Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[RumTumTugger]

To be fair to Sea - he has been here since the crash in 2014 - so had no way of knowing I used to use this avatar. From his perspective, I'm the Johnny-come-lately.

Sea of Red was there before the crash as well.

[carpedm9587]

That whole notion is weird. If somebody really WANTED to vote, they'd make the effort. It's a matter of "how important is this"?

I think the problem is that the Democrats would have a harder time going into a neighborhood with buses and vans and swooping up "whoever" to vote for their side.

Here's the definition:

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

disenfranchising the poor and elderly

Nobody is depriving them of the right to vote. If they're not interested enough in voting to attempt to meet the requirements, maybe they should stay home. There are a LOT of other qualified people who do.

You and others here are ignoring a reality you just don't seem to want to face. A significant number of people without the proper ID (as per the studies that have been made) also lack the means to get them. They lack the source papers (e.g., birth certificates), they lack the financial means (yes, tens of dollars matters to the poor), they lack the logistic means, etc. None of these things is beyond repair. All of them can be addressed. But it requires organization, putting resources in place, and doing the outreach. Meanwhile, a law that creates a change in voting requirements and effectively adds an obstacle not previously present, without ensuring that these issues have been addressed, creates an obstacle to voting. The studies show that these obstacles are disproportionately impacting the poor - which means disproportionately impacting minorities - which means skewing the vote to the Republican Party. The numbers from the study are 2% with a 1.2% swing of the voting outcomes. Even if the number was 0.2%, an order of magnitude less, the number of people impacted is still more than 3 orders of magnitude (2,000 times) greater than the incidence protected against. And that's being generous with the numbers. If we use the ACTUAL numbers from the studies (2%) and the limited number of fraud types that would be impacted based on the database that was provided), the number is actually closer to 5 orders of magnitude (100,000 times as many).

None of these things is necessary or can be justified. The "voter fraud" the ID's proport to solve cannot be shown to be statistically significant, and the number of people impacted by the new regulations is simply too high to leave unaddressed, especially when there is a simple solution: implement the infrastructure for an ID system, ensure reasonable effort has been made to outreach to all existing reigstered voters and ensure all of those validily registered have a reasonable opportunity to secure the necessary materials and are not denied access to vote, and THEN make the VoterID mandatory. No one is disenfranchised. Concerns about the handful of voter fraud instances that CAN be addressed by IDs is addressed (leaving all the rest, of course).

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp, or why this approach is seen as so undesirable. The impression being left is that the real objective of those advocating for this is not actually voter fraud - but rather to achieve a skewing of the vote that would be the effect for a period of time. There is no other explanation that makes sense. The data is clear. It is unambiguous. And a simple solution presents itself to avoid this effect.

[Cow Poke]

You and others here are ignoring a reality you just don't seem to want to face. A significant number of people without the proper ID (as per the studies that have been made) also lack the means to get them.

So, the "get out the vote" folks could show that they really care about the people - not just their votes - by helping them get their ID's. Rather than just use them for their vote, then ignore them until the next election.

[Cow Poke]

There is a simple solution: implement the infrastructure for an ID system, ensure reasonable effort has been made to outreach to all existing reigstered voters and ensure all of those validily registered have a reasonable opportunity to secure the necessary materials...

That fits with what I have been saying all along. So don't give me this "you don't seem to want to face" malarky.

and are not denied access to vote, and then make the VoterID mandatory.

And you will NEVER be satisfied that enough "reasonable effort" has been made to "reach out". That's a joke.

[carpedm9587]

So, the "get out the vote" folks could show that they really care about the people - not just their votes - by helping them get their ID's. Rather than just use them for their vote, then ignore them until the next election.

And that should be done BEFORE the VoterID requirement is mandated, IMO. We're talking about the state a) adding a voting obstacle that did not previously exist to solve a problem that b) cannot be shown to have statistical significance, with a solution that c) will only impact a fraction of the possible opportunities for fraud. Every effort should be made to ensure that voters in BOTH party at not unduly denied access to the polls.

[carpedm9587]

My problem with your posts, CP, is that you say you agree....

That fits with what I have been saying all along. So don't give me this "you don't seem to want to face" malarky.

...and then unsay it in the next breath...

And you will NEVER be satisfied that enough "reasonable effort" has been made to "reach out". That's a joke.

And you wonder why I say that the appearance is that the REAL objective here is to skew the vote as the studies predict it will be skewed?

[Cow Poke]

And that should be done BEFORE the VoterID requirement is mandated, IMO. We're talking about the state

...which is notoriously slow at solving problems and actually get anything done...

a) adding a voting obstacle that did not previously exist to solve a problem that b) cannot be shown to have statistical significance, with a solution that c) will only impact a fraction of the possible opportunities for fraud. Every effort should be made to ensure that voters in BOTH party at not unduly denied access to the polls.

