Sarah Silverman on vote suppression


Absolutely, completely and totally Not Safe For Work.

But spot on.  Sarah Silverman, with humor, eviscerates the GOP’s vote suppression campaign.

Also, take a look at that handsome young man in the mortar board at about 2:06 in the video. You might recognize him as one of our nation’s better young men.

Gee.  I wonder what this will do to the blog’s G rating.

More:

About these ads

72 Responses to Sarah Silverman on vote suppression

  1. [...]the time to study or check out the material or internet sites we have linked to below the[...]

    Like

  2. JamesK says:

    Morgan writes:
    Voters should be taken at their word, it’s wrong to do any kind of research into verifying what they’ve said…but Republicans

    Yeah except for there have been plenty of groups looking for Voter Fraud…and it’s simply not found in the amounts that you guys insist exists.

    So we should enact laws to deal with a makebelieve problem?

    And when are you guys going to propose laws dealing with the election fraud that Republicans keep on committing?

    Oh by the way..Ed isn’t in favor of Voter ID so don’t be disingenous. Since neither you nor any other Republican can provide any evidence of voter fraud happening or how Voter ID would stop it…

    then at least be honest enough to shut the hell up after admitting that your position is stupid.

    But don’t worry..noone here is going to hold their breath on you proving that you’re anything but still a sociopathic liar.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Uh-oh. More evidence that Sarah Silverman got all the research exactly right: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/more-gop-election-fraud/

    Like

  4. JamesK says:

    Morgan, here’s a link that has links to the requirements to register to vote for every state:

    http://www.eac.gov/voter_resources/contact_your_state.aspx

    Let us know when you find a state which has requirements to register to vote that doesn’t include proving who you are.

    Like

  5. James,

    Ed has laid down the rule here. Proving things is good. That settles it.

    Unless you’re taking issue with this? Which, from your comments, somehow I’m doubting that.

    You know, it’s pretty strange: Basic set arithmetic. Subsets and supersets. You both seem to be coming at this from a perspective of: Voters should be taken at their word, it’s wrong to do any kind of research into verifying what they’ve said…but Republicans should always be doubted. As if none of the voters are Republicans. It’s just strange. No, more than strange, it’s as if you can’t keep track of your own argument.

    As I said, either proving things is good, or it isn’t. And Ed has made it clear that it is. So: Voter ID. Better late than never. Not my argument. It’s Ed’s.

    Like

  6. JamesK says:

    Well the GOP could always use

    Like

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    By the way, Morgan, you’d probably do a lot better to drink Provo
    Girl instead of St. Pauli
    . Pilsner, but more nearly locally produced, and the sale of it tweaks more of the people you’d probably like to tweak. At least one of the voters pictured in Sarah’s video has benefited from Provo Girl treatment.

    (The combination to your gated community isn’t working for me this week.)

    Provo Girl six pack carrier image

    Like

  8. JamesK says:

    Your problem with Minnesota’s rules are what, Morgan?

    Last year Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls. Curiously..that number keeps on shrinking. After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters and its likely that those numbers of “ineligble” voters is smaller then that.

    Officials in Flordia found 207 noncitizens on its voter list, a .001 percent of the state’s voters, but they did not necessarily commit fraud. Florida’s purge discovered just one Canadien who illegally voted. In North Carolina, hundreds of voters have received letters requesting proof they were citizens, but an elections board member acknowledged there were just 12 instances of noncitizen voting. Iowa has filed charges against three noncitizen voters.

    And in none of those few instances of noncitizens voting would Voter ID have stopped them.

    And lets remember Pennsylvania..where the GOP admitted in open court that they had absolutely no evidence of any voter fraud.

    And then there is Indiana..which has possibly the most stringent form of Voter ID law.

    And yet that didn’t stop their own Republican secretary of state from possibly committing voter fraud along with committing perjury, theft, and financial fraud

    http://www.eaglecountryonline.com/news.php?nID=2951

    Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White

    http://www.in.gov

    (Indianapolis, Ind.) – A jury could decide Friday whether or not Indiana’s Secretary of State committed voter fraud, a decision which could have him removed from office.

    Charlie White’s criminal trial began Monday in a Noblesville, Indiana courtroom. He faces seven felony charges including voter fraud, perjury, theft, and financial fraud. He was indicted last March.

    When he registered to vote in the May 2010 primary, White used his ex-wife’s address instead of a townhome he was allegedly living in. Prosecutors argue that White used the address on his registration because he was a member of the Fishers Town Council and the townhome was outside the district he represented.

    During the trial, prosecutors presented as evidence cell phone records showing a vast majority of White’s nighttime calls on his cellphone were “pinged” at a cell tower near his townhome, not his ex-wife’s house.

    Like

  9. JamesK says:

    This is the requirements to register to vote in Minnesota.It can be found at http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=588#Rules
    under the “2012 Minnesota election rules” link.

    ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION
    8200.5100 REGISTRATION AT PRECINCT ONLY.
    Subpart 1. Procedure; proof. Any person otherwise qualified but not registered to vote in the
    precinct in which the person resides may register to vote on election day at the polling place of the
    precinct in which the person resides. To register on election day, a person must complete and sign the
    registration application and provide proof of residence. A person may prove residence on election day
    only:
    A. by presenting:
    (1) a valid Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, or a receipt for either that contains the
    voter’s valid address in the precinct;
    (2) a valid Minnesota identification card issued by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety or
    a receipt for the identification card that contains the voter’s valid address in the precinct; or
    (3) a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs, United States Department of Interior, that contains the name, address, signature, and
    picture of the individual;
    B. by having a valid registration in the same precinct;
    C. by presenting a notice of late registration mailed by the county auditor or municipal clerk;
    D. by having a person who is registered to vote in the precinct and knows the applicant is a
    resident of the precinct sign the oath in part 8200.9939; or
    E. by having an employee employed by and working in a residential facility located in the
    precinct, who knows that the applicant is a resident of that residential facility, vouch for that facility
    resident, and sign the oath in part 8200.9939, in the presence of the election judge.
    256E.33, subdivision 1; a supervised living facility licensed by the commissioner of health under
    Minnesota Statutes, section 144.50, subdivision 6; a nursing home as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
    section 144A.01, subdivision 5; a residence registered with the commissioner of health as a housing with
    services establishment as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 144D.01, subdivision 4; a veterans
    home operated by the board of directors of the Minnesota Veterans Homes under Minnesota Statutes,
    chapter 198; a residence licensed by the commissioner of human services to provide a residential
    program as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 14; a residential facility for
    persons with a developmental disability licensed by the commissioner of human services under
    Minnesota Statutes, section 252.28; group residential housing as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section256I.03, subdivision 3; a shelter for battered women as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 611A.37,
    subdivision 4; or a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter or dwelling designed to provide
    temporary living accommodations for the homeless.
    To be eligible to sign the oath, the employee must:
    (1) have his or her name appear on a list of employees provided by the general manager or
    equivalent officer of the residential facility to the county auditor at least 20 days before the election; or
    (2) provide a statement on the facility’s letterhead that the individual is an employee of the
    facility that is signed and dated by a manager or equivalent officer of the facility. The statement must be
    in substantially the following form:
    To the Election Judges
    I am a [insert title of manager or equivalent officer here] at [insert residential facility name here].
    Let it be known and recorded that [insert employee name here] is an employee of [insert
    residential facility name here], a residential facility as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 201.061,
    subdivision 3, paragraph (c), and by my signature I certify that this is true as of the date signed.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    [signature] [date]
    _____________________________________________
    Printed Name of Residential Facility Manager or
    Equivalent Officer
    If the letterhead on which the document submitted under subitem (1) or (2) does not include the
    address of the residential facility in the precinct, the document must also include this address.
    The oaths in items D and E must be attached to the voter registration application and retained for at
    least 22 months.
    Subp. 2. Additional proof of residence allowed. An eligible voter may prove residence under
    this subpart by presenting one of the photo identification cards listed in item A and one of the
    additional proofs of residence listed in item B.
    A. The following documents are acceptable photo identification cards under this subpart if they
    contain the voter’s name and photograph:
    (1) a Minnesota driver’s license or identification card;
    (2) a United States passport;
    (3) a United States military identification
    (4) a student identification card issued by a Minnesota postsecondary educational institution;
    or
    (5) a tribal identification card issued by the tribal government of a tribe recognized by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, that contains the individual’s
    signature.
    B. An original bill for:
    (1) telephone, television, or Internet provider services, regardless of how those telephone,
    television, or Internet provider services are delivered; or
    (2) gas, electric, solid waste, water, or sewer services,
    is acceptable as an additional proof of residence under this subpart if:
    (a) the bill shows the voter’s name and current address in the precinct; and
    (b) the due date on the bill is within 30 days before or after election day.
    A rent statement from a landlord that itemizes utility expenses and meets the requirements of this
    paragraph is a utility bill for purposes of providing proof of residence.
    (3) A current student fee statement that contains the student’s valid address in the precinct is
    also acceptable as proof of residence.
    proof of residence presented by the voter establishes the voter’s current address in the precinct, the
    voter shall have proven residence under this subpart.
    C. The secretary of state shall provide samples of utility bills acceptable as additional proof of
    residence under item B to local election officials for use in election judge training and in the polling
    place on election day.
    Subp. 3. Additional proof of residence allowed for students. An eligible voter may prove
    residence by presenting a current valid photo identification issued by a postsecondary educational
    institution in Minnesota if the voter’s name, student identification number (if available), and address
    within the precinct appear on a current list of persons residing in the postsecondary educational
    institution’s housing certified to the county auditor by the postsecondary educational institution.
    This additional proof of residence for students must not be allowed unless the postsecondary
    educational institution submits to the county auditor no later than 60 days prior to the election a written
    agreement that the postsecondary educational institution will certify for use at the election accurate
    updated lists of persons residing in housing owned, operated, leased, or otherwise controlled by the
    postsecondary educational institution. A written agreement is effective for the election and all
    subsequent elections held in that calendar year, including the November general election which is
    instead governed by subpart 4.
    The additional proof of residence for students must be allowed on an equal basis for voters resident
    in housing of any postsecondary education institution within the county, if lists certified by the
    postsecondary educational institution meet the requirements of this part.
    An updated list must be certified to the county auditor no earlier than 20 days prior to each election.
    The certification must be dated and signed by the chief officer or designee of the postsecondary
    educational institution and must state that the list is current and accurate and includes only the names of
    persons residing as of the date of the certification in housing controlled by the postsecondary
    educational institution.
    The auditor shall instruct the election judges of the precinct in procedures for use of the list in
    conjunction with photo identification. The auditor shall supply a list to the election judges with the
    election supplies for the precinct.
    The auditor shall notify all postsecondary educational institutions in the county of the provisions
    of this subpart and subpart 4.
    Subp. 4. Additional proof of residence allowed for students at November general elections.
    An eligible voter may prove residence at the general election held in November of each year by
    presenting a current valid photo identification issued by a postsecondary educational institution in
    Minnesota if the voter’s name, student identification number (if available), and address within the
    precinct appear on a list of students certified to the secretary of state by the postsecondary educational
    institution.

