out military ballots 35 days before an election vice the 45 days mandated by law through your stated policy is not human error. In fact several of these states requested the DoJ issue them a waiver from the law. That's not human error.

MikeyA

Dale doublespoke: "Showing ID for security purposes is a sad reality of 21st Century America."

Nice doublethink. Showing ID for security purposes is also a sad reality of the vote certification process. We can't trust people, and ID enforces trust. That's why it's a protocol. And protocols support certification. Without the certification, the election is worthless.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.