Print

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

[KittyTac]

Prisoners shouldn't be able to vote so that point is moot.

Even if it's propagated by Trump supporters there is still the possibility of fraud that we didn't detect yet. And it would make it harder for them to commit fraud too.

[Vector]

Prisoners shouldn't be able to vote

Why not? They're counted as part of the county's population when it comes to apportioning representation.

[delphonso]

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

I hate to give ignorance a platform, but what is your actual idea for a solution?

Also, what do you think the problem is? Because the problem should clearly be that people who are legally allowed to vote are being blocked from that civil ability.

[voliol]

I can’t get over the US state(s) apparently having no way of knowing who’s dead or not, even in a hypotethical world where a federal ID to sort such a death registry by exists. Are private burials commonplace enough that the state is left mostly in the dark (supposing cementaries are obligated to tell who they are burying/cremating) regarding the dead ”population”?

[KittyTac]

Prisoners shouldn't be able to vote

Why not? They're counted as part of the county's population when it comes to apportioning representation.

It just seems wrong to me.

[George_Chickens]

Prisoners shouldn't be able to vote

Why not? They're counted as part of the county's population when it comes to apportioning representation.

It just seems wrong to me.

If you're coming from the perspective that everyone in prison deserves their stay, that makes sense. But the reality of prison, especially in the US, is much more nuanced. The US justice system has been rife with for-profit imprisonments for decades. From adults with a crumb of weed on their shirts being charged with felony drug possession to kids not even in their teens being arrested and charged for the hell of it, it happens, it happens a lot, and there has been a great deal of cash involved with making it happen.

[KittyTac]

I know. For the record, I support prison reform and more rehab. But even then I don't think they should be able to vote even then. It just seems extremely wrong to me and I can't quite point out why.

[Duuvian]

I'm sure some of them have good ideas about things like criminal justice reform.

Spoiler: More Trump quote (click to show/hide)

TRUMP: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. Have we found a way in other states later — Excuse me, but we don’t need it, because we’re only down 11,000 votes, and we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell, but we don’t need that. All we have to do is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world, we won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes, but if you go by basic, simple numbers, we won it easily, easily. So, we’re not giving Dominion a pass, on the record. We just don’t — you know we don’t need Dominion because we have so many other votes, that we don’t need to prove it any more than we already have.

I don't think he cared whether the votes were added or subtracted to the appropriate side and that's a silly defense to make anyways. "He did it but not in the way you claim!"

[Frumple]

I can’t get over the US state(s) apparently having no way of knowing who’s dead or not, even in a hypotethical world where a federal ID to sort such a death registry by exists. Are private burials commonplace enough that the state is left mostly in the dark (supposing cementaries are obligated to tell who they are burying/cremating) regarding the dead ”population”?

Funeral homes (cemeteries often aren't super involved in that sort of thing) et al are obligated to report, but the details there vary by state and, y'know, we're talking the US, which is functionally a failed or near failed state in some localities. Plenty of people (especially in states with less robust/intentionally sabotaged safety nets) can't really afford the service, there, or bodies just never get found, so on, so forth. Knowing when someone's died requires the resources and will to keep on top of that sort of thing, and, well. It's the US. One or the other ends up lacking relatively often when you're poor.

[None]

See, I'm not particularly worried about dead people voting, because, well, they're dead, and I don't foresee dead people being more or less likely to vote democrat or republican. Fraudsters would still need to have the deceased's name, address, date of birth, and SSN, and even still know that the recently deceased is registered to vote

You're pre-supposing that all those are required to vote. You know somebody died. You find out where they lived. You request an absentee ballot. There's no requirement that the signature matches records.

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

Look, we're already looking at quantity of people who voted without being citizens, that's a microscopic fraction of the entire pool of voters just for one state. I don't understand how you can have the one fraud of dead people voting be massive and the other microscopic when instances of noncitizens voting ends up being people just nodding and saying yes at the DMV, or claim how addresses and signatures (and depending on your state, a picture of photo ID) on absentee ballots aren't going to be scrutinized as soon as a recount is demanded. And no, I don't mean scrutinized by the beefcakes that wanted to breathe down ballot workers' necks on election day.

Come on- how many lawsuit allegations of massive election fraud succeeded?

