Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

You ARE aware of the politically charged debate over voter ID's, shazbot? And what do you mean by EFV?

On the surface of it, having voter IDs does sound reasonable, but the problem is that a certain party has been using it to disenfranchise minorities and makes it more difficult for some segments of the population to vote. Until it can be guaranteed that said IDs will be issued to absolutely everybody, it's going to be controversial. Probably going to need to throw in a federal voter database as well.

EMV. My bad. No, it occurs to me Democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to suppress black Republican voting in the postwar South, in addition to masked goons terrorizing people in front of their houses, or screaming at them through bullhorns, but nowadays the parties have switched and only Democrats run around in masks screaming at black women at cafes for being Republicans.

Somehow I may have... nope I didn't get that backwards.

Either accept that we need both properly secured voter identification and secured ballot handling, or admit hypocrisy. Garbage in, garbage out, as the computing world says. Unless the input is as tamper-proof as the output, you merely shift the point of failure from outside hacking to ballot-stuffing. Like how my wife was somehow registered across the state in a Democratic precinct...

So your argument is that ‘cause the Dems did it postwar the GOP can do it now? Else I don’t see why you bring that up. Bad shit happened half a century ago, worse shit half a century before that. In half a century I imagine people will be bringing up Trump as bad shit.

Anyway, no voting system is parfait. Making it harder for people to vote isn’t the answer to the problems that exist now. IDs can be faked, after all. Certainly wouldn’t have stopped your wife being registered somewhere she shouldn’t have been.

[smjjames]

You ARE aware of the politically charged debate over voter ID's, shazbot? And what do you mean by EFV?

On the surface of it, having voter IDs does sound reasonable, but the problem is that a certain party has been using it to disenfranchise minorities and makes it more difficult for some segments of the population to vote. Until it can be guaranteed that said IDs will be issued to absolutely everybody, it's going to be controversial. Probably going to need to throw in a federal voter database as well.

EMV. My bad. No, it occurs to me Democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to suppress black Republican voting in the postwar South, in addition to masked goons terrorizing people in front of their houses, or screaming at them through bullhorns, but nowadays the parties have switched and only Democrats run around in masks screaming at black women at cafes for being Republicans.

Somehow I may have... nope I didn't get that backwards.

Either accept that we need both properly secured voter identification and secured ballot handling, or admit hypocrisy. Garbage in, garbage out, as the computing world says. Unless the input is as tamper-proof as the output, you merely shift the point of failure from outside hacking to ballot-stuffing. Like how my wife was somehow registered across the state in a Democratic precinct...

So your argument is that ‘cause the Dems did it postwar the GOP can do it now? Else I don’t see why you bring that up. Bad shit happened half a century ago, worse shit half a century before that. In half a century I imagine people will be bringing up Trump as bad shit.

Anyway, no voting system is parfait. Making it harder for people to vote isn’t the answer to the problems that exist now. IDs can be faked, after all. Certainly wouldn’t have stopped your wife being registered somewhere she shouldn’t have been.

Are you seriously pulling the 'they do it, so I can do it too!' fallacy (there's probably an actual term for it, just not sure what it is)? Just because the other party back when they were full of racists did it in the past doesn't make it okay for the opposite party to do it now.

As for secure voter identification, I'd be okay with that on the condition that it's guaranteed going to every single voter and it does not disenfranchise people.

I believe I know of the experiment you mentioned, but wasn't that experiment discredited or at least given a major asterik of a caveat that says that it's just one datapoint out of many? It's not that insights can't be drawn from it, it's that it's just one game model and experiment or sets of experiments.

The game isn't the basis of Altemeyer's research; he talks about a number of different studies and tests throughout the book. The bit I quoted is just one that stuck in my mind.

Fair enough.

Anyway, no voting system is parfait.

Spell correct error?

