NC Republican Representative resigns over racist comments

[energiewende]

The historical view in English speaking countries has been that voting is not a right, it's a privilege, albeit a widely extended one. To quality, one must be a peaceable adult of sound mind. Criminals aren't peaceable. Having made war on society, they are not in a fit state to create society's rules governing the conduct of others.

The view in the more "recent democracies", particularly those of Southern and Eastern Europe, to some extent France, and even less chaotic places like Germany that happen to have bad histories in this regard, is that this opens the way for politically-motivated mass prosecutions that have the sole motive of disenfranchising one party's supporters. It's the same reason that a lot of those places have criminal immunity for serving politicians; it's not because they're less corrupt than anglosphere politicians, they're on average far more corrupt, it's because the justice system is also corrupt, and would otherwise be wielded as a political weapon. The English speaking countries proved particularly immune to this, not just because of their much more stable societies and consistent application of democracy and equal justice, but because they had common law judicial systems that took the decision to find someone guilty out of the hands of state-appointed officials.

So both approaches are practical responses to the problems that each group faced. The English speaking world's view has recently come under attack from advocates of "third generation" human rights, which tend to be based more in policy prescriptions than simple, broad principles, and they make no distinction why some policy prescriptions may have been considered appropriate for new or unstable democracies, but not for others.

[Lord of the Abyss]

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?

There is no "instead", they are directly related. Getting those IDs is deliberately made difficult for minorities/Democratic voters in places with voter ID laws, because disenfranchising them is the whole point.

[Gaidin]

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)

The takeaway is that using an ID to vote isn't that odd in some states already. I used to live in one. Their justification is quite outrageous given the scale of potential fraud(they should just say 'meh, we want to do this'), other than that, it's just a huge cultural change in others. The odd thing is the timing where they only give you a couple months to do it with some requirements you may not have had easy access to for decades. That's what's fucked up about the whole issue. Personally, I'd watch for if North Carolina pulls Virginia's little stunt a few weeks before the election on top of this and tries to purge the voter rolls.

[General Zod]

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.

You're just nitpicking over semantics, and the point stands. Give us a solution that actually addresses the problem. Not some red herring that doesn't solve the type of fraud going on. How about a mechanism that addresses certain Republicans fraudulently throwing away legitimate ballots?

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)?

No? For the same reason we don't prevent convicted thieves from shopping in stores just because they might have stolen from one in the past.

By the way, for everyone whining how easy it is to vote twice, it looks like the existing laws work just fine.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... w-id-laws/

Over the past two years, state legislators affiliated with the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council mounted a furious push to enact strict vote-suppressing voter ID laws. But while advocates claimed these laws are necessary to prevent voter impersonation fraud, two arrests Tuesday demonstrate that the opposite is true.
Talking Points Memo reports two Republican voters attempted to “test” whether they could commit voter fraud in New Mexico and Nevada. Neither state requires identification to vote, but both discovered that that does not equate to voter fraud being legal — or easily committed.
In Nevada, 56-year-old Roxanne Rubin, a Republican, was arrested on Nov. 2 for allegedly trying to vote twice, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The newspaper quoted a report by an investigator with the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office that said Rubin “was unhappy with the process; specifically in that her identification was not checked.” … She was arrested at the Riviera Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and charged with a category “D” felony.
On Tuesday in New Mexico, a Republican poll watcher was taken into police custody after also apparently trying to test the system. According to the Las Cruces Sun-News, the man voted, then obtained a second provisional ballot and announced he was simply “testing the system to see if people could get away with voting twice.”
There are many reasons why in person voter fraud — the “problem” these voter ID laws purport to solve — is virtually non-existent. Most people accept the principle of “one person, one vote” and don’t try to cheat the system because doing so is morally wrong. Others recognize that doing so is illegal and do not want to risk being charged with a category “D” felony. And with more than 121 million votes cast in Tuesday’s presidential election, voting twice would be a hugely inefficient way to influence the election.
While polls initially showed statewide support a voter ID measure in Minnesota, once voters learned that such a measure was unnecessary (no one has ever been convicted of voter impersonation in the state’s history), would create hurdles that could keep citizens from voting, and would potentially cost the state millions, it failed with nearly 54 percent of voters refusing to back the effort.

[Coop D'etat]

The historical view in English speaking countries has been that voting is not a right, it's a privilege, albeit a widely extended one. To quality, one must be a peaceable adult of sound mind. Criminals aren't peaceable. Having made war on society, they are not in a fit state to create society's rules governing the conduct of others.