    Like

  10. In Texas, and in every other state, you have to “prove who you are” to register to vote. Voter ID laws are NOT about proving who you are. They are about making it difficult or impossible to vote, for veterans, other senior citizens, African Americans, Mexican Americans, or other people the poll judges and GOP don’t like.

    You can’t make a case that is a good idea.

    (bold emphasis mine.)

    Now, these are your words, not mine…so you’re conceding the point that at the point of registration there is some protection put in place to make sure the person is who he or she says he is. It seems you have further conceded the point, or at least it’s not being disputed seriously, that without some kind of process that involves the presentation of some kind of credential, there is a “missing link” concerning the verification that the person appearing to vote, is who that person is claiming to be. So. We have strength of authentication at registration, we do not have strength of authentication when it comes time to vote…and we agree on all this

    How do you get from there, to “requiring the presentation of ID is the wrong thing to do”? Ah yes that’s right. The Republicans are up to shenanigans because you feel like they are. Silverman proved it by quoting a Republican official who said — the outcome of the vote in Pennsylvania may depend on whether people prove they are who they say they are, when they vote. Spooky!

    I think we should just quit beating around the bush: Conservatives think, liberals feel. This must be about making it difficult for Obama-friendly demographics to cast votes because it feels good for liberals to so conclude. So you do have a lot in common with Ms. Silverman after all.

    You said I can’t make a case that it’s a good idea. It seems you’ve made the case yourself, you just don’t want to conclude what then becomes logical. Feels so much better to keep things crooked and then claim you’re crusading for the voting rights of Ms. Applewhite (who, when the rubber met the road, was able to get hold of her voting ID just fine).

    Hey here’s an idea: How about pushing some ideas that would find favor with a real majority of Americans, and then you wouldn’t have to worry about bribing homeless people with smokes & hooch and then falsifying voting records, to grasp that final fifty-first percent of the vote and make the elections come out “right”?

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    Morgan, you can really act like a twit sometimes, you know? In Texas, and in every other state, you have to “prove who you are” to register to vote. Voter ID laws are NOT about proving who you are. They are about making it difficult or impossible to vote, for veterans, other senior citizens, African Americans, Mexican Americans, or other people the poll judges and GOP don’t like.

    You can’t make a case that is a good idea. You can’t even make a case that our election system isn’t tighter than a drum, now. Vote fraud that affects one out of every 4 million votes (or fewer) simply is not a problem. But you can’t even provide evidence of that minuscule amount of vote fraud. Worse, you have utterly, completely and fatally failed to demonstrate voter ID works, at all.

    You’re not moving your pieces? There’s your problem. You look at injustice, and you think it’s a chess game.

    Life is not an analogy. Voter ID takes real voting rights from millions of Americans. Voter ID is expensive. Voter ID is wasteful. Voter ID provides zero benefits. Voter ID is unjust. Voter ID is probably criminal. Voter ID is immoral, and hammers at the moral foundations of our nation. God struck down Sodom and Gomorrah for less. But you defend it. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Contrary to your assertion, this is not chess, no matter how much you coo.

    Like

  12. Yes, which is why I challenged you to prove your case that voter ID is necessary, and that voter ID can improve things. You’ve backed out of even bothering with such a demonstration, instead claiming I’m biased.

    It isn’t necessary to go any further because, according to your own rules, we should have voter ID and voters should prove they are who they say they are when they go vote.

    You’re in a check-mate and can’t recognize you’re in one. You don’t know what to make of the fact that I’m not moving any of my pieces on the board…the fact is, that’s not what you do when you check-mate the other side. You just point out that you did it and the game is over.

    http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess#checkmate

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:

    Yes, which is why I challenged you to prove your case that voter ID is necessary, and that voter ID can improve things. You’ve backed out of even bothering with such a demonstration, instead claiming I’m biased.

    I don’t know how to convince you that evidencing one’s claims is important in most discussion.

    Like

  14. So is it good to prove things, or not?

    Like

  15. JamesK says:

    Morgan writes:
    I don’t know enough to say that and neither do you. The whole process operates in a fog…and here is you, Ed, and countless others pouring all this energy into keeping it that way.

    This is where an information assurance auditor would hold up the accreditation activity and say — red flag. People are keeping the information from me. No-go, for now. Need more protections in place.

    Well apparently I know more then you since I know that voter fraud isn’t this widespread problem. Whereas you just believe what you’re told like a good little sheep.

    We’re not pouring any energy into having the process operate in a fog..you are. You’re the one that is supporting the party of purging legal voters from the rolls. You’re the one that is supporting the party of pretending that Voter ID is a problem that it’s not so your party can keep legal people from voting.

    Your party is the one that blocked any attempts to require that electronic voting machines like Diebolds leave a paper trail.

    Your party is the one that is engaging in election fraud. Because Thaddeus McCotter and his staff are hardly the only example I can give of Republicans engaging in such shenanigans. If you and your party really want more protections then why isn’t your party acting against that?

    As for “Need more protections in place” yeah..protections are only protections when they actually work. Since Voter ID will not protect a damn thing and you know it..don’t pretend its a protection. You can argue that “Voter ID” is a protection all you want but you are simply wrong.

    Two years ago the Democrat secretary of State for minnesota proposed a database in Minnesota linking all preceints so they could better keep former felons from voting. And the database would also have helped the precients be able to track when someone moved from one preceint to another.

    Your party’s response? Blocked it and refused to even consider it.

