NC Republican Representative resigns over racist comments

[Raw Shark]

So what's the benefit? There's no advantage for the average citizen to go out and vote as someone else on their own [snip]

The average citizen, no, but the illegals, man, the illegals! They'll come in droves and pretend to be right-livin', land-lovin' Americans so they can vote themselves more entitlements, full amnesty, etc, and then it'll be all reconquista and shit. You know, in between working their fucking asses off for less than minimum wage and suffering tenfold from all the problems outlined above that poor citizens, especially in rural areas (y'know like where a lot of illegals pick fruit and whatnot), would experience, with regard to trying to take a day off and go to the poll. Those guys are taking over, can't you see it!? [/paranoid racists]

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I have no idea, never having studied this subject. But the evidence presented that criminal convictions are currently low doesn't convince me that it isn't. It's a low-stakes crime that is essentially impossible to prove after the fact, and extremely difficult to detect in progress. I am not sure anyone knows how much voter fraud is going on. If it's successful, it's undetected.

"I have absolutely no idea and I never have actually looked into this, but I'm pretty sure everyone who's actually examined the subject in depth is wrong because of a gut feeling of mine."

How often do you apply this logic to other things, and how valid do you think it is?

[energiewende]

I have no idea, never having studied this subject. But the evidence presented that criminal convictions are currently low doesn't convince me that it isn't. It's a low-stakes crime that is essentially impossible to prove after the fact, and extremely difficult to detect in progress. I am not sure anyone knows how much voter fraud is going on. If it's successful, it's undetected.

So what's the benefit? There's no advantage for the average citizen to go out and vote as someone else on their own and any kind of organized large effort involves a lot of people who undoubtedly like to talk. You're telling me not a single one of them would be dumb enough to blab about it to someone who could report it to the media?

If you listen to economists there's no advantage for the average citizen of voting at all. But people like their guy to win, same as with sports. I'd think it'd be more like plausible deniability, eg. mixing a voting drive for recently naturalized citizens with the "not-yet-naturalized", or marginal cases, like voting in multiple jurisdictions (I know people who have done this, again not in the US).

My guess would be that absentee ballots are the main source of voter fraud if it's at all serious, but then the proposed countermeasure isn't any more onerous than opening a bank account, so what's the harm? I agree that the government should make it as practical as possible for the working poor to satisfy the requirements however.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I read once that Sarah Palin was only viable in American politics because Americans mostly attack politicians on the basis of ideology and not ability to govern. I guess it is true, given that he resigned over being a racist but not over outright admitting that he couldn't give a fuck about democracy.

Do you separate "having massive, overtly bigoted views" from "ability to govern a population that includes many people you are massively, overtly bigoted towards"?

[Ahriman238]

energiewende: Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct and voter fraud is somehow a massively under-reported problem. In fact, why don't we assume that the problem is a whole order of magnitude greater than there's actual evidence for, I feel that this is more than fair.

Assuming all of this, there are several hundred fraudulent voters. Is there negative contribution to the system worth disenfranchising several MILLION genuine voters? No. That is the talk of madmen, or people with an agenda.

Voter Fraud is a hell of a lot of risk for no real reward, hence why the cases are so few. This is nothing more than a smokescreen, rather precisely analogous to requiring literacy tests.

Fun fact, getting a state ID not only involves hours of waiting around, you need valid ID to get it. Driver's license, passport, birth certificate. All but the last require you to have one or two of the others to get them, which sort of negates the purpose of having an ID that doesn't require you to drive. It can take weeks to accomplish.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I would ask energiewende for him to abide by one of the age old customs of SDN.
Basically to provide EVIDENCE Of wide spread voter fraud in America.

It doesn't matter what state, or what party, but just criminal fraud on a large scale within the last 20 years.

[Gaidin]

Fun fact, getting a state ID not only involves hours of waiting around, you need valid ID to get it. Driver's license, passport, birth certificate. All but the last require you to have one or two of the others to get them, which sort of negates the purpose of having an ID that doesn't require you to drive. It can take weeks to accomplish.

It should be clarified, the list of identifications required to get a state id of this type are divided up into classes. Even an expired drivers license or out-of-state license can be used but it's considered a 'class 2' or whatever term the state wants to throw around. You just need at least one 'class 1' for which something like the Birth Certificate or Passport are the most common among the average citizen if you don't already have a legitimate unexpired in-state driver's license or in-state photo id. Someone, for example, like me, who just moved to one such state for job purposes. The rest of the 'class 1' list mostly applies to the specialized people like, say, legal immigrants and are fairly rare, but the state has to account for someone walking in with them if they want the system to be at all legitimate if someone were to argue against it legally.

Note: I'm in no way arguing against the negative impact of this type of policy, just clarifying the overly broad statements that I'm seeing.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Do you separate "having massive, overtly bigoted views" from "ability to govern a population that includes many people you are massively, overtly bigoted towards"?

Is your point that a bigot would be disinclined to care about effectively governing people he despises?