You're leaving it open ended. It will never happen.

[Cow Poke]

My problem with your posts, CP, is that you say you agree....

With the FIRST part - that wasn't clear enough to you?

...and then unsay it in the next breath...

And you wonder why I say that the appearance is that the REAL objective here is to skew the vote as the studies predict it will be skewed?

No, I don't wonder at all - that's your bias.

[carpedm9587]

With the FIRST part - that wasn't clear enough to you?



No, I don't wonder at all - that's your bias.

Where, exactly, have I shown a bias - or said anything that has not been supported by sources and simple common sense solutions?

[Cow Poke]

Where, exactly, have I shown a bias - or said anything that has not been supported by sources and simple common sense solutions?

You offer "solutions" to the problem, while all the while declaring there's no problem. Why don't you drop all pretense, and just say you're against Voter ID?

[carpedm9587]

...which is notoriously slow at solving problems and actually get anything done...

You're leaving it open ended. It will never happen.

No - I'm not. Put the infrastructure in place - put cost-relief elements in place and mechanisms to address those without the required base documentation (e.g., birth certificates, etc.) - let both parties know the requirement will take effect in "X" years (two would probably be good - but I suspect that might be different for different states) - execute a broad multi-media advertising campaign (as was done for Obamacare, vehicle buy outs, etc.) - then pull the trigger.

Each party has a closed window to act. Each person has a high chance of being reached with the word. The number of currently registered voters without IDs is minimized, ergo, turning people away at the polls is minimized. Anyone not having an ID after the announced deadline is on their own.

There is nothing unreasonable about this. It resolves the "disenfranchisement" issue - giving everyone an opportunity and the means to get the ID in a "reasonable" period of time. Don't get me wrong - I think all of this is a waste of time because it's effort being spent to solve a problem no one has shown exists at any statistical level with a solution that won't prevent most types of voter fraud. For me, it's largely a waste of time. But "thinking" there is a problem can itself be a problem; so if it makes some people "feel" better about our voting system to know there is a voter ID system in place, and they don't mind spending tax dollars to make it happen, so be it. I'm not against it. I just believe it should be done in such a way as to NOT wreak havok with people's voting rights.

And I think this should be done at the NATIONAL level. State-level voterIDs are borderline useless in solving the problems they purport to solve.

[carpedm9587]

You offer "solutions" to the problem, while all the while declaring there's no problem. Why don't you drop all pretense, and just say you're against Voter ID?

I give up...

I truly think you are not a stupid man, CP - but you are being (intentionally?) thick on this one. If what I have said thus far isn't clear, and that I am not opposed to VoterID is not clear, then there's not much else I can say. Believe what you wish...

[Cow Poke]

I give up...

I truly think you are not a stupid man, CP - but you are being (intentionally?) thick on this one. If what I have said thus far isn't clear, and that I am not opposed to VoterID is not clear, then there's not much else I can say. Believe what you wish...

Carpe - read your posts... you're giving every excuse in the world, citing studies, arguing against the need, declaring it's not necessary, insisting it be delayed until, basically, forever, because the prerequisites you demand will simply not be met.... how is that NOT opposition to Voter ID?

[carpedm9587]

Carpe - read your posts... you're giving every excuse in the world, citing studies, arguing against the need, declaring it's not necessary, insisting it be delayed until, basically, forever, because the prerequisites you demand will simply not be met.... how is that NOT opposition to Voter ID?

It's not - and I have read my posts - several times now, actually.

I'm thinking that perhaps YOU haven't read them all that carefully. My argument has been against exactly one thing: implementing a VoterID system without paying reasonable attention to the negative impact on voters. And the insistence on pushing forward with an initiative that will negatively impact voters, while simultaneously not really solving much of anything, without taking reasonable efforts to avoid that negative impact is very suspect, IMO.

I'll let my posts stand as is and folks can come to their own conclusion. In my experience, when someone has come to the kind of decision you've apparently made about what I'm "actually thinking," no amount of discourse will convince them otherwise.

I find myself perplexed that someone can decide what is in someone else's head - reject every attempt by that person to clarify and point out that they have it wrong - and continue to insist that they know better than the person in question what that person is actually thinking. That whole approach to conversation just makes no rational sense to me.

But I do recognize it is fairly common.

Such is life...

[Cow Poke]

It's not - and I have read my posts - several times now, actually.

I'm thinking that perhaps YOU haven't read them all that carefully. My argument has been against exactly one thing: implementing a VoterID system without paying reasonable attention to the negative impact on voters. And the insistence on pushing forward with an initiative that will negatively impact voters,

OK, I give up, because you set up a nearly impossible "condition", which gives you cover to claim you support Voter ID laws, but.....

You can have the last word.