    Your party wants to act like absolutely everyone is guilty of voter fraud..that they have to prove their innocence before they can vote instead of the state having to prove their guilt of voter fraud. Why should I have my vote questioned and potentially not counted if noone can prove me guilty of voter fraud in a court of law?

    And you don’t see a problem with that?

    If the process acts in a fog, Morgan, its because your party is the one trying to create the fog. Your party is the one that is coming up with rules on the fly. Your party is the one trying to set up one set of rules for Democrats and another set of rules for Republicans. hell your party in Indiana is trying to shorten early voting because its somehow a problem despite the fact that your party didn’t think it was a problem when they used early voting for the Republican primary a few months ago.

    Voting and the rules to vote should not be changed in a partisan manner. By either party. And you can’t deny that your party is attempting to change the rules in a purely partisan manner.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    I don’t know enough to say that and neither do you. The whole process operates in a fog…

    I think with the possible exception of Diebold voting machines, the processes are in the daylight, on a clear day, and quite transparent. That GOP attorneys general and GOP secretaries of state have been unable to find and prosecute more than a tiny handful of voter irregularity cases is solid evidence that the process is honest and open. You should man the polls sometime. It’s not in a fog at all, but very clear.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Hey, Morgan, this guy claims to have evidence of massive election fraud sabotaging GOP candidates: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1

    What do you say?

    Like

  18. And if you were really so interested in integrity you’d admit that voting fraud simply doesn’t happen in enough numbers to be the threat you guys claim it is.

    I don’t know enough to say that and neither do you. The whole process operates in a fog…and here is you, Ed, and countless others pouring all this energy into keeping it that way.

    This is where an information assurance auditor would hold up the accreditation activity and say — red flag. People are keeping the information from me. No-go, for now. Need more protections in place.

    Like

  19. JamesK says:

    And if you were really so interested in integrity you’d admit that voting fraud simply doesn’t happen in enough numbers to be the threat you guys claim it is.

    Like

  20. JamesK says:

    To quote morgan:
    Integrity is an important component of information security.

    And yet Morgan, you are destroying that integrity by depriving people who can legally vote from voting. And your party is destroying that integrity because they don’t want to ensure the integrity of our elections….they want to ensure that Republicans win.

    If you guys were really so interested in ensuring the integrity of our elections you’d find better ways to do that does not deprive people of the right to vote legally.

    You are engaging in Orwellian doublespeak

    You and your party are trying to do to democracy here what the Nazi’s did to democracy in Germany…tilt and rig the system so that you guys win.

    And you want to talk about integrity? You have none

    Like

  21. You know, like a merchant ship. Keep it in the harbor, it’s safe from icebergs, rogue waves, sinking off the coast of Alaska . . . That’s your analogy.

    Oh, dear. You really need to read up on how these security systems work before you embarrass yourself further. I’m sure there’s perhaps a more diplomatic way of putting that that I should be using, but I cannot think of one.

    Your mistake is in thinking in extremes. The computer system is to be made entirely open and running on the honor system, no privileges, no user accounts, or else shut down. Really? There’s no in between?

    (Dear Reader, it’s almost humorous watching Morgan flail around like a fish out of water, trying to find some analogy…)

    One question for this: If you’re winning the argument, why is it necessary for you to tell people what they are to conclude?

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    (Dear Reader, it’s almost humorous watching Morgan flail around like a fish out of water, trying to find some analogy to justify his bigoted and wholly unjustified beliefs that you are a cheat and a vote fraudster. Almost. A majority of Republicans in nearly 20 states share Morgan’s unjustified bias, and unevidenced convictions that democracy should be sacrificed on the altar of imaginary vote fraud.

    Go vote them out of office.)

    Morgan, Pigford v. Glickman applies here only in the sense that it documents there is invidious bigotry against people of color. That’s immoral, and we shouldn’t have allowed it to occur against black farmers, and we shouldn’t stop the children of those black farmer from voting now, for similarly stupid, bigoted reasons.

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s a measure to prevent abuse of the system — just as in your example. You can increase security of any computer program if you just keep enough people from using it.

    You know, like a merchant ship. Keep it in the harbor, it’s safe from icebergs, rogue waves, sinking off the coast of Alaska . . .

    That’s your analogy.

    Voting is secure if we keep people from doing it.

    Democracy, on the other hand, is eroded at its foundation.

    I don’t think it’s worth eroding democracy to make sure six people don’t accidentally vote this year, you know?

    Like

  24. You’ve just described the Pigford v. Glickman settlement.

    Are you a black farmer? Think the USDA discriminated against you? That must be the case…if you believe it, you’re entitled to some cash. No need to prove anything.

    The Voter ID is not a cash payout to anybody, it is a process to verify people are who they say they are. And now, here, but not there, you insist things must be proven. We are all obliged — through a protocol you got from somewhere, you won’t say where, it seems you’ve just conjured it up out of convenience — to presume everything is on the up-and-up until the contrary has been proven, to YOUR satisfaction. Until then there’s no cause to do anything, even though the true state of voting integrity is a mystery.

    Why’s it time to move over there, and not here, Ed? This isn’t a cash settlement, it’s just a measure to help substantiate what a bunch of potential phantoms say is true anyway. You keep glossing over it, but ineligible names have been found on the voter rolls. That is insufficient cause to do something about the problem, really? That’s your position?

    Like

  25. Ed Darrell says:

    Try telling your clients that you can’t find a bug in the program, but you’re going to ask that they not use your program, just to be sure that no bugs get into the product. Tell them they have to hire outsourced wordprocessing and spreadsheets, and that they cannot see the product or correct it in process, just to be sure they don’t screw it up.

    How do you think your clients will regard you in the future?

    Like

  26. Yup, I get what you’re trying to say. There are no known flaws, so don’t go looking for any.

    Again, the principles between voting integrity and computer information assurance are the same in all the ways that matter. The analogy works even if you don’t want it to.

    Try getting an information system accredited telling the accreditation authority “There are no known flaws, so don’t go looking for any.” Hah! Be sure and tape it so I can watch.

    Like

  27. Ed Darrell says:

    The integrity of our balloting systems is superior in all states. We average about 200 instances of suspected vote irregularities that may be fraud every year, or perhaps 400 in election years — out of about 91 million votes cast in 2010, for example, an off-year election. In percentages, that’s 0.000004%.

    Our election system, with regard to voter fraud from voters, is more than 99 44/100% pure. It’s more pure than Ivory soap by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    Whatever your analogy is, it’s worthless in this case. It’s a felony to deprive one veteran of his right to vote through skullduggery. You propose to use false claims to deny several millions of people of their right to vote.

    Pure? Not your proposal, Morgan. You’re defending dirty politics, and no matter the analogy, that’s wrong.

    Like

  28. Integrity is an important component of information security.

    The analogy holds even if you don’t want it to. The same principles apply.

    At any rate, proving things is either good or not good. It isn’t good only when it makes your position seem loftier, and then suddenly turn bad when it puts a burden on you. Consistency.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    Voting is not a computer program. Democracy is not a computer. Humans are not bugs in the program.

    In our democratic republic, our freedom is secured as much by being able to determine what are real and valid threats to our security and democracy, as our ability to respond. If we cannot tell which dangers are real, we will inevitably waste our time, resources and money fighting ghosts that cannot harm us, leaving the gates unguarded for the barbarians to stroll through in full animus.

    You’re working to gum up the works of democracy and freedom, for a problem that is insignificant and almost always benign, with a solution that causes terminal cancer.

    It’s not just that you cannot distinguish significance from insignificance, and not just that you focus on the arrangement of the deck chairs instead of warning the captain of that iceberg off to starboard, but it is that your proposed solution of throwing all the people overboard wouldn’t save the ship even if it were sinking.

    If the people really are the problem, as you aver, why not just bypass voting altogether? Karl Rove is working on that, I’m sure.

    Like

  30. Ed,

    When you assess the security and integrity of a computer system for its worthiness to contain and process sensitive or confidential information, the [emphasis on] mere fact we have to be arguing about how bad the problem is demonstrates that there is a problem. That the findings are subjective, is evidence that the security is not up to snuff.

    The same is true for a cryptographic algorithm: If it is “secure” because its workings are a deep dark secret, and you can’t/won’t submit it for peer review so its strength cannot be assessed, guess what. The shrouded mystery does not make the algorithm more secure, it makes it less secure. No security auditor worth his salt is going to accept it.