Some false dilemma- more voting restrictions and documentation requirements at the polls will keep people from voting. Thousands. Making voting harder will, amazingly, make voting harder. The impact of tighter voting laws will not make elections more secure again than those 544 votes out of 96 million over 15 years.

[psibomber]

I know. For the record, I support prison reform and more rehab. But even then I don't think they should be able to vote even then. It just seems extremely wrong to me and I can't quite point out why.

As citizens we want representation before taxation, being at the mercy of the criminal justice system, and the threat of bodily harm from law enforcement. Every vote you discuss being granted to a person in prison, who was actually found guilty by court of law (even if socially we would consider them innocent for this or that circumstance) is a vote that possibly counts against your own. It is natural to have doubts about that and who is to say that those same people involved in for-profit corruption won't find a way to exploit the votes of the convicted for their own interests as well?

With that said though I have qualms about the prison system as well. There's an exception in the 13th amendment, that slavery is illegal except in the case where "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Some of you consider yourselves liberal, some conservative, but I assume all parties present agree that they want to be on the side that carries on the legacy of the abolishment of slavery, while those that do not and will privately support slavery for the exploitation of their fellow humans can and will use things like this for profit, so that "you all go work, while I can eat".

That should drive a fire under you. Why let yourself, or your children, or your heirs if you don't have children be possibly allowed to be exploited in such a way if they are convicted in a way that is socially injust?

It's not as simple as "everyone should be able to vote" but neither is it simple to make sure that "only legal citizens can vote". In both arguments you have to take into account the loopholes and exploits that the corrupt will take and also that everyone else normally decent will be tempted to take because they can.

And don't think that it's impossible to achieve, people can achieve it if they diligently do work bit by bit, day by day carefully, if a lot of people work towards a common goal together it's not so much work for the individual.

[psibomber]

See, I'm not particularly worried about dead people voting, because, well, they're dead, and I don't foresee dead people being more or less likely to vote democrat or republican. Fraudsters would still need to have the deceased's name, address, date of birth, and SSN, and even still know that the recently deceased is registered to vote

You're pre-supposing that all those are required to vote. You know somebody died. You find out where they lived. You request an absentee ballot. There's no requirement that the signature matches records.

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

Look, we're already looking at quantity of people who voted without being citizens, that's a microscopic fraction of the entire pool of voters just for one state. I don't understand how you can have the one fraud of dead people voting be massive and the other microscopic when instances of noncitizens voting ends up being people just nodding and saying yes at the DMV, or claim how addresses and signatures (and depending on your state, a picture of photo ID) on absentee ballots aren't going to be scrutinized as soon as a recount is demanded. And no, I don't mean scrutinized by the beefcakes that wanted to breathe down ballot workers' necks on election day.

Come on- how many lawsuit allegations of massive election fraud succeeded?

Some false dilemma- more voting restrictions and documentation requirements at the polls will keep people from voting. Thousands. Making voting harder will, amazingly, make voting harder. The impact of tighter voting laws will not make elections more secure again than those 544 votes out of 96 million over 15 years.

It's not okay to just be a bit negligent either though. Negligence will happen but we have to check ourselves every time it happens and try to get better, not just treat it as okay. You're talking about fraud of dead people being allegedy microscopic during a time when tons of people have passed away during the pandemic and also as the side effect of decreased care during the pandemic.

What happens when entities that want things like racial supremacy, the exploitation of women and children, a strict orwellian police state, etc. band together and coordinate to exploit the fraud of dead people massively? What happens when the fraud is overlooked when propaganda exploits the harsh feelings and strong opinions of the people? Do we just look the other way while little mistakes build up bigger and bigger until we experience massive problems like other people have had in history?

The game has changed, and predictions based on what has happened in previous years have to be thrown out, unprecedented things can happen. Corrupt people are always planning to make it happen and you have to hold that back while you're making sure people have fair access to the vote.

[Rolan7]

I know. For the record, I support prison reform and more rehab. But even then I don't think they should be able to vote even then. It just seems extremely wrong to me and I can't quite point out why.