If so, it depends. Most of the time, your point would be valid. It is possible, though, to keep one's bigotry to oneself and rule properly and according to the law. It is also possible to be relatively more or less bigoted than others. Basically, if by "massive, overtly bigoted views" you mean something like "European colonialist" or at that level, then yeah you're right.

[energiewende]

energiewende: Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct and voter fraud is somehow a massively under-reported problem. In fact, why don't we assume that the problem is a whole order of magnitude greater than there's actual evidence for, I feel that this is more than fair.

I've made no claim like that, I just don't see the contrary argument as convincing. The most we can say is we don't know.

I don't think you're being anywhere near as generous as you think you are, though. The BJS for instance reports that burglary victimization rate (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf) was more than 60x higher than the burglary conviction rate (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.cfm) in 1994 (the last year I found conviction stats for). Despite the fact that burglary is considered a serious crime, often is caught or interrupted in the act, nearly always leaves both some hard evidence and a paper trail, and is actively policed against. So 1 order of magnitude seems like an underestimate, by at least 1 and possible 2-3 orders of magnitude..

Assuming all of this, there are several hundred fraudulent voters. Is there negative contribution to the system worth disenfranchising several MILLION genuine voters? No. That is the talk of madmen, or people with an agenda.

idk if that is being proposed - anyone can apply for the card. If it's onerous to do, it should be made easier. But it's not disenfranchisment if you just can't be bothered filling out the form.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Is your point that a bigot would be disinclined to care about effectively governing people he despises?

If so, it depends. Most of the time, your point would be valid. It is possible, though, to keep one's bigotry to oneself and rule properly and according to the law. It is also possible to be relatively more or less bigoted than others. Basically, if by "massive, overtly bigoted views" you mean something like "European colonialist" or at that level, then yeah you're right.

I don't know if you actually understand how bigotry works if you think it's an active conscious choice.

I mean, look at the very existence of "I'm not a racist, but...". Most bigotry, all of the important bigotry, is subconscious and operating on levels the person isn't aware of.

So, no, it's not "they'd be disinclined to effectively govern"; it's "they are incapable of effectively governing in the stat they're in now".

[TimothyC]

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Tell me again how voter fraud is a legitimate problem that requires extra legislation to fix?

We've also got this:

The Verdict

Based on independent information, it appears that Minnesota Majority’s estimate that 113 people have been convicted of voter fraud may be in the ballpark, though a precise number is elusive.

That's for just the 2008 election, where the Minnesota senate race was exceptionally close (312 votes) and votes kept being found for Al Franken. There have also been no fewer than three found just in Hamilton county relating to the 2012 election.

I would ask energiewende for him to abide by one of the age old customs of SDN.
Basically to provide EVIDENCE Of wide spread voter fraud in America.

It doesn't matter what state, or what party, but just criminal fraud on a large scale within the last 20 years.

We've had the Chief of Staff for a Florida representative resigning after being implicated in a voter fraud scheme, the investigation later took down his communications director as well.

Assuming all of this, there are several hundred fraudulent voters. Is there negative contribution to the system worth disenfranchising several MILLION genuine voters? No. That is the talk of madmen, or people with an agenda.

Given the above, I ask the individuals in this thread:
Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Regardless of a threshold, I would never support setting it up with a system specifically made to disenfranchise people of colour, women, trans people, the working class, or anything like that, ie every single voter ID law pushed in the past few years.

[General Zod]

Given the above, I ask the individuals in this thread:
Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

A voter ID law would have solved neither of the problems you linked to. In the first case because absentee ballots are perfectly legitimate, despite the fact that someone used them illegally (which was caught without a voter ID law btw), in the second case because there is no field in your ID that tells pollsters you are ineligible to vote. Give us a law that solves a problem that actually exists and we can talk.

[bilateralrope]

Given the above, I ask the individuals in this thread:
Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

When the number of people disenfranchised by the voter fraud prevention mechanisms is less than the number of votes cast by voter fraud.

[Kitsune]

Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

To be blunt, enough to make a difference

[Gaidin]

Given the above, I ask the individuals in this thread:
Is there a threshold for voter fraud above which you would support mechanisms to catch/prevent fraudulent voting, and if so where is it?

A voter ID law would have solved neither of the problems you linked to. In the first case because absentee ballots are perfectly legitimate, despite the fact that someone used them illegally (which was caught without a voter ID law btw), in the second case because there is no field in your ID that tells pollsters you are ineligible to vote. Give us a law that solves a problem that actually exists and we can talk.

Problem actually existing aside, for the moment(like I said, I'm not attacking the negative impact of the policy), there's a reason the new IDs require what the states term 'class 1' IDs to back it up. They're the ones that confirm you have a right to vote. The birth certificate, the passport, or other various more specialized forms(if you're an immigrant, say). To even get the ID that can be used at the polls you have to have one of those 'class 1' IDs confirming who you are. It's not the fact that the ID doesn't have the field that tells the pollsters you can vote, it's the fact that you got through the process to get the ID at all is how it was designed.

[General Zod]

You might want to read Timothy's article. A lot of the convictions were from felons who had lost their voting rights. Unless you want to mandate background checks no documents in most class 1 lists will cover that.