    As I’ve shown, your argument contains an unworkable contradiction. What you’re saying is that when a standard of proof is laid down and then it is not met, the very worst should be suspected — only if we are talking about Republicans who want Voter ID laws. All other times it should work the opposite way. The contradiction is unworkable and untenable.

    This is where you agree with me, and we both get on with our lives.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    Why should we have voter ID laws, Morgan? What problem can they possible solve? Is that problem significant enough to even worry about?

    And, since the solution proposed robs millions of their right to vote, is the problem even in that same universe of signficance? Or is it some off-shoot, tiny bubble of an alternative universe?

    You can’t say, or won’t?

    (No, I don’t keep the Constitution in my anal cavity. Civil rights are well-established rules; voting rights have been clear since at least 1965. You’re the guy trying to change the rules, and invent new ones.)

    Like

  32. Right, it’s exactly what I said. You’ve pulled a rule out of your rear end that the other side has to prove everything and your side has to prove nothing…even when it’s time to cast these votes you say are the critical underpinning to our democracy.

    I’ve gone on to demonstrate that your argument depends on this double-standard — completely. It crumbles if it is denied even a smidgen of these double-faced benefits.

    A high school debating forum that doesn’t recognize that as a glaring weakness, is not a debating forum that is fit to decide this issue. It is the sign of a bad argument.

    You respond to this pointed criticism by simply taking another lap on the merry-go-round. ANOTHER sign of a bad argument.

    If proving things is good, prove them…your voters should prove who they say they are, simply because the rules say they should.

    If proving things is not good, then drop this insistence that Republicans should prove things that can’t be proven anyway. (Carrying these big nets around in the polling place would, no doubt, violate all sorts of laws about intimidation.)

    If proving things is good when the other guys have to do it but you shouldn’t have to, that is a tacit admission that you can’t follow your own rules. We therefore should not be doing what you say.

    Like

  33. Ed Darrell says:

    Denialism in full bloom.

    As I have demonstrated: The argument is just plain bad. You mentioned the standard of a high school debate. If the argument you’ve presented doesn’t fail that standard, then we must conclude the high school debate forum isn’t a proper one for settling a matter like this, which common sense would suggest is true in any case.

    What I said was, your original post failed to present any evidence to back your claims, and that my having called that to your attention is, in the lowest form of debate in our society, your cue to do so.

    You didn’t take that cue, Morgan. You haven’t yet made any case that you have a problem that needs to be solved — let alone a significant problem that requires state laws to solve, or worse, that your favored form of Stalinist paper-checking will even touch the problem you haven’t provided evidence for.

    In short, your discussion does not rise to the level of a profanity-laden comedy routine. Sarah Silverman at her most offensive stands up for democracy, and you assault it.

    What a pretty pass that is.

    Your argument relies on “We don’t need to prove anything, the other side has to prove everything.”

    Quite the contrary. I asked you to rise to a higher level of evidence, something more than “my biases are pure, so my effluents don’t stink.”

    So-called conservatives often fail to distinguish between bigotry-induced phantasms and reality, and you’re not out of that category here.

    I merely asked that you make a case that there is widespread voter fraud (or perhaps election fraud) — you’ve not done so. I asked that you justify voter ID as a viable solution to any fraud found — but you’ve offered not a single case, nor even a hypothetical justification that voter ID could stop any of the election fraud and voter fraud that actually exists — ironically, almost always run by the GOP.

    Just as I do not rely on the pickpockets in Times Square to clean up major crime in New York City, I refuse to rely on self-proclaimed conservatives to recommend solutions to non-existent voter fraud.

    I’m astonished that you think this wasting of time and money on passing unnecessary laws and expensive enforcement of them is an exercise any patriot would tolerate.

    You’re thus reduced to arguing the absurd position that the right to vote is so cherished and so sacred, that it must enjoy precedence over the need to prove things…but only some of the time, when such a principle is a benefit to what you’re trying to say, never ever when it would be a detriment. Put more simply, your argument, to be convincing in any way, must benefit from a vital double-standard or else it implodes immediately.

    You demand that we stop several million people from exercising their right to vote, in order to combat voter fraud. I ask you to provide any evidence that such a drastic infringement on the civil rights of millions is necessary. You can’t, or you won’t.

    No, you have not proven that we need to steal the votes from millions to “secure” the voting system against your pink elephants.

    You’ve got an odd, odd view of what “proof” is, and I think it may be rooted in your view of reality. What’s real is not what you imagine it to be. Goofy, Mickey Mouse, and the others you imagine might be cancelling your votes are cartoon characters, figments of some imagination — and they do not vote in the real world.

    Did you even bother to read that article you cited? If you did, you missed this chart, which shows that the laws you’re arguing for would allow almost all the real vote fraud, which is itself insignificant. Of the 2,000+ cases of election and vote fraud, 2,000+ cases could not be prevented nor caught with voter ID, but instead could proceed unhassled while poll judges are occupied with the unnecessary and vote-stealing monkey business of trying to stop Pearl Harbor veterans from sneaking into the polls based on their VA patriot identity cards — God forbid we should allow patriots who put their lives on the line for freedom, to vote, in Morgan’s world. They got their legs shot off for the right to vote, so they don’t really need to vote, do they?
    Vote fraud since 2000, Wall Street Journal

    Even the Texas GOP-appointed judges rejected your claims, Morgan. You need a better case, or at least one that makes sense.

    Like

  34. [...] into being one…and it’s giving me the giggle-snorts watching the crisis that ensues when he finds vulgar-vagina-monologue gutter-trash-talk “comedienne” Sarah Silverman echoing his [...]

    Like

  35. As I have demonstrated: The argument is just plain bad. You mentioned the standard of a high school debate. If the argument you’ve presented doesn’t fail that standard, then we must conclude the high school debate forum isn’t a proper one for settling a matter like this, which common sense would suggest is true in any case. Your argument relies on “We don’t need to prove anything, the other side has to prove everything.” You’re thus reduced to arguing the absurd position that the right to vote is so cherished and so sacred, that it must enjoy precedence over the need to prove things…but only some of the time, when such a principle is a benefit to what you’re trying to say, never ever when it would be a detriment. Put more simply, your argument, to be convincing in any way, must benefit from a vital double-standard or else it implodes immediately.

    You’ve walked through the jungle without getting bitten. The jungle must therefore be snake-free. That’s your logic, and frankly it sucks.

    Let’s take a look at your proof, or I should say, vaginal-discharge Sarah’s. A Republican opined on tape that a voter ID law will deliver Pennsylvania to Romney. What this proves is that progressives cannot think on an opposing thought, for any purpose other than to find an attack on it, even for a microsecond. Voter ID laws would deliver Pennsylvania to Romney? If one does believe there might be undetected voter fraud, it’s an entirely reasonable thing to say: Pennsylvania is Romney’s, the fraudulent voters are threatening to push the state into the other column (which is the entire concern, right?), a process put in place to stop this from happening would do what it was intended to do…so the state goes to Romney. No shenanigans involved.

    But to our modern lefties, any occasion by which they lose something they want — is shenanigans. George W. Bush only got re-elected because Diebold stuffed the ballot boxes. It sounds good to say it, feels good to think it, so let’s just go with it.

    Now, this has been called to your attention already: Your standard is impractical — names included on a voter roll inappropriately are not good enough, you want to see evidence of a ballot fraudulently cast. To do that, election officials would have to detect the fraud at the polling place, and then apprehend the perpetrator.

    [F]ully measuring voter fraud—in just one jurisdiction, for just one election—would require “a full forensic team”…The team would have to analyze each vote, cross-reference it with lists of eligible voters, check those, and drill deep on any suspicious cases. Estimates from criminal-justice data likely understate voter fraud.

    So your proposal is: Make that happen — catch the fraudulent voter, in the act, with a big net; and until that happens do nothing. People who think on it a little while in any kind of quality way, naturally reject it, and then you & your friends can’t deal with it…don’t know what to make of it…because, as we’ve seen, you can’t entertain an opposing thought for even a fraction of a second, except to orchestrate an attack on it.

    So, fine. Maintain your position. But don’t try to sell this jive that you’re all about protecting the right to vote. The right to vote doesn’t count for anything if the vote can be cancelled out by Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and other phantoms. The vote is an information asset, and it’s either being protected or else it isn’t.