As citizens we want representation before taxation, being at the mercy of the criminal justice system, and the threat of bodily harm from law enforcement. Every vote you discuss being granted to a person in prison, who was actually found guilty by court of law (even if socially we would consider them innocent for this or that circumstance) is a vote that possibly counts against your own. It is natural to have doubts about that and who is to say that those same people involved in for-profit corruption won't find a way to exploit the votes of the convicted for their own interests as well?

With that said though I have qualms about the prison system as well. There's an exception in the 13th amendment, that slavery is illegal except in the case where "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". Some of you consider yourselves liberal, some conservative, but I assume all parties present agree that they want to be on the side that carries on the legacy of the abolishment of slavery, while those that do not and will privately support slavery for the exploitation of their fellow humans can and will use things like this for profit, so that "you all go work, while I can eat".

That should drive a fire under you. Why let yourself, or your children, or your heirs if you don't have children be possibly allowed to be exploited in such a way if they are convicted in a way that is socially injust?

It's not as simple as "everyone should be able to vote" but neither is it simple to make sure that "only legal citizens can vote". In both arguments you have to take into account the loopholes and exploits that the corrupt will take and also that everyone else normally decent will be tempted to take because they can.

And don't think that it's impossible to achieve, people can achieve it if they diligently do work bit by bit, day by day carefully, if a lot of people work towards a common goal together it's not so much work for the individual.

Well said.  Reminder, men of 18 were drafted in World War 2, yet 18-21 year olds didn't get voting rights until the 26th Amendment in 1971.

[KittyTac]

Nailed it.

Anyways I think I'm taking a break from this thread for mental health reasons.

[None]

See, I'm not particularly worried about dead people voting, because, well, they're dead, and I don't foresee dead people being more or less likely to vote democrat or republican. Fraudsters would still need to have the deceased's name, address, date of birth, and SSN, and even still know that the recently deceased is registered to vote

You're pre-supposing that all those are required to vote. You know somebody died. You find out where they lived. You request an absentee ballot. There's no requirement that the signature matches records.

How many countless thousands would you keep from voting out of spite to stop these 544 votes?

False dilemma.

Look, we're already looking at quantity of people who voted without being citizens, that's a microscopic fraction of the entire pool of voters just for one state. I don't understand how you can have the one fraud of dead people voting be massive and the other microscopic when instances of noncitizens voting ends up being people just nodding and saying yes at the DMV, or claim how addresses and signatures (and depending on your state, a picture of photo ID) on absentee ballots aren't going to be scrutinized as soon as a recount is demanded. And no, I don't mean scrutinized by the beefcakes that wanted to breathe down ballot workers' necks on election day.

Come on- how many lawsuit allegations of massive election fraud succeeded?

Some false dilemma- more voting restrictions and documentation requirements at the polls will keep people from voting. Thousands. Making voting harder will, amazingly, make voting harder. The impact of tighter voting laws will not make elections more secure again than those 544 votes out of 96 million over 15 years.

It's not okay to just be a bit negligent either though. Negligence will happen but we have to check ourselves every time it happens and try to get better, not just treat it as okay. You're talking about fraud of dead people being allegedy microscopic during a time when tons of people have passed away during the pandemic and also as the side effect of decreased care during the pandemic.

What happens when entities that want things like racial supremacy, the exploitation of women and children, a strict orwellian police state, etc. band together and coordinate to exploit the fraud of dead people massively? What happens when the fraud is overlooked when propaganda exploits the harsh feelings and strong opinions of the people? Do we just look the other way while little mistakes build up bigger and bigger until we experience massive problems like other people have had in history?

The game has changed, and predictions based on what has happened in previous years have to be thrown out, unprecedented things can happen. Corrupt people are always planning to make it happen and you have to hold that back while you're making sure people have fair access to the vote.

Massive fraud has massive footprints. I've no aversion to scrutiny of voting practices, nor am I asking for negligence. If you've got a fraud that's beaten every recount and lawsuit, every double-check in one of the loudest, scrutinized elections of our time, negligence doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the failure of democracy you're proposing. We don't get any further away from that failed democracy by putting up walls that stop more right, lawful voters than catches fraud.

I don't buy this airy 'both sides need to watch out' when one is overtly damaging the vulnerable in order to catch the rare exception. Sitting on your hands and tutting about the threats of the orwellian police state fraudulently running the country doesn't stop the suppression that is happening now.