The view in the more "recent democracies", particularly those of Southern and Eastern Europe, to some extent France, and even less chaotic places like Germany that happen to have bad histories in this regard, is that this opens the way for politically-motivated mass prosecutions that have the sole motive of disenfranchising one party's supporters. It's the same reason that a lot of those places have criminal immunity for serving politicians; it's not because they're less corrupt than anglosphere politicians, they're on average far more corrupt, it's because the justice system is also corrupt, and would otherwise be wielded as a political weapon. The English speaking countries proved particularly immune to this, not just because of their much more stable societies and consistent application of democracy and equal justice, but because they had common law judicial systems that took the decision to find someone guilty out of the hands of state-appointed officials.

So both approaches are practical responses to the problems that each group faced. The English speaking world's view has recently come under attack from advocates of "third generation" human rights, which tend to be based more in policy prescriptions than simple, broad principles, and they make no distinction why some policy prescriptions may have been considered appropriate for new or unstable democracies, but not for others.

I can only speak for Canada, but its an English speaking country where voting is:
a) a fundamental right and certainly not a priviledge.
b) the strongest protected fundamental right there is.

So I don't think your interpretation stands to scrutiny.

I'm pretty sure its only America in the Anglosphere that looks to prevent voting for people who have served out their criminal sentences, which my cursorary research into the matter seems to confirm. UK, NZ and AUS don't appear to limit the franchise for felons either.

[Coop D'etat]

Edit: Double post delete

[Dr. Trainwreck]

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".

Sadly, the implication wasn't entirely mine. He was slammed for being generally offensive, but I didn't see anybody quoted in the article hit him about the problem which I consider at least equally serious: his intent to rob people of their right to vote. They hit him for racism, which is true but only half the picture.

[TimothyC]

Give us a solution that actually addresses the problem. Not some red herring that doesn't solve the type of fraud going on. How about a mechanism that addresses certain Republicans fraudulently throwing away legitimate ballots?

Uh, I never mentioned voter ID laws, I was simply pointing out that vote fraud does exist, and on higher levels than most on the left ever want to admit to (because they are the ones who benefit from it the most). I'd also like to see your sources for the 'throwing away legitimate ballots' please.

No? For the same reason we don't prevent convicted thieves from shopping in stores just because they might have stolen from one in the past.

Ah! So you see vote fraud on the same level as theft. If that is honestly the case (as you seem to imply), then it will be impossible for us to come to an agreement as I see voting as something vital to protect - which by your own statement you do not see it that way.

[Simon_Jester]

Uh, I never mentioned voter ID laws, I was simply pointing out that vote fraud does exist, and on higher levels than most on the left ever want to admit to (because they are the ones who benefit from it the most). I'd also like to see your sources for the 'throwing away legitimate ballots' please.

What, precisely, can we find on the level of voter fraud from unbiased sources? I.e., ones who actually count all seriously intended voter fraud without cherrypicking, but who discard things like random agent provocateurs trying to vote twice specifically to prove that it can be done?

No? For the same reason we don't prevent convicted thieves from shopping in stores just because they might have stolen from one in the past.

Ah! So you see vote fraud on the same level as theft. If that is honestly the case (as you seem to imply), then it will be impossible for us to come to an agreement as I see voting as something vital to protect - which by your own statement you do not see it that way.

Society would fall apart at least as fast if theft became rampant (i.e. 10% of all property was stolen per year) as if vote fraud became rampant (i.e. 10% of all votes were fraudulent).

[General Zod]

Uh, I never mentioned voter ID laws, I was simply pointing out that vote fraud does exist, and on higher levels than most on the left ever want to admit to (because they are the ones who benefit from it the most).

You have a handful of convictions out of millions of cast votes. I'd like to see evidence that this problem exists on any kind of substantial scale outside of your own head. And please keep shifting the goalposts, you weren't "simply" pointing out that voter fraud exists.

I asked about mechanisms to prevent fraudulent voting.

I'd also like to see your sources for the 'throwing away legitimate ballots' please.

It seems like I misremembered the case in question, the dude was throwing out registration forms.

http://gawker.com/5953143/authorities-a ... tion-forms

Then there was the infamous Florida voter purge.

And oh hey, looky here. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationn ... arges.html

Funny how I can find just as many cases of Republicans committing fraud eh?

Ah! So you see vote fraud on the same level as theft. If that is honestly the case (as you seem to imply), then it will be impossible for us to come to an agreement as I see voting as something vital to protect - which by your own statement you do not see it that way.

We're not going to come to an agreement as long as you keep shoving words in my mouth. I don't believe in permanent punishments outside of extreme cases.