    Like

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    Elizabeth Drew argues that voter ID laws are a greater threat to the Constitution than was the Watergate scandal, in the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/sep/21/voting-wrongs/?wpisrc=nl_wonk

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:

    Voter fraud is nothing compared to the problem of voter suppression. I quoted and linked to Bill Moyers earlier; Moyers and Mother Jones looked at the entire issue of voter ID, asking whether there is a problem of any significance. Your standard is a good one, Morgan, but there is not enough evidence to prove your case, so, by your standard, your case fails:

    While defending its precedent-setting photo ID law before the Supreme Court, Indiana was unable to cite a single instance of voter impersonation in its entire history.

    A 2005 report by the American Center for Voting Rights claimed there were more than 100 cases of voter fraud involving 300,000 votes in 2004. A review of the charges turned up only 185 votes that were even potentially fraudulent.

    In support of a voter ID law, Kansas Secretary of State (and the legal brains behind a slew of anti-immigration laws) Kris Kobach cited 221 incidents of voter fraud in the state between 1997 and 2010. Yet those cases produced just 7 convictions — none related to impersonating other voters.

    Last December, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus declared that Wisconsin is “absolutely riddled with voter fraud.” In fact, the state’s voter fraud rate in 2004 was 0.0002 percent — just 7 votes.

    In 2008, John McCain said fraudulent registrations collected by ACORN were “one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” The Congressional Research Service found no proof that anyone improperly registered by ACORN tried to vote.

    Federal convictions for election fraud, 2002-05

    Voting while ineligible: 18
    Voting multiple times: 5
    Registration fraud: 3

    So, no, you don’t get to stop blacks and browns and veterans and other older people from voting, to solve your made-up problem. You didn’t prove your case.

    Like

  38. Ed Darrell says:

    Is it good and necessary to prove things, when the integrity of the voting process is at stake?

    That’s exactly the standard the courts are using to strike down the voter ID laws. Before a state passes a law that steals the right to vote, from a million people in Pennsylvania, from a million people in Texas, from a several hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin, the state needs to prove that it has weighed other alternatives, and that the state has in the end picked the least vote-stealing alternative.

    The states have difficulty demonstrating that because they cannot demonstrate there is a problem that requires legislation to solve — and therefore, they cannot prove the need to stop anyone from voting, let alone millions.

    It is good an necessary to prove things before acting on the them with legislation, it’s required to pass muster under the Voting Rights Act to prove that a state is not intending to steal votes or suppress votes.

    As I’ve indicated a half-dozen times, Morgan, nothing you’ve presented gets across the threshhold of significance. You’ve failed to point out a single case of voter fraud that voter ID could touch, either to prevent or catch. You’re not alone in being naked before God and the law, either — no other state this year has come close under the heightened scrutiny required by the Voting Rights Act; Indiana’s law squeaked by, but that may have been with a kangaroo court.

    It’s absolutely necessary to prove things. You’ve failed to do that.

    Like

  39. I can see I haven’t simplified it enough. I’ll make it simpler. It comes down to one question, Should things be proven? Is it good and necessary to prove things, when the integrity of the voting process is at stake?

    Just a little consistency is all that is needed. If it is not necessary to prove things, then people can vote without presenting anything to prove they are who they say they are…until such time as laws are passed saying we don’t do things that way anymore. Because of fraud. Which, ya know, according to the rules, doesn’t have to be proven and your repeated demands for proof are what everyone already knows they are, just a bunch of distracting noise.

    If things should be proven, on the other hand, then the Republicans need to prove there’s fraud before they can say there is fraud…until then, there is no fraud because they haven’t proven it. But just in case, to be consistent…people should prove they are who they say they are, when they vote. So pass the voter ID laws already. Without proving anything. And that’s alright. Again, your demands for proof are just so much noise.

    If you wish to press the double standard, and say Republicans have to prove there’s fraud before they can do anything about the fraud, but the fraudulent voters don’t need to prove diddly-squat when they cast their fraudulent votes, well then…what that would show is what we’ve all known all along, you can’t make a democrat idea look like a good one without applying a double standard.

    Those are the three options, with their logical consequences. There is no fourth one.

    Like

  40. Jim says:

    You are projecting says, “It is the Democrat Party that supressed votes (and steals them too)”.

    What? Oh, you may be confused. Easy to do. You are looking for the blog about Thai politics. We have no Democrat Party in the United States.

    Best wishes,

    Jim

    Like

  41. JamesK says:

    Republican election officials have been unable to find even scant evidence of voter fraud. In voter purges in Colorado and Florida, targeting mostly Democrat and independent registered voters, officials uncovered that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of voters are potentially unqualified to vote. These findings drastically downgrade Republican fears of voter fraud from the tens of thousands of noncitizens officials originally estimated. The Associated Press reports:

    Last year, [Colorado Secretary of State Scott] Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls. But the number kept getting smaller.

    After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters. Even those numbers could be fewer.

    Officials in Florida found 207 noncitizens on its voter list, .001 percent of the state’s voters, but they did not necessarily commit fraud. Florida’s purge discovered just one Canadian who illegally voted. In North Carolina, hundreds of voters have received letters requesting proof they were citizens, but an elections board member acknowledged there were just 12 instances of noncitizen voting. Iowa has filed charges against three noncitizen voters.

    Unfortunately, voter supression tactics could disenfranchise millions of low-income and minority voters, including 10 million Hispanics.

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/24/899471/republicans-struggle-to-find-examples-of-voter-fraud/

    Voter ID is nothing but a naked attempt to suppress legal votes because, Morgan, as Lindsay Graham said..there simply aren’t enough angry white men to put your party into power any longer.

    And instead of dealing with the shifting demographics of this country, your party has double downed on it’s white’s only strategy and is now engaging in Jim Crow 2.0.

    We whites are a shrinking majority, Morgan, and if your party stays as it is your party is dead. There will be no GOP..there will be no conservatives in power

    Like

  42. From my link: “Johnson says her staff has identified nearly one-thousand noncitizens who are registered to vote so far.”

    Lets just assume for the moment that claim is true.

    That’s 1000 people out of a voting population of 200 million +

    If voting fraud was as widespread as you and yours delusionally think..W’s DOJ would have found more then 86 cases in the 5 years they were looking.

    Wow…I don’t even know where to begin. The bad logic, the dishonest arguing, the “My argument rests on the idea that I, a practically anonymous denizen of the Internet, really know what I’m talking about even though I can’t spell the word ‘than’.” I suppose the kicker is the “Lets [sic] just assume for the moment that claim is true” even though there’s no reason whatsoever to suppose otherwise…you guys asked for proof, you got it and you can’t deal with it.

    The vote is an information asset. It is a message that relies on integrity. It is not being protected with verified security controls commensurate with the value of that asset. It should be. Case closed.

    Like

  43. JamesK says:

    TO quote Ed:
    Florida finally whittled their three-year investigation of “massive voter fraud” down to one guy who appeared to be an alien resident who had registered to vote. One guy. As of last week, there was zero evidence he had ever voted. He was a Canadian.

    Well don’t forget when Florida accused a woman born in Ohio of being an illegal alien and tried purging her from the voting rolls. Apparently in Governor Voldemort’s world, Ohio isn’t part of the United States.

    Morgan..allegations aren’t proof….they aren’t evidence I can allege that you’re sociopathic serial killer whose has killed 100 prostitutes coast to coast. Does that make it true?

    Like

  44. JamesK says:

    To quote:
    From my link: “Johnson says her staff has identified nearly one-thousand noncitizens who are registered to vote so far.”

    Lets just assume for the moment that claim is true.

    That’s 1000 people out of a voting population of 200 million +

    If voting fraud was as widespread as you and yours delusionally think..W’s DOJ would have found more then 86 cases in the 5 years they were looking. 86 cases out of tens of millions of votes cast in that time period..including a presidential election.

    And exactly how is Voter ID going to keep a noncitizen from voting? Where on your drivers license does it say whether or not you’re a citizen? You are aware that people who are here legally but aren’t citizens can get drivers licenses right? And you’re aware that it’s not that hard to get a fake ID right?

    So what do you think Voter ID solves? Because you can’t possible be dumb enough to argue that Voter ID would prevent any of those 1000 supposed noncitizens who are registered to vote from actually voting….

    Because that would be stupid even for you.

    Like

  45. Ed Darrell says:

    You asked for proof.