[hector13]

I like to say parfait

[Rolan7]

Yeah, the Republicans and Democrats were very different parties back then.  I appreciate the irony, but I think it clouds the point:  Democrats do appear hypocritical by caring about Russian interference via "soft" methods like social media, while at the same time demanding that voting require no ID.

I had a bit of a rant about how the latter is always framed as racially motivated, when it naturally targets *all* poor people, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume high-minority districts were specifically being targeted.  Really, I just agree with this:

As for secure voter identification, I'd be okay with that on the condition that it's guaranteed going to every single voter and it does not disenfranchise people.

[hector13]

You’re more likely to be poor and a minority than poor and white :p

[smjjames]

Yeah, the Republicans and Democrats were very different parties back then.  I appreciate the irony, but I think it clouds the point:  Democrats do appear hypocritical by caring about Russian interference via "soft" methods like social media, while at the same time demanding that voting require no ID.

Voter ID isn't going to stop the Russians from influencing via 'soft' methods, unless you want it to say 'I've been influenced by Russian propoganda!' or something, and I haven't really heard any Democrats saying no to the IDs just because it's an ID card.

The only arguments that I've heard against voter ID is either that it gets misused and hurts poor and minorities, it does nothing to solve a problem which barely even exists at all, or both.

[Doomblade187]

Yeah, the Republicans and Democrats were very different parties back then.  I appreciate the irony, but I think it clouds the point:  Democrats do appear hypocritical by caring about Russian interference via "soft" methods like social media, while at the same time demanding that voting require no ID.

I had a bit of a rant about how the latter is always framed as racially motivated, when it naturally targets *all* poor people, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume high-minority districts were specifically being targeted.  Really, I just agree with this:

As for secure voter identification, I'd be okay with that on the condition that it's guaranteed going to every single voter and it does not disenfranchise people.

Yeah, that's really the best way to go about voter ID. Would also let us run a Nationwide registration drive.

That said, there have been instances where voter ID laws have just so happened to exclude ID formats that were more often used by black voters, specifically a fairly recent case in Texas.

While this is not to say that voter ID laws are always targeted based in part on race, it has happened. It just lends more to implementing a fucking proper voter registration system. And maybe making the presidential election a holiday. Because seriously. (I know that many people would still work, so perhaps a mandatory two-hour paid break to go vote or something.)

[Rolan7]

Edit: Interesting, I didn't know about excluding ID formats.  I sorta figured it was just ID cards/Driver licenses.

Voter ID isn't going to stop the Russians from influencing via 'soft' methods

I didn't mean to imply that vote ID would stop the Russians, sorry.  More that Democrats appear to care about one indirect (yet widescale) threat to the vote, but not another direct (but probably rare) threat.
It's a weak argument, heh.  More "this is what it looks like to some people".

You’re more likely to be poor and a minority than poor and white :p

It's not so unusual to be both if you're looking for affordable rent
Of course, my first apartment building was so mixed that no group was a majority at all, even "black" or "white".  That was an interesting mix of races.  Very multicultural, very accepting, very poor and depressed.  Good learning experience.

[redwallzyl]

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/08/636761241/west-virginia-house-panel-votes-to-impeach-entire-supreme-court

Well then.

[MrRoboto75]

affordable rent

what

[Starver]

I like to say parfait

I say you can say whatever you're confiture with...   

[Kagus]

I like to say parfait

I mean, it works. Everybody likes parfaits, but something can be perfect and still have people dislike it.

[scriver]

I don't like parfait. If possibly sorbet. I can't remember which on is the one I don't like, or what the other one is.

[Kagus]

I don't like parfait. If possibly sorbet. I can't remember which on is the one I don't like, or what the other one is.

Parfait has layers, like an ogre.

[sluissa]

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/09/636982295/is-it-springtime-for-putin-and-republicans

Rand Paul... given how hard he showboats as being an independent mind from the Republican rank and file (while falling strictly back in line every time it matters after said showboating)... I wonder what's in it for him to take a trip to Russia like this?