[PainRack]

Timothy C:Is it fair to extrapolate from your argument, that the US elections are unfair and biased? That it is not a free election and should thus have international inspectors to monitor elections for fairness?

On another level, it would seem to me that voter ID laws are the perfect arena for compromise by Democrats. You want ID? Fine, rewrite the laws so that everyone gets an ID and etc and oh btw, we need state and national funding restored so that we can get this through.

[PKRudeBoy]

On another level, it would seem to me that voter ID laws are the perfect arena for compromise by Democrats. You want ID? Fine, rewrite the laws so that everyone gets an ID and etc and oh btw, we need state and national funding restored so that we can get this through.

Sure, if the Republicans actually cared about voter fraud, instead of just wanting to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. Or actually were willing to compromise about anything. As it is now, they would probably just gut the law when the Democrats reached out for compromise and then vote against it anyway.

Or, if they cared about voter fraud, they would push for more investigations into their pals over at Diebold, but I somehow doubt that will happen.

[TimothyC]

What, precisely, can we find on the level of voter fraud from unbiased sources? I.e., ones who actually count all seriously intended voter fraud without cherrypicking, but who discard things like random agent provocateurs trying to vote twice specifically to prove that it can be done?

When dealing with voter fraud, there are no unbiased sources that I've found. I tend to chuck that up to both sides wanting to ignore the problems on their side, and the Democrats really don't want people to get a feel for how corrupt various parts of the party - and how much the benefit from the fraud that does take place. This is not to say that Republicans don't have their own problems, but again, like usual, the theme 'Dems good; GOP bad!' has struck here yet again.

You have a handful of convictions out of millions of cast votes. I'd like to see evidence that this problem exists on any kind of substantial scale outside of your own head. And please keep shifting the goalposts, you weren't "simply" pointing out that voter fraud exists.

Even if we work from the assumption that there were only 100 fraudulent votes in Minnesota in 2008, and that Minnesota represents a reasonable sample for the rest of the population (it went for Obama 54-55 vs 53-46 nationally), and we then extrapolate the population of Minnesota (2.9 million voters) to the rest of the country (~131 million voters), the fraud rate is 4500 for just 2008. This is two orders of magnitude higher than the 2002-05 DoJ study (which covered a period that can be considered at least twice the size).

It seems like I misremembered the case in question, the dude was throwing out registration forms.

<SNIP>

I have no problem punishing everyone who commits fraud. To be honest however your post came off as a "But the GOP does it too! Why should we stop!"

We're not going to come to an agreement as long as you keep shoving words in my mouth. I don't believe in permanent punishments outside of extreme cases.

You're the one who brought up petty theft, and voter ID laws. All I did was shoot a (rather reasonable) interpretation back at you.

Timothy C:Is it fair to extrapolate from your argument, that the US elections are unfair and biased?

The Principality of Chicago under the machine of the family Daley certainly hasn't had honest elections in decades, to the point where people have unfortunately accepted it and even joke about it.

That it is not a free election and should thus have international inspectors to monitor elections for fairness?

Not international, but internal observers - and teeth behind the rules so we don't get situations like we did last year on Pennsylvania where Republican - and only Republican poll monitors (who had every legal right to be there) were refused entry [Source].

[Simon_Jester]

What, precisely, can we find on the level of voter fraud from unbiased sources? I.e., ones who actually count all seriously intended voter fraud without cherrypicking, but who discard things like random agent provocateurs trying to vote twice specifically to prove that it can be done?

When dealing with voter fraud, there are no unbiased sources that I've found. I tend to chuck that up to both sides wanting to ignore the problems on their side, and the Democrats really don't want people to get a feel for how corrupt various parts of the party - and how much the benefit from the fraud that does take place. This is not to say that Republicans don't have their own problems, but again, like usual, the theme 'Dems good; GOP bad!' has struck here yet again.

If no unbiased source can be found to confirm the corruption, then there's an obvious question of epistemology:

How, aside from unsubstantiated rumors, do you know the corruption exists?

Timothy C:Is it fair to extrapolate from your argument, that the US elections are unfair and biased?

The Principality of Chicago under the machine of the family Daley certainly hasn't had honest elections in decades, to the point where people have unfortunately accepted it and even joke about it.

Chicago is its own case, and one that bloody well deserves a cleanup. On the other hand, it is not a representative sample of America.

[TimothyC]

If no unbiased source can be found to confirm the corruption, then there's an obvious question of epistemology:

How, aside from unsubstantiated rumors, do you know the corruption exists?

Court results from court cases would be the best method, and as noted earlier in this thread (in a Minnesota Public Radio blog entry), the numbers put out by the conservative groups in that state are likely to be broadly accurate.