    From my link: “Johnson says her staff has identified nearly one-thousand noncitizens who are registered to vote so far.”

    This is when you agree with me and we move on with our lives.

    I asked for evidence of voter or election fraud. Others may have asked for proof.

    What you have presented is unsubtantiated claims of improper registration, which could be a first step to vote fraud but almost never is.

    If you’ve read a couple of the last few articles I’ve noted here, you see that these claims are almost always wholly inaccurate. Florida finally whittled their three-year investigation of “massive voter fraud” down to one guy who appeared to be an alien resident who had registered to vote. One guy. As of last week, there was zero evidence he had ever voted. He was a Canadian.

    Yeah, I asked for proof. Once again you appear wholly unable to understand either what it was you claimed, or what might be considered evidence to back that claim.

    You’re free to move on with your life, just be sure you admit that your claim is, so far as you have presented, 100% wrong. Democrats don’t win elections with voter fraud, but instead with the votes of U.S. citizens. Since confession is good for one’s soul, it would also do you well to admit that the campaign against the votes of these U.S. citizens is unholy and immoral, probably illegal, and that people who conduct these campaigns are not worthy of shining the shoes of Medgar Evers, let alone of ever holding an office in any government under our Constitution.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    Even more evidence against widespread voter fraud, or any significant voter fraud, especially on the part of Democrats:

    Republicans look for voter fraud, find little

    DENVER (AP) [September 24, 2012] — Republican election officials who promised to root out voter fraud so far are finding little evidence of a widespread problem.

    State officials in key presidential battleground states have found only a tiny fraction of the illegal voters they initially suspected existed. Searches in Colorado and Florida have yielded numbers that amount to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all registered voters in either state.

    Democrats say the searches waste time and, worse, could disenfranchise eligible voters who are swept up in the checks.

    “I find it offensive that I’m being required to do more than any other citizen to prove that I can vote,” said Samantha Meiring, 37, a Colorado voter and South African immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2010. Meiring was among 3,903 registered voters who received letters last month from the Colorado Secretary of State’s office questioning their right to vote.

    Especially telling, critics of the searches say, is that the efforts are focused on crucial swing states from Colorado to Florida, where both political parties and the presidential campaigns are watching every vote. And in Colorado, most of those who received letters are either Democrats or unaffiliated with a party. It’s a similar story in Florida, too.

    Read more.

    Like

  47. Hey Ed, you should save all these arguments for those high school debates, as examples of how not to do it.

    Everything you and James K are presenting here seems to boil down to: “We demand chaos, these other people are getting away with it, we should too!”

    I find this most convincing. Not.

    Like

  48. JamesK says:

    And here’s yet one more example of Republican election fraud:

    A video uploaded to YouTube on Friday depicting a young woman registering voters in El Paso County, Colorado claiming she works for the clerk’s office, but is only registering voters who support Mitt Romney has gone viral over the weekend.

    The person recording the video exits a Safeway grocery store and a young woman who is registering voters outside the store asks her, “Are you voting for Romney or Obama?”

    The woman recording responds, “Well, wait, I thought you were registering voters a minute ago.”

    To which the young woman replies, “I am.” The person recording then asks, “Well, who are you registering? All voters?”

    “Well, I’m actually trying to register people for a particular party. Because we’re out here in support of Romney, actually,” the young woman registering voters says.

    “And who is paying you for this?” The video recorder asks.

    “We’re working for the County Clerk’s Office,” the young woman replies with some hesitation and confusion.

    The El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams disavowed the young woman’s statements that she was registering voters on behalf of Williams’ office. “The statement made in this video is both unfortunate and inaccurate,” Williams said in a statement. “My office does not and will not engage in partisan voter registration. It is the duty of the Clerk’s office to ensure that elections are conducted in a fair and honest manner, this includes allowing any one to register to vote regardless of their political party affiliation.”

    According to 9News, the young woman registering voters outside of the Safeway store was a volunteer for the Romney campaign who has since been spoken to by the campaign about her actions.

    Republicans in El Paso County claim that the video was recorded more than a month ago by a Democratic “campaign operative” and has been released now to damage the Romney campaign. But, Christy Lelait, Chairman for the El Paso County Democrats denies that charge to KOAA. “It’s an interesting charge. I don’t know of any campaign operatives here in El Paso County and I know for certain that the woman who shot this video is not a campaign operative, she’s a volunteer with several different organizations including the El Paso Democratic Party and she’s also a precinct chair.”

    Later in the video the woman recording says to the volunteer, “Okay, you cannot come out here and register one party, lady.” The young woman now becoming clearly embarrassed puts her hands up in front of the camera to block her face. “You’re working for the County Clerk’s Office?”

    “I believe so, yes,” the young woman says.

    “And you’re only registering Republicans?” The video recorder says with outrage. To which the young woman replies, “No.”

    “You said you’re only registering Romney people,” says the video recorder.

    And the young woman replies, “Well, we’re trying to, to be honest.”

    It’s unclear if the young woman in the video was only registering Romney voters, but if that were the case, it would be illegal. It would also be illegal to deny a person registration based on their survey answers, which isn’t entirely clear if that would have occurred in the video above either.

    The El Paso County Clerk’s Office has requested that the video be removed from YouTube because it contains inaccurate information, but the person who uploaded the video has refused to do so.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/el-paso-co-voter-registra_n_1909234.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

    So I’m sure now Morgan will agree that we will have to put into place news laws designed to stop these Republican cheaters from voting…and since we can’t be sure that its not all Republicans we’ll just have to make it much harder for Republicans to vote…

    Like

  49. To borrow a phrase, along with some theatrical condescension, from our current President: We’ve had this conversation before. You’ve been walked through this already. Good security practices don’t have much to do with your “high school debate.” If there’s a vulnerability that can be defined, and the existing protections around it can be demonstrated to be inadequate, you don’t wait for an actual compromise to “prove” the vulnerabilities are there. You act. You protect. That is the proper response.

    Come to think of it, when one views these fraudulent/imaginary/nonexistent voters as an “asset,” that’s pretty much what the democrat party is doing…protecting their assets. Then saying that other people can’t do that. Irony.

    So you think the Republicans are up to shenanigans, huh. What’s your plan. Meanwhile, I see your sad sack case who was being “disenfranchised” managed to get her ID. Any Republicans crying in their beer about that, making the next new round of sinister plans to keep her out of the voting booth? Examples, please?

    I have just as much of a right to own a gun as Ms. Applewhite has to vote. The Constitution says so. So I look forward to your able assistance to make sure I’m never again bothered with any of this painful paperwork I must endure when I so purchase…to be consistent. You’re up for it, right? For consistency’s sake.

    Like

  50. Ed Darrell says:

    Say what?

    Voting laws may disenfranchise 10 million Hispanic U.S. citizens: study

    Reuters [so this is what the international audience sees . . .], Washington – [September 23, 2012] New voting laws in 23 of the 50 states could keep more than 10 million Hispanic U.S. citizens from registering and voting, a new study said on Sunday, a number so large it could affect the outcome of the November 6 election.

    The Latino community accounts for more than 10 percent of eligible voters nationally. But the share in some states is high enough that keeping Hispanic voters away from the polls could shift some hard-fought states from support for Democratic President Barack Obama and help his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.

    The new laws include purges of people suspected of not being citizens in 16 states that unfairly target Latinos, the civil rights group Advancement Project said in the study to be formally released on Monday.

    Laws in effect in one state and pending in two others require proof of citizenship for voter registration. That imposes onerous and sometimes expensive documentation requirements on voters, especially targeting naturalized American citizens, many of whom are Latino, the liberal group said.

    Nine states have passed restrictive photo identification laws that impose costs in time and money for millions of Latinos who are citizens but do not yet have the required identification, it said.

    Republican-led state legislatures have passed most of the new laws since the party won sweeping victories in state and local elections in 2010. They say the laws are meant to prevent voter fraud; critics say they are designed to reduce turnout among groups that typically back Democrats.

    Decades of study have found virtually no use of false identification in U.S. elections or voting by non-citizens. Activists say the bigger problem in the United States, where most elections see turnout of well under 60 percent, is that eligible Americans do not bother to vote.