[Kitsune]

Should felons - either inmates or released - have their voting rights removed?
What is your reason either way?

[TimothyC]

To be blunt, enough to make a difference

So anything is valid in Minnesota (because the value of the fraud and the value of the margin of victory were so damn close)?

Regardless of a threshold, I would never support setting it up with a system specifically made to disenfranchise people of colour, women, trans people, the working class, or anything like that, ie every single voter ID law pushed in the past few years.

I live in the midwest (a part of the country known for shitty mass transit), and I have never known a single person who did not have government issued ID, if only because having some method of proving where they lived/who they were is vital to survive in modern society. I do support making getting ID easier/less troublesome for individuals on the margins, but then I expect them to take advantage of it.

Give us a law that solves a problem that actually exists and we can talk.

I explicitly did not ask about voter ID laws, I asked about mechanisms to prevent fraudulent voting. If the democrats were serious about the integrity of the political process they would put proposals forward to counter the fraud that does exist. I assume they do not because the fraud tends to favor them and the groups they try to keep in line under their umbrella.

When the number of people disenfranchised by the voter fraud prevention mechanisms is less than the number of votes cast by voter fraud.

How about when the number of people disenfranchised by fraud* exceeds the number of people disenfranchised by fraud prevention?
*Like might have been the possibility in Minnesota.

Can we all get behind the idea that those who are convicted voter fraud or conspiracy to commit voter fraud should lose their right to vote forever* (as they have shown that they can not be trusted to participate legally in one of the most vital processes in our federal republic)?

*Combined with a re-evaluation of other crimes that cause a loss of this right.

[Gaidin]

You might want to read Timothy's article. A lot of the convictions were from felons who had lost their voting rights. Unless you want to mandate background checks no documents in most class 1 lists will cover that.

That's a different issue altogether. This is just for a license that would be acceptable at a voting location on voting day. If you wanted to get into that one, that would likely be covered when they tried to register to vote, not when they walked in the door on voting day.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I don't know if you actually understand how bigotry works if you think it's an active conscious choice.

I mean, look at the very existence of "I'm not a racist, but...". Most bigotry, all of the important bigotry, is subconscious and operating on levels the person isn't aware of.

So, no, it's not "they'd be disinclined to effectively govern"; it's "they are incapable of effectively governing in the stat they're in now".

Did I imply that bigotry is a conscious choice? If so, I didn't mean to. It's just so convenient for the brain to put people in tidy little boxes. I'm not defending it by saying it's natural, mind you.

As to your amended point now, do you accept there are varying levels of bigotry? Is there a point, low bigotry or high sense of responsibility, at which someone can still be trusted to govern without screwing people over?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Should felons - either inmates or released - have their voting rights removed?
What is your reason either way?

Released inmates should have the right to vote. After all, their sentence has just finished, and the point of the sentence is to deprive prisoners of various rights.

Now about people currently imprisoned, it should match the crime. Say, for violent crime, or for being sentenced to a certain period of time. I don't really know how it works in most countries.

[Kitsune]

Should felons - either inmates or released - have their voting rights removed?
What is your reason either way?

Released inmates should have the right to vote. After all, their sentence has just finished, and the point of the sentence is to deprive prisoners of various rights.

Now about people currently imprisoned, it should match the crime. Say, for violent crime, or for being sentenced to a certain period of time. I don't really know how it works in most countries.

Canada has decided that inmates should have voting rights
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/200 ... scc68.html

[Channel72]

I think a more important take-away from this whole conversation is that it's absurd how ridiculously hard it is to get a state-approved photo ID in the United States. I actually have like, four fucking IDs (driver's license, US passport book, US passport card, and EU passport), but then... I'm a PRIVILEGED WHITE GUY™, so what do I know?

Seriously though, why is it so hard to get an ID? Instead of talking about how Republicans are trying to institute laws which tend to exclude typically Democrat-voting demographics (which they are), maybe we should be questioning why it is that poor minority voters can't easily get a fucking ID? In the meantime, yeah... voter ID laws are only going to exacerbate the situation, but the long-term solution here is clearly not to ignore the possibility of voter-fraud (no matter how statistically unlikely it is), but rather to make state and/or federally issued IDs free-of-charge and readily obtainable. There really needs to be a "national identity card" in the United States (which can be obtained online during off-work hours), separate from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Or at least, maybe voters should be allowed to use their Social Security card as a form of voter ID (even though it doesn't have a photo)

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Did I imply that bigotry is a conscious choice? If so, I didn't mean to. It's just so convenient for the brain to put people in tidy little boxes. I'm not defending it by saying it's natural, mind you.

As to your amended point now, do you accept there are varying levels of bigotry? Is there a point, low bigotry or high sense of responsibility, at which someone can still be trusted to govern without screwing people over?

Yes, there has to be since everyone has their own bigotries to work through so otherwise it'd be impossible to let anyone govern :L

What prompted this, though, was the implication in your post that someone displaying gross bigotry wasn't valid grounds to find them unfit to govern and was merely an "ideological difference".