Chicago is its own case, and one that bloody well deserves a cleanup. On the other hand, it is not a representative sample of America.

It's not representative of the US as a whole, but it is a good example of just how corrupt politics can get in the US, and how unwilling people (on both sides, but especially the democratic side) are to clean out that particular cesspit.

[General Zod]

Even if we work from the assumption that there were only 100 fraudulent votes in Minnesota in 2008, and that Minnesota represents a reasonable sample for the rest of the population (it went for Obama 54-55 vs 53-46 nationally), and we then extrapolate the population of Minnesota (2.9 million voters) to the rest of the country (~131 million voters), the fraud rate is 4500 for just 2008. This is two orders of magnitude higher than the 2002-05 DoJ study (which covered a period that can be considered at least twice the size).

That's not evidence.

I have no problem punishing everyone who commits fraud. To be honest however your post came off as a "But the GOP does it too! Why should we stop!"

To be honest your post came off as "Democrats are frauds! Not like us perfect Republicans!"

You're the one who brought up petty theft, and voter ID laws. All I did was shoot a (rather reasonable) interpretation back at you.

No, you're just being a pedantic jackass. You can apply it to pretty much any other crime out there; there's very few that reasonable people consider worthy of a permanent punishment.

Not international, but internal observers - and teeth behind the rules so we don't get situations like we did last year on Pennsylvania where Republican - and only Republican poll monitors (who had every legal right to be there) were refused entry [Source].

You mean this?

A Pennsylvania judge also issued an order Tuesday to reinstate Republican election officials across Philadelphia who allegedly were ejected or refused entry by on-site Democratic voting chief judges.

One Republican official claimed that "just under 70" Republican election officials were blocked from Philadelphia polling sites Tuesday morning by Democrats on site. One of them, the official claimed, "was shoved out of the polling place."

How about something a little more substantial than hearsay? Where's the order from the judge? Where's the reasons given for blocking them in the first place?

[Connor MacLeod]

4500 isn't exactly a huge number relative to the actual voting population anyhow. 2.9 million voters in my state, is like one per 29,000 people. That's be like two people out of my entire town. Compared to the other crime rates in my own home town alone thats pathetic. Saying 'but its two orders of magnitude higher than cited' doesn't automatically make it a serious issue even if we take the extrapolation as valid which I would not do from a single example in any case (cuz you know, logic and science and stuff, rather than screaming BIAS and CONSPIRACY.)

Frankly as a Minnesotan I'd much rather focus on the real crimes than 'voter fraud' by that standard.

[TimothyC]

That's not evidence.

100 fraudulent votes in one state for one election damn well is evidence that there is more fraud than just 40 votes nationally over 4 years.

To be honest your post came off as "Democrats are frauds! Not like us perfect Republicans!"

It's not a lot of fun when the same tactics are used back at you is it?

You mean this?

<Snip>

How about something a little more substantial than hearsay? Where's the order from the judge? Where's the reasons given for blocking them in the first place?

Well, the conspiracy nut would say that they were blocked because they would have spotted/prevented ballot box stuffing. Honestly? We don't know, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

[General Zod]

100 fraudulent votes in one state for one election damn well is evidence that there is more fraud than just 40 votes nationally over 4 years.

I was referring to your extrapolation. Quit being obtuse.

It's not a lot of fun when the same tactics are used back at you is it?

There's degrees of scale here. So far the best you can come up with is a few isolated cases.

Well, the conspiracy nut would say that they were blocked because they would have spotted/prevented ballot box stuffing. Honestly? We don't know, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Why not? Did they have all their paperwork in order to be there? Were the right people informed of their presence? Were they ordered there at the last minute? There's any number of legitimate reasons they could have been blocked without resorting to "lol ballot stuffing". Frankly we don't even know that anyone was really blocked at all without seeing something a bit more substantial.

[bilateralrope]

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?

How do you quantify the number of people disenfranchised by fraud ?
Separating them from people who are disenfranchised by other problems with the US system seems difficult.

But there are a few ways to meet my requirement. Lets take ID cards as a suggestion, and say that the proposal would eliminate 10s of thousands of fraud votes. But its critics say that millions would be disenfranchised by the ID card because they can't afford the card and/or the hours they work prevent them being able to get a card, meaning the anti-fraud measures prevent them voting. There are a few solutions that meet my criteria:
- Scrap the ID card, leaving the fraud to happen. Not my preferred solution.
- Scrap the ID card and find some other method to prevent it. For example, find some country that has less voter fraud and copy whatever they do*.
- Tweak the ID card so that everyone can get one. If some people can't afford the card, then it's up to the government to pay for their cards. If the places that issue the cards aren't open at convenient times for everybody, then increase their hours until they are. If the places that issue the cards aren't at convenient locations, then either build new places that are.

Do you have any problems with my second or third solution ?

*What is voter fraud like in other countries ?

[General Zod]

How do you quantify the number of people disenfranchised by fraud ?
Separating them from people who are disenfranchised by other problems with the US system seems difficult.

But there are a few ways to meet my requirement. Lets take ID cards as a suggestion, and say that the proposal would eliminate 10s of thousands of fraud votes. But its critics say that millions would be disenfranchised by the ID card because they can't afford the card and/or the hours they work prevent them being able to get a card, meaning the anti-fraud measures prevent them voting. There are a few solutions that meet my criteria:
- Scrap the ID card, leaving the fraud to happen. Not my preferred solution.
- Scrap the ID card and find some other method to prevent it. For example, find some country that has less voter fraud and copy whatever they do*.
- Tweak the ID card so that everyone can get one. If some people can't afford the card, then it's up to the government to pay for their cards. If the places that issue the cards aren't open at convenient times for everybody, then increase their hours until they are. If the places that issue the cards aren't at convenient locations, then either build new places that are.

Do you have any problems with my second or third solution ?

*What is voter fraud like in other countries ?

One thing at a time, eh? Why can't someone prove the problem exists on a substantial level first? Then demonstrate that our current laws are insufficient for fighting the problem?

[bilateralrope]

Because I feel that I can't add anything substantial to that discussion. But, since TimothyC thinks fraud is happening in significant numbers to justify doing something about it, I'd like to see what he thinks of methods that would reduce voter fraud without making a large number of people unable to vote.

How bad does voter fraud need to get before you're willing to say that something must be done about it ?
I don't have a good answer to that question.

[TimothyC]

I was referring to your extrapolation. Quit being obtuse.

I wasn't sure what you meant, as you keep rejecting what I say - even when I have links to back it up, or provide a simple extrapolation from one populace to a large one.

There's degrees of scale here. So far the best you can come up with is a few isolated cases.

Missed the point entirely. It's standard procedure here to assign evil motives to republicans when they do things that are unpopular on SDN. I simply turned that on it's head, and you got very defensive. Maybe you should learn from this?

Why not? Did they have all their paperwork in order to be there? Were the right people informed of their presence? Were they ordered there at the last minute? There's any number of legitimate reasons they could have been blocked without resorting to "lol ballot stuffing". Frankly we don't even know that anyone was really blocked at all without seeing something a bit more substantial.

Would you be so flippant if it were the reverse? Democrats being kept out of districts and only being allowed back in after a court order?

How do you quantify the number of people disenfranchised by fraud ?

It's a hard thing to quantify, but I'd say that when the known fraud rate is 30% of the margin of victory (and remember, the 130 number from Minnesota is only those who were convicted on voting when they admitted that they knew they shouldn't have), you're risking disenfranchising everyone who did vote legally.

But there are a few ways to meet my requirement. Lets take ID cards as a suggestion, and say that the proposal would eliminate 10s of thousands of fraud votes. But its critics say that millions would be disenfranchised by the ID card because they can't afford the card and/or the hours they work prevent them being able to get a card, meaning the anti-fraud measures prevent them voting. There are a few solutions that meet my criteria:
- Scrap the ID card, leaving the fraud to happen. Not my preferred solution.
- Scrap the ID card and find some other method to prevent it. For example, find some country that has less voter fraud and copy whatever they do*.
- Tweak the ID card so that everyone can get one. If some people can't afford the card, then it's up to the government to pay for their cards. If the places that issue the cards aren't open at convenient times for everybody, then increase their hours until they are. If the places that issue the cards aren't at convenient locations, then either build new places that are.

Do you have any problems with my second or third solution ?

I don't have an issue with third. My only issue is that I'm not convinced that there are millions of people who don't have ID that is valid, if only because of the requirements to live in modern society (from working to receiving benefits from the government). That said, independent of any voter ID system I do support making ID more accessible for those on the margins of society.

[bilateralrope]

What about copying the anti-fraud measures in other countries ?

[TimothyC]

What about copying the anti-fraud measures in other countries ?

I honestly don't know what other countries do for anti-voter fraud (other than the indelible ink we see in the third world) and thus I don't feel competent to comment one way or the other - it still might be something to look at for ideas. I do recall reading (it may have been on SDN even) that many European nations already have voter ID laws that would come off as draconian in the US.