    Like

  51. Ed Darrell says:

    More voter fraud, that exposes the hypocrisy of the GOP on the issue, makes it laughable (from CBS Channel 42, KEYE TV in Austin, Texas):

    Voter fraud by the sponsor of Texas’s voter ID law! Who knew?

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    I think there is something about the modern version of what is called conservatism that warps the reasoning faculties of people exposed to it at length. We need more self-professed conservatives commenting here to improve our sample, but I don’t see much contrary evidence.

    I had said earlier: “You claimed voter fraud is the only way Democrats can win elections, Morgan. You asserted. No evidence? Your claim, not mine, suffers.”

    So, you know, in a high school debate, this is the cue to the opposing team to lay out their evidence (in collegiate debate the failure to lay out the evidence is merely commented on as a cue to the judge that the non-evidence-presenting side just abdicated).

    No, not to modern so-called conservatives. Morgan took the opportunity to propose a new rabbit trail on what constitutes evidence:

    Actually, slutty Sarah came up with a clip of a Republican official saying a voter ID law in Pennsylvania would deliver Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney. She asserted.

    Yes, testimony direct from the horse’s ass mouth, telling the truth. Another one of those “GOP-caught-telling-the-truth-thinking-no-one-was-recording” moments.

    Silverman did not assert. The GOP leader in the Pennsylvania House asserted, and Silverman reported. Should we believe the GOP? In law, this is called a confession contrary to one’s interest, and is therefore given a special stamp of certification. When people confess to doing evil, by law, we give them a bit extra credence.

    You have no contrary evidence, of course. So you claim, contrary to the evidence, and contrary to the facts, that Silverman offers an unsubstantiated claim, as opposed to the facts: Silverman evidence the claim you don’t like.

    And what she asserted was, this was some kind of “smoking gun” to prove that the Voter ID was a method to suppress voter participation. What this really proves is what Severian was saying over at my blog: The progressives cannot acquiesce, even a tiny bit, even for purposes of argument. If you can consider for even a microsecond that there might be some voter fraud, then you can see this “quote” proves, in fact supports, absolutely nothing by way of Republican skulduggery. If there is voter fraud, or might be some voter fraud, then “A voter ID law will deliver Pennsylvania to Romney” might have no sinister connotations. None whatsoever. The operating theory would be, there is voter fraud that would deliver Pennsylvania to Obama, or might put the state (illegitimately) in play…and the voter ID laws would fix the problem.

    I’m happy to assert there is voter fraud. Almost every bit of it is done by the GOP, and almost none can be stopped with voter ID (I note, again, you have not been able to provide a single instance of voter fraud that voter ID would prevent or uncover).

    Since our progressive friends cannot tolerate such a thought in their craniums even instantaneously, the entire issue is lost on them. And your own thread, my dear blogger friend, bears this out.

    I think I see what happened before. The evidence kicked your butt, and you assumed everyone in the discussion hurt the same way.

    Here’s the issue: There is no problem with fraud that voter ID can prevent, or uncover. Consequently, a law requiring voter ID is completely unwarranted — it offers no benefits, not even those promised by the GOP. So there is no need for the law.

    Here is the serious problem: Voter ID laws suppress voter turnout, by discouraging people from voting with a hassle factor, and by giving poll judges with a bias more opportunities to stop from voting those U.S. citizens who don’t have exactly the right ID form, the new poll tax; citizens affected disproportionately include senior citizens, disabled veterans, older veterans, poor people, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and women. Why would anyone want to stop those people from voting? Over the past two decades, they have cast more votes for Democrats than for Republicans.

    Since today’s self-professed conservatives have such difficulty with hard facts, they tend to argue from analogies. “It’s like insurance on your house,” they argue. “Most houses don’t burn, but no one objects to house insurance.” But homeowners insurance is prevented by law from putting more severe burdens on the aged, on veterans, on groups because of race or gender. If you proposed a change in homeowners’ insurance that cut these groups out of home ownership, you could face jail sentence (unlikely, really), or at least an injunction to stop the unfairness.

    And so we have the Voting Rights Act, to protect the civil right of voting, the essence of our democratic republic.

    Why in the world are you so afraid of the voice of the people, Morgan? What do you have against the Constitution?

    Like

  53. David xavier says:

    Voter fraud is done by proxies , not by the party

    WSJ- 09/04/09 – “Democrats are split on how to deal with Acorn, the liberal “community organizing” group that deployed thousands of get-out-the-vote workers last election. State and city Democratic officials — who’ve been contending with its many scandals — are moving against it. Washington Democrats are still sweeping Acorn abuses under a rug.

    On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn’s forms “are clearly fraudulent.” On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year’s general election.”

    It is because of organisations like Acorn , that the conservative side is sensitised to voter fraud. But lets look at slutty Sarah’s buggery embellished complaint.

    Sidebar: Sarah’s sweet jewish princess profanity driven shock schtick is derivative and pretty old hat to boot ( to mix my metaphors) as is her self deprecating digressions…which are almost stereotypically jewish, oh the irony, jewish comdienne does jewish comedy

    So are old people >65 Obama voters? No a slight majority including vets voted for McCain, she just mentioned them as a group to get her botoxed nanna on youtube. If there is any disadvantage then it would be evenly spread (IF!)

    As for the others , if they have bothered to register to vote then they can go and get a non driver ID card . I notice that Sarah instead mentioned the gun license which requires police checks so therefore that is acceptable….but unnecessary, she’s playing to her audience.in an unserious way.

    Of course the big worry is that a lot of the registrations may be in fact fraudent.

    Like

  54. You asked for proof.

    From my link: “Johnson says her staff has identified nearly one-thousand noncitizens who are registered to vote so far.”

    This is when you agree with me and we move on with our lives.

    Like

  55. JamesK says:

    http://lawsonry.com/2012/09/republican-staffers-charged-with-36-counts-of-election-fraud/

    It turns out that the Republican Party’s obsession with voter fraud may be yet another case of projection. Four former staffers for resigned House Rep. Thaddeus McCotter have been charged with 36 counts of misdemeanor and felony election fraud. Yesterday one of those staffers, Lorianne O’Brady, pled not guilty to five misdemeanor counts of submitting fraudulent signatures on a ballot petition. O’Brady is the last of the four staffers to be arraigned; the other three, Don Yowchuang, Mary Melissa Turnbull, and Paul Seewald, were arraigned on similar charges on August 10th.

    So what happened? It all started last May, when the Michigan Congressman announced that he was considering running for the Republican nomination for president. McCotter, who had served in the US House of Representatives for nine years, officially announced his candidacy in July of 2011, but was unsuccessful due to his relatively unknown status. In September of 2011, McCotter officially withdrew from the race and endorsed Mitt Romney.

    For the next part of the story, we have to go back to April of 2011. Prior to running for president, McCotter had not confirmed that he would be running for reelection is his district. He was the only one of Michigan’s 15 representatives who still had yet to announce his intentions for his seat. That May, after McCotter began exploring a presidential run, he confirmed that he would not campaign for his seat in the House. Then in September, McCotter reversed that plan after ending his presidential campaign. McCotter was indeed running for reelection in Michigan’s 11th District.

    Fast forward to May 2012. the date to collect signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan has come and gone. 1,000 signatures are necessary for each candidate, and the McCotter campaign turned in over 2,000. There was just one small problem: most of those signatures were forgeries or photocopies. Only 244 of the signatures – just over 10% of the total number – were actually legitimate signatures.

    Michigan’s Secretary of State announced that the McCotter campaign had not gathered 1,000 valid signatures, which McCotter accepted. McCotter then announced that he would still be running for his seat in the August primary, as a write-in candidate. But the discoveries of fraud by the Secretary of State were so egregious that the matter was turned over to Michigan’s state attorney general. The Michigan elections director Chris Thomas called the fake signatures an “unprecedented level of fraud.”

    By June, the news of the false signatures had put enough pressure on McCotter, and the Congressman resigned in disgrace. In his resignation statement, McCotter lamented his decreased earnings potential, expressed his concern for the toll the scandal took on his family, and said that he would continue to cooperate in the investigation. He never took responsibility for the incident.

    This incident perfectly highlights the dirty little secret about election fraud. Election fraud overwhelmingly happens on the campaign side, not the voter side. It’s far easier – and more rewarding – to cheat while working from within the system than it is to commit in-person voter fraud. The GOP is legislating against cases of voter fraud in which a person would have to give someone else’s name at the correct polling place in order to falsely vote once; meanwhile a Republican Congressman and his staff fabricated 1,756 signatures so that he could run illegally.

    And this is the truth about so many Republican policies: rules and regulations are put in place to scapegoat people who aren’t causing problems. In Florida, drug testing welfare recipients showed that less than 3% of those receiving welfare were using drugs illegally, while that discriminatory testing cost the state nearly $120,000. Mitt Romney has evoked the “47% of people [who] pay no income tax,” conveniently ignoring that collecting income tax from all of those households would bring in less than than the president’s Buffett Rule which would slightly raise taxes for the country’s wealthiest. Reagan’s racist welfare queen myth still looms large in the conservative narrative, despite the fact that the Bush-era bailout for corrupt and irresponsible banks cost far more than years of welfare programs.

    The cognitive dissonance bordering on willful delusion has become the hallmark of Republican policies and rhetoric. Expecting this heinous fraud to bring the GOP back to reality would be wishful thinking at this point, but at least one corrupt Congressman is now out of a job.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    I’m sure Morgan will agree that laws restricting Republicans right to vote are now necessary. After all..we just can’t trust you Republicans to not engage in election fraud so we’re going to have to make it much harder for you guys to vote and to run for office….

    Right, Morgan?

    Like

  56. Let’s get the quote right:

    This is when you agree with me and we move on with our lives.

    Like

  57. Here, Ed. Challenge met.

    This is the part where you admit you’re wrong, you agree with me, and we both get on with our lives.

    Like

  58. You claimed voter fraud is the only way Democrats can win elections, Morgan. You asserted. No evidence? Your claim, not mine, suffers.

    Actually, slutty Sarah came up with a clip of a Republican official saying a voter ID law in Pennsylvania would deliver Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney. She asserted.

    And what she asserted was, this was some kind of “smoking gun” to prove that the Voter ID was a method to suppress voter participation. What this really proves is what Severian was saying over at my blog: The progressives cannot acquiesce, even a tiny bit, even for purposes of argument. If you can consider for even a microsecond that there might be some voter fraud, then you can see this “quote” proves, in fact supports, absolutely nothing by way of Republican skulduggery. If there is voter fraud, or might be some voter fraud, then “A voter ID law will deliver Pennsylvania to Romney” might have no sinister connotations. None whatsoever. The operating theory would be, there is voter fraud that would deliver Pennsylvania to Obama, or might put the state (illegitimately) in play…and the voter ID laws would fix the problem.

    Since our progressive friends cannot tolerate such a thought in their craniums even instantaneously, the entire issue is lost on them. And your own thread, my dear blogger friend, bears this out.

    Like

  59. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, gee, another example, “Republican staffers charged with 36 counts of election fraud”:

    This incident perfectly highlights the dirty little secret about election fraud. Election fraud overwhelmingly happens on the campaign side, not the voter side. It’s far easier – and more rewarding – to cheat while working from within the system than it is to commit in-person voter fraud. The GOP is legislating against cases of voter fraud in which a person would have to give someone else’s name at the correct polling place in order to falsely vote once; meanwhile a Republican Congressman and his staff fabricated 1,756 signatures so that he could run illegally.

    Oh, heck — let the tape run for a moment on the Lawsonry site:

    And this is the truth about so many Republican policies: rules and regulations are put in place to scapegoat people who aren’t causing problems. In Florida, drug testing welfare recipients showed that less than 3% of those receiving welfare were using drugs illegally, while that discriminatory testing cost the state nearly $120,000. Mitt Romney has evoked the “47% of people [who] pay no income tax,” conveniently ignoring that collecting income tax from all of those households would bring in less than than the president’s Buffett Rule which would slightly raise taxes for the country’s wealthiest. Reagan’s racist welfare queen myth still looms large in the conservative narrative, despite the fact that the Bush-era bailout for corrupt and irresponsible banks cost far more than years of welfare programs.

    Like

  60. Ed Darrell says:

    Now James K, if you come over to my blog you’ll see Ed was caught with his pants down and the proof was met by several of my readers. He got spanked there.

    Odd, I felt no stinging. Not even a link from you?

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    You claimed voter fraud is the only way Democrats can win elections, Morgan. You asserted. No evidence?

    Your claim, not mine, suffers.

    Like

  62. Oh yeah, forgot that one:

    As is always the case: It isn’t a question of whether Darrell & crew can legitimize the case in their own minds, for they always will. The question is, consistently, how much do they need to do to get there.

    The burden of proof ALL has to be on the other side. Now James K, if you come over to my blog you’ll see Ed was caught with his pants down and the proof was met by several of my readers. He got spanked there. So, even with your silly criteria laid down, it was still met. Like Dilbert said once: “This is where you see that you’re wrong, and agree with me, and we both get on with our lives.” Not that that’ll happen.

    The other thing that is necessary is to make the finding: Happily life-long-married Palin is a “bimbo” but potty-mouthed comedienne slut Silverman is not. Okay. Again, so noted.

    That is how far you need to go to make this look like a legitimate point of view. Alright, you’ve got your reality I’ve got mine.

    Let’s pass some voter ID laws to get the matter settled.

    Like

  63. JamesK says:

    Btw, Morgan and your, if you could provide evidence to back the need for Voter ID you wouldn’t be getting yourselves in such a tizzy about the words that Ms. Silverman used.

    You’re not even attempting to prove what she said wrong. And neither of you despite over a year of this Voter ID nonsense being pushed by your party, has ever once provided one iota of evidence proving wide spread voter fraud.

    Time for you two to put up or shut up.

    Like

  64. JamesK says:

    To quote:
    And, if I view Sarah Silverman as a fountainhead of good judgment and common sense

    And Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity are?

    And Paul Ryan and Mittens are?

    Oh please.

    Let us know, Morgan, when you’re going to stop bending over for the GOP

    Like

  65. Ed Darrell says:

    And, if I view Sarah Silverman as a fountainhead of good judgment and common sense, I should oppose the laws that put a check on this.

    Sorry state of affairs when the profanity-laden screed from a comedian is much more truthful, and better for our nation, the Constitution, Mom, apple pie and the flag, than anything from conservatives, eh?

    If you’re regarding someone with a contrary view as anything other than a craven liar, you’d do well to pay careful attention to Silverman. Note challenge in my previous reply. I dare you to do it.

    Like

  66. Ed Darrell says:

    Morgan, please tell me the parties of the people convicted of voter or election fraud in the past 20 years — and how many votes each case involved. Bonus: If you can find a single case that could have been prevented with voter ID, list it first.

    Double Bonus: Tell us any Republican or Conservative who hasn’t lied about it, including you in this post.

    Voting should be sacred in a democracy. Good thing for you and the other conservatives that we don’t think blasphemy a capital crime here.

    Like

  67. JamesK says:

    You, if you want to see a bimbo I suggest you start with Sarah Palin and then move onto Michele Bachmann.

    How do you expect us to take you guys seriously when you rally around those two bimbos?

    Like

  68. JamesK says:

    Morgan, you, let me know when you find verifiable evidence to back your claims.

    Otherwise have the honesty to shut the hell up.

    Like

  69. So Barack cannot win without voter fraud. And, if I view Sarah Silverman as a fountainhead of good judgment and common sense, I should oppose the laws that put a check on this.

    Okay. So noted.

    Like

  70. Ed Darrell says:

    Follow the links in the post. Vote and election fraud in the U.S. in the past 20 years has been overwhelmingly done by GOP electioneers, including elected officials in Maryland, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Texas.

    Do you have any evidence of Democratic suppression? Last time I asked you that, you disappeared. Now you come back, again without an iota of evidence, making the same, unevidenced, contrary-to-the-studies claims.

    What makes you any more credible than a doormat this time? Where is your evidence? Where is your case?

    Like

  71. Youareprojecting says:

    It is the Democrat party that suppresses votes (and steals them too). Pure projection. How in the world does the GOP suppress votes, push for voter ID? How is that suppression? It is an attempt to stop Democrat voter fraud is what it is.

    The Democrats cannot get elected without it.

    Total hogwash.

    You really need to stop shilling for the immoral.

    Your moral compass is 180 degrees out of whack.

    Speaking of Whack, how on earth do you expect adults to take you seriously when you use someone like this bimbo in an argument?

    As usual, projection, straw men and personal attack. It seems to be all you can ever